• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Gross Mismanagement by Zer0

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Nightmare in Libya: 20,000 Surface-to-Air Missiles Missing
ABC News | 9/27/2011 | Brian Ross


U.S. officials had once thought there was little chance that terrorists could get their hands on many of the portable surface-to-air missiles that can bring down a commercial jet liner
.

But now that calculation is out the window, with officials at a recent secret White House meeting reporting that thousands of them have gone missing in Libya.

"Matching up a terrorist with a shoulder-fired missile, that's our worst nightmare," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D.-California, a member of the Senate's Commerce, Energy and Transportation Committee.

The nightmare has been made real with the discovery in Libya that an estimated 20,000 portable, heat-seeking missiles have gone missing from unguarded Army weapons warehouses.

The missiles, four to six-feet long and Russian-made, can weigh just 55 pounds with launcher. They lock on to the heat generated by the engines of aircraft, can be fired from a vehicle or from a combatant's shoulder, and are accurate and deadly at a range of more than two miles.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Bombing every weapons depot in Libya should have TOP priority,..

at times I wonder if anyone at the top has any common sense.. :mad:
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
I hope we didn't leave any of those types of weapons to the Afghan"s who were fighting the Russians during the Reagan era.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
I hope we didn't leave any of those types of weapons to the Afghan"s who were fighting the Russians during the Reagan era.

Who would have ever come up with such a stupid plan?


I hope he's not still around and advising obama........
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
TSR said:
I hope we didn't leave any of those types of weapons to the Afghan"s who were fighting the Russians during the Reagan era.

We all know that did not turn out to well did it?

arming the country in a proxy war with Russia only left a dysfunctional country, loaded to the teeth with weapons.. and not to friendly towards US,..

Shouldn't we learn from our mistakes? or is history irrelevant?

I personally think it is insane to continue to arm unstable nations.. let alone stable nations..

I stand by my words, .. if we are to be involved in a countries civil war our duty should be to remove the ability for them to continue fighting and killing..

The easiest and most humane way to do that is to target weapons depots,.. before they are looted!
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
I hope we didn't leave any of those types of weapons to the Afghan"s who were fighting the Russians during the Reagan era.

Who would have ever come up with such a stupid plan?


I hope he's not still around and advising obama........

He's not, he's been dead for quite a while.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
I hope we didn't leave any of those types of weapons to the Afghan"s who were fighting the Russians during the Reagan era.

Who would have ever come up with such a stupid plan?


I hope he's not still around and advising obama........

He's not, he's been dead for quite a while.


I think you are wrong, isn't his daughter also an commentator on MSNBC
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
TSR said:
I hope we didn't leave any of those types of weapons to the Afghan"s who were fighting the Russians during the Reagan era.

as a point of sarcasm, I wouldn't argue with your point, .. but historically it isn't really correct..

The United States saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).

the Soviets withdrew in 1989. Their withdrawal from Afghanistan was seen as an ideological victory in America, which had backed some Mujahideen factions through three U.S. presidential administrations

We stopped support and weapons after the "war" had ended.. 1989


Unfortunately the fighting did not stop.. nor did the outside interference from countries such as Iran/Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who continued shipping in weapons, soldiers and cash..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan









[/quote]
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
I hope we didn't leave any of those types of weapons to the Afghan"s who were fighting the Russians during the Reagan era.

Who would have ever come up with such a stupid plan?


I hope he's not still around and advising obama........

He's not, he's been dead for quite a while.

not really both Bush Sr and Carter are still around..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
"National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski"


do you mean to say a Carter adviser came up with this great plan, of providing the enemy with weapons?


Sure hope he's not still around.


Barack Obama is outlining his views on the Iraq war in a major speech Wednesday in Iowa, and bringing along a gray-haired source of foreign policy gravitas: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, who says that Obama offers “a new definition of America's role in the world.”
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
I was referring to the yrs 81-89 where the Reagan adm. provided support for paramilitary Afghan operations against the Russians. At least according to Wikipedia if I didn't misread.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
TSR said:
I was referring to the yrs 81-89 where the Reagan adm. provided support for paramilitary Afghan operations against the Russians. At least according to Wikipedia if I didn't misread.

then you missed this part..


