Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile
Of course they have purchased the amo!
Posted on 01/22/2013 4:31:05 AM PST by MestaMachine
What has all the talks on F.R. accomplished??? Seems the keyboard Rangers on Facebook have more cloud!!!
Here’s the only scenario possible to make sense:!!!
OBAMA IS LEGAL
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:58:06 AM · 68 of 98
danamco to Texas Fossil; LucyT
The reason is the secret meeting with eight Judges from the S.C. on January 14, 2009 one week before he stole OUR W.H. the Chicago-Godfather-AlCapone thugs sent a clear “message” IF....and then the most intelligent S.C. candidate ever presented, a week later, could not get the ceremony straight when looking into the eyes of the grinning Satan’s eyes. Then later humiliated at a SOUA with all the DNC-asses’ standing ovation and he later endorsed the un-Constitutional obamaScare. I’m relating to what happened to Andrew Breitbart on March 1, 2012 keeling over on the street, the night before Sheriff Arpaio’s press conference where Andrew talked to the Sheriff the evening before. Rush Limbo also scared to death after his Hawaiian hospital visit! After 1/14/2009 every possible entity from SCOTUS and down incl. CONgress, State, Municipalities, Law Enforcement, the so called “Media” even the military went AWOL except for a few patriots there and an immigrant brave female attorney with “balls.” From that day on we became slaves to upcoming MUZZIES and sharia law!!!
*
Ping.
Check out # 141.
Then...
North Korea warns U.S. of preemptive nuclear strike
reuters ^ | 3/7/2013 | Jack Kim
North Korea threatened the United States on Thursday with a preemptive nuclear strike, ...”
North Korea has accused the United States of using military drills in South Korea as a launch pad for a nuclear war and has scrapped the armistice with Washington that ended hostilities in the 1950-53 Korean War.
[snip]
North Korea conducted a third nuclear test on February 12, in defiance of U.N. resolutions, and declared it had achieved progress in securing a functioning atomic arsenal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2994332/posts
And....
Underestimating North Korea and Iran (excerpted)
North Korea and Iran are not re-inventing the nuclear wheel. They can draw on a vast treasure trove of declassified information about U.S. nuclear weapons development. And they cooperate with one another. And we are talking EMP.
The West consistently and unwittingly cooperates with North Korea and Iran by underestimating the advancement, sophistication, and strategic implications of their nuclear weapon and missile programs.
[snip]
During the Clinton years, North Korea forged full speed ahead on its nuclear weapons program—including with a clandestine uranium centrifuge program, to supplement the known plutonium program for North Korea’s advancing nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, the press was not interested and our NKAG Report went virtually unreported.
So, North Korea achieved a nuclear weapons capability during the Clinton administration in 1994, and not during the Bush administration with their first test in 2006. We know from our own experience, and from that of other nations, that nuclear testing is not necessary to develop a nuclear weapon.
Little Boy, the first nuclear weapon ever built, was developed and used successfully by the U.S. to destroy Hiroshima, without nuclear testing. - Hiroshima was the test.
Read More: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12944#.UTiA61fWPgZ
If they nuke DC, Detroit and Chicago and the US blows away Pyongyang, Beijing and Hong Kong - and Israel removes half the ME - this is a win/win situation,
Sorry about the duplicate, I only hit SEND once. I’ve asked the mods to remove # 143.
*
Cold Warrior Putin calls for Russian military upgrades as U.S. troop cuts loom
.
I think you missed my point. Locally, we have more opportunities for change that results in a more direct impact on our lives. We, as the Constitutionally empowered, can eliminate the ties that snake through the two parties and bind US to the Federal government. We can resume control. All we have to do is do it and start at the local level.
Relying on the Republican and Democrat party to change the nature they have taken on is foolish, lazy and extremely dangerous to our Republic and our souls.
I stay away from Facebook so I can't say I understand the cloud comment. I do know FR has a long history of activism that goes back to the clinton administration and in our way we have influenced national arguments. But let me reiterate, I believe change is easier and more effective from the bottom up.
In your only scenario that makes sense you appear to be alluding to Satanic influences taking control. Who can argue that? But only God, our Father, is all powerful and controls all things.
