Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

abandoned military equipment

Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

08 Aug 2014, 6:35 pm

ISIS acquisition of US military equipment is not an anomaly. And the equipment and weaponry we left behind is not only to help arm the Iraqi military that gave it up to ISIS. We have had a policy of leaving equipment behind when we evacuate a mission. It is economical logistics. It is simply too expensive and time consuming to bring it all back home. Some of it is destroyed or at least made to be inoperable, but we have weaponry and equipment still sitting in Vietnam and Afghanistan. That is Vietnam is mostly rusted out monuments to hell, but a lot of what we left in Afghanistan is still function, or could easily be made functional by someone with ability. So.. be prepared to see the Taliban doing the same thing Isis is doing, to a lesser degree, and anticipate people blaming Obama for the policy even though it has been done many times before, and not just by Americans.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/20/g ... ghanistan/



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

08 Aug 2014, 7:07 pm

like many other policies, he could have changed if he wanted. so he is not blameless. he doesn't want to change them, so he supports it.

like if you buy a place that has a hole in the floor and never fix it. some guy falls and hurts himself, you say well the previous 40 owners never fixed it so its not my fault. you'd lose.

bad policy is bad policy and he is able to change it. if he doesn't then something like this happens it is his fault. He's the top of the leadership stuff falls on him till he quits or is replaced.

its a stupid policy. after ww2 we dumped tons of planes in the ocean rather then pay the fuel to bring them home.



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

08 Aug 2014, 7:41 pm

sly279 wrote:
like many other policies, he could have changed if he wanted. so he is not blameless. he doesn't want to change them, so he supports it.

like if you buy a place that has a hole in the floor and never fix it. some guy falls and hurts himself, you say well the previous 40 owners never fixed it so its not my fault. you'd lose.

bad policy is bad policy and he is able to change it. if he doesn't then something like this happens it is his fault. He's the top of the leadership stuff falls on him till he quits or is replaced.

its a stupid policy. after ww2 we dumped tons of planes in the ocean rather then pay the fuel to bring them home.



I believe Congress could be equally to blame. Congress is the purse holder. Just like they tried to blame Hillary for mot having sufficient security at Benghazi, when she is on record as having requested funding to beef up security and was denied by Congress because of budget constraints. Then they come before the microphone and blame her and Obama. Yes, it is stupid policy, unless we are going to demolish this equipment, it should not be left behind.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

09 Aug 2014, 4:15 am

Couldn't it be "sold" to allies of the US? Like this: "You're our ally, you can have this armored car for free if you pay for transport". Since military funding is decreasing in most NATO countries, this might be used to beef them up a little. The Netherlands for example sold all their tanks a few years ago.
Although in the case of ISIS quite a lot of material they got from the Iraqi army who abandoned it when they fled from ISIS.