The United States saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).

and by '89 Reagan was at home...
George H. W. Bush " 41st President of the United States "
( January 20, 1989 to January 20, 1993 - 1 Term )

so the decision to start arming them was not his, nor was the decision to leave as soon as the Soviet threat was over..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

in fact if you took a little time to read you would see that other countries armed and influenced them for years.. (92-Sept 11, 2001) and continued to supply them with weapons, soldiers and cash..

(main culprits.. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
I was referring to the yrs 81-89 where the Reagan adm. provided support for paramilitary Afghan operations against the Russians. At least according to Wikipedia if I didn't misread.


of course you were and the operations that obama is involved in are Bush's fault, correct?

Who began the support for "paramilitary Afghan operations"? Wasn't Reagan only continuing a policy that was "someone else's fault"?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
TSR said:
I was referring to the yrs 81-89 where the Reagan adm. provided support for paramilitary Afghan operations against the Russians. At least according to Wikipedia if I didn't misread.

then you missed this part..


The United States saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).

and by '89 Reagan was at home...
George H. W. Bush " 41st President of the United States "
( January 20, 1989 to January 20, 1993 - 1 Term )

so the decision to start arming them was not his, nor was the decision to leave as soon as the Soviet threat was over..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

in fact if you took a little time to read you would see that other countries armed and influenced them for years.. (92-Sept 11, 2001) and continued to supply them with weapons, soldiers and cash..

(main culprits.. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

Oh I don't deny that helping the Afghan's occured before the Reagan yrs. I just feel like funding was enhanced during the Reagan yrs. I also seriously doubt anyone could come up with a dollar amount that could be verified. My info came from Wikifying R Reagan.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
TSR said:
Steve said:
TSR said:
I was referring to the yrs 81-89 where the Reagan adm. provided support for paramilitary Afghan operations against the Russians. At least according to Wikipedia if I didn't misread.

then you missed this part..


The United States saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).

and by '89 Reagan was at home...
George H. W. Bush " 41st President of the United States "
( January 20, 1989 to January 20, 1993 - 1 Term )

so the decision to start arming them was not his, nor was the decision to leave as soon as the Soviet threat was over..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

in fact if you took a little time to read you would see that other countries armed and influenced them for years.. (92-Sept 11, 2001) and continued to supply them with weapons, soldiers and cash..

(main culprits.. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

Oh I don't deny that helping the Afghan's occured before the Reagan yrs. I just feel like funding was enhanced during the Reagan yrs. I also seriously doubt anyone could come up with a dollar amount that could be verified. My info came from Wikifying R Reagan.

in your point you made it implied Reagan left the weapons in Afghanistan,

this is not factually correct... he was no longer President after the "war" with the soviets ended.. the winding down was under the lack of leadership of Bush Sr. who was a bit preoccupied by raising taxes and kicking Saddam out of Kuwait..

the situation was further complicated by a civil war and further wars influenced by Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia..

if you looked at hundreds of photos of weapons one thing would be clear, their origin.. hint (Russia/Iran) with some from US.

our weapons would not have been as desirable due to the inability to buy or get ammunition for them easily,.. with out a "state" sponsored program or abundant cash, US ammunition would be difficult.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Steve said:
TSR said:
Steve said:
then you missed this part..




and by '89 Reagan was at home...


so the decision to start arming them was not his, nor was the decision to leave as soon as the Soviet threat was over..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

in fact if you took a little time to read you would see that other countries armed and influenced them for years.. (92-Sept 11, 2001) and continued to supply them with weapons, soldiers and cash..

(main culprits.. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

Oh I don't deny that helping the Afghan's occured before the Reagan yrs. I just feel like funding was enhanced during the Reagan yrs. I also seriously doubt anyone could come up with a dollar amount that could be verified. My info came from Wikifying R Reagan.

in your point you made it implied Reagan left the weapons in Afghanistan,

this is not factually correct... he was no longer President after the "war" with the soviets ended.. the winding down was under the lack of leadership of Bush Sr. who was a bit preoccupied by raising taxes and kicking Saddam out of Kuwait..

the situation was further complicated by a civil war and further wars influenced by Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia..

if you looked at hundreds of photos of weapons one thing would be clear, their origin.. hint (Russia/Iran) with some from US.

our weapons would not have been as desirable due to the inability to buy or get ammunition for them easily,.. with out a "state" sponsored program or abundant cash, US ammunition would be difficult.