I have found Psalms 50-59 very powerful and encourage everyone to pray them regularly.
At some point the new leadership in China is going to have to put little Kim down in order to avoid being drawn into a potential military conflict with the US/SK/Japan.
This just in (I believe): Petraeus have been running shiite death squads and torture groups in Iraq.
Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds. And five pillars.
Been trying to make this point since forever. petraeus is garbage. Anyone who thinks they know petraeus...doesn’t.
Our prayers for the former United States of America, One Nation under God, seems not to be heard YET!!! He did punish His own people for straying away from Him, and they still do not hear His commands!!
In your only scenario that makes sense you appear to be alluding to Satanic influences taking control. Who can argue that? But only God, our Father, is all powerful and controls all things.
Can you give me another scenario making MORE sense, WHY everybody is silence on Article II. Section 1. Clause 5., than the scenario I posted #68 on another thread and also on this? Isn't it very interesting that Graham & McAmnesty are scolding Rand Paul from the Senate floor while also attending a dinner with the Chicago gangster in the W.H.?? SCOTUS and trickled down the line to every courts and other officials???
I missed that. When did that go down?
The report that has gone wild on the Web about DHS acquiring over 2,700 MRAP vehicles has been debunked by the documents of the manufacturer itself.
This same hoax has been recycled from one that circulated last year as well.
PING of Interest...
Alert: Internet Hoax.
"And today, we have another Internet Hoax, as explained from LGF:
"DHS Buys 2700 "Tanks"
"The report that has gone wild on the Web about DHS acquiring over 2,700 MRAP vehicles has been debunked by the documents of the manufacturer itself.
"This same hoax has been recycled from one that circulated last year as well."
. . . . Check out link at # 153.
Thanks, Old Sarge. Good find. Free Republic strives for accuracy.
.
Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile
Of course they have purchased the amo!
So, where’s the hoax?
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4109 - This is from a DOD news briefing transcript requesting the 3100 MRAPs in 2009:
Excerpt: ...MR. MORRELL: Yeah.
But first I’d like to announce that the Department of Defense is spending nearly $2.7 billion to purchase an additional 3,100 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles or, as we call them, MRAPs. These armored trucks, as you know, have been the military’s top acquisition priority for months now, and with good reason. They have proven to be true lifesavers for our warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we are now increasing the total number of vehicles we have under contract to just shy of 12,000. Our objective is to build at least 15,374. That is the current joint requirement. But that number could still rise as the Army continues to evaluate its needs.
And with that, we’ll take some questions. Lita?
Q I’m sorry. Just on that, the MRAP thing, Geoff, as you know, the Marines had decided to decrease the number that they wanted.
Are you saying with this that there isn’t going to be any similar decrease or similar adjustment by the Army?
MR. MORRELL: I think you’d want to the Army about that. But as I understand it right now, the Army is evaluating their needs. And I think what has prompted some of the stories about whether or not the Army will be decreasing their original request was, I think — emanated out of Baghdad and some comments from General Odierno. Of course, General Odierno has certain needs as MNC-I commander, but there are other aspects of the Army which have additional needs as well. So the Army as a whole is in the process right now of evaluating just how many MRAPs it needs.
That said, at this point we do not believe that the joint requirement, even if those needs are adjusted, would have to be adjusted downward. If anything, at this point the thinking is that the joint requirement may increase. But at this point the requirement is, as it has been for quite some time, at just over 15,000.
Yes?
Q Geoff, to follow up on that. You had said, if I — well, it was — the Department of Defense had said that they expected a December contract of about 6,000 more MRAPs, if I remember Mr. Garamone’s story from October timeframe. Is this — was this a change? Did you decrease the contract buy here as a result of the Marines?
MR. MORRELL: No. Everything has proceeded on schedule. I mean, this is — as I said, the overall requirement hasn’t changed. We continue to grow them at the pace we anticipated growing them. This is just the next buy in our attempt to get the numbers we ultimately want, which right now stand at over 15,000.
Q Can you give us the delivery schedule that you usually have, the update — (off mike)?