Steve, you are being too hard on TSR, he has been very quick to criticize any administration that would violate any International laws that pertain to selling/providing weapons across borders.

Just look at all his criticism when it comes to "fast and furious" and the "contra" deal.........
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
TSR said:
Steve said:
then you missed this part..




and by '89 Reagan was at home...


so the decision to start arming them was not his, nor was the decision to leave as soon as the Soviet threat was over..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

in fact if you took a little time to read you would see that other countries armed and influenced them for years.. (92-Sept 11, 2001) and continued to supply them with weapons, soldiers and cash..

(main culprits.. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia).

Oh I don't deny that helping the Afghan's occured before the Reagan yrs. I just feel like funding was enhanced during the Reagan yrs. I also seriously doubt anyone could come up with a dollar amount that could be verified. My info came from Wikifying R Reagan.

in your point you made it implied Reagan left the weapons in Afghanistan,

this is not factually correct... he was no longer President after the "war" with the soviets ended.. the winding down was under the lack of leadership of Bush Sr. who was a bit preoccupied by raising taxes and kicking Saddam out of Kuwait..

the situation was further complicated by a civil war and further wars influenced by Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia..

if you looked at hundreds of photos of weapons one thing would be clear, their origin.. hint (Russia/Iran) with some from US.

our weapons would not have been as desirable due to the inability to buy or get ammunition for them easily,.. with out a "state" sponsored program or abundant cash, US ammunition would be difficult.

Well clear this up for me Steve, seriously. Were any heat seeking missiles left there at the end of the Reagan yrs. weapons that Bush Sr's adm. couldn't have accounted for, at least not all of them? You see, I am not talking about after the war ended, I am speaking of when Reagan's tenure ended.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
TSR said:
Well clear this up for me Steve, seriously. Were any heat seeking missiles left there at the end of the Reagan yrs. weapons that Bush Sr's adm. couldn't have accounted for, at least not all of them? You see, I am not talking about after the war ended, I am speaking of when Reagan's tenure ended.

it took a bit of research to answer this..

on record we provided the Afgan rebels up to 1000 stinger missiles, in fact they are credited with turning the war against the Russians.

there are some documents that claim numbers as high as 2000 but with no official way to track down the source..

the discrepancy seems to be that some added unguided units. or inferior SAM Russian units to the totals.. ( the lesser soviet rocket propelled grenades units seem to litter Afghanistan with almost every self respecting terrorist having one.. )..

after the war ended under Bush Sr. there was a program that tried to buy back the launchers and missiles, that program is still active.

Taliban forces in Afghanistan are reported to have up to 100 shoulder-fired Stingers, the U.S.-made missile with the deadliest record against low-flying aircraft of any weapon since World War II.

It is unclear exactly how many of the Stingers remain in Afghan hands and what condition they are in. The Taliban so far seem to have refrained from selling their missiles in terrorist weapons markets.

"The Stingers are not sold or passed on by Afghan war clans, who prize them as symbols of prestige and as real deterrents against low-level air attacks," said a former CIA officer who specialized in the region. Despite reports that the Stingers in Afghanistan might be unusable now, after a decade of wear and tear, "They may have battery problems, but they are fixable," he said.

so in reality up to a hundred were not accounted for?

in nearly ten years of war there are only a few limited claims of US SAMs being used against our troops, I found three,... two were misses, one was a hit but could not be confirmed. overall SAM use is considered rare in Afghanistan according to Official reports released by wiki-leaks

there are hundreds of reports of RPG misses and a few confirmed hits.

no matter how it is looked at we made every attempt to recover the units and not leave them behind..

and without disclosing information that is not public that is about as much as anyone could say..

but you seem to want to blame Reagan for leaving them.. he was out of Office when the war finished.. there is nothing he could have done at that point to recover them.. it was then the responsibility of Bush Sr to wind down our involvement.. and by most accounts he did as much as any one could,

but they did not get everyone back.. and the old deteriorating SAMs were still a danger. it is this reason that I am against arming rebels.


















[/quote]
 

Latest posts

Top