MR. MORRELL: I usually do that at month’s end. I do think in light of the fact that I’m not going to see you again before the end of the year, I can sort of tell you where we are right now. And I know of particular interest was our desire to have 1,500 MRAPs, at least, to theater by the end of the year, and in talking to our people, it looks as though we are going to get to that number. Our hope is that on or about December 20th, we will exceed that number. As of the 17th, we had 1,330 in theater. There are en route right now by sea an additional 180, and in the air as we speak are an additional 15, which would bring us up to this 1,525 number which we hope to have in theater by the end of the year. In fact it will be there, at this rate, by December the 20th.
Q Can I follow up on a couple of points here? You said the — number one, you said —
MR. MORRELL: (Inaudible.)
Q — it actually may increase. You having said that, what factors would make it increase rather than decrease? And is there a JROC meeting still scheduled to consider a decrease, or are you saying the notion of a decrease in the requirement is now off the books?
MR. MORRELL: No, I’m not saying anything of the sort. I don’t know whether there’s a JROC meeting pending or scheduled or forthcoming on this subject. What I can tell you is — well, to the first part of your question, is there a scenario in which the number would increase, I can tell you just this week, for example, that the commanders in Afghanistan are of the mind that perhaps they would like more in Afghanistan than they have originally requested. But that’s something that still needs to be evaluated a little further, but I can tell you that their inclination at this point is that we may want to up the number in Afghanistan.
So that’s a scenario in which the needs would increase.
I don’t know how if that particular — if the demand in that theater would necessitate increasing the overall numbers that we purchase, but that sort of plays into the issue.
But — yeah —
Q Have the commanders in Afghanistan made a request, and for how many?
MR. MORRELL: I’m not privy to the actual number. I don’t think it’s a dramatic increase, but it —
Q (Off mike.)
MR. MORRELL: Don’t hold me to precise numbers, but we’re talking about only something — I think the original request is in the neighborhood — about 500. And I think the desire is to go up to over 600 or so. So it’s not a dramatic increase, but it is — there is desire for more.
And is that a formal request? It has been articulated to CENTCOM. It has been articulated to this building. So in that sense, I suppose it’s formal. I don’t know if there’s actual documentation that’s associated with it, but it’s been articulated to the powers that be.
Q Can I just ask you — I thought in Afghanistan they did — they were not really wanting more because of the terrain. And then just my very last point — when you said you’re getting up to the 1,500 in theater, are those 1,500 fully mission-ready; they have all their electronics, they have every — all their guts inside?
MR. MORRELL: Let me keep track of all of Barbara’s questions. The first one was Afghanistan —
Q Terrain.
MR. MORRELL: — terrain. Well, I mean, there are limitations, clearly, with regard to MRAPs, these — and very heavy vehicles in terms of their usage in hilly terrain, such as you have in Afghanistan.
That said, commanders there clearly believe that there is use for these vehicles in numbers even above and beyond what they originally thought were necessary. So despite whatever limitations there might be on the vehicles, they are proving to be extraordinarily valuable, lifesaving, and the commanders in Afghanistan seem to want more of them.
With regards to —
Q The ones — you said you’re going to meet the —
MR. MORRELL: Oh. Are they operational? We will have — the pledge was to have 1,500. The goal was to have 1,500-plus there by the end of the year. There will be 1,500-plus there by the end of the year.
As for how many are fielded — i.e., are men and women behind the wheels of these vehicles, and they are on the roads, involved in operations — that number will probably be short of 1,500, but not much short of it. It takes a little while to put some of the electronics back on the vehicles, because to load all of these on — some, for example, you may take off — and I’m speaking off the top of my head here, but the rhino equipment that would deal with perhaps trying to trigger an IED in advance of the vehicle getting to it — you may want to take that off when you get on the boat, on the ship, so that you could fit more in, and you’d have to reinstall it once you got on the ground. So it takes a couple of days to get everything outfitted to get them into the field.
False but accurate.
or is it the other way around?
I see that the 2717 for MRAP APCs is a naval contract under a Marine procurement activity.
It looks like multiple federal agencies are acquiring MRAPs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.