SNIP

It's a simple concept that apparently simple minds want to argue over.

Eh, lease to own tho…

Eh, lease to own tho…

Didnt we have a discussion about leasing with him before and he was wrong?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Do you have the lease agreement?   You know the government gives away free shit all the time.   You think we charge for foreign aid?

Show me where US military arms and equipment is handled the same as other "foreign aid." 

Military aid normally requires one nation to either purchase arms or sign defense contracts directly with the United States.  We might give the nation "credits" to use for their purchases, but that's just an accounting item.  Whether we give credits, cash or arms, the end result is the same:  the equipment is provided by the US.

Much foreign aid is for developing underdeveloped countries.  Humanitarian aid in the form of food and medicine.  Economic aid is different, as is training and education.

You can't put military aid in a "Foreign Aid" pigeon hole and treat it the same as all other types of foreign aid.

Didnt we have a discussion about leasing with him before and he was wrong?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Did you fall down? 

I also believe the US left lots of It’s own equipment that was not issued to the Afghans.  And in their haste not all equipment were destroyed or rendered inoperable.  Some were overlooked but my guess is the rank and file just wanted out of there.  This is just my opinion.  I’ve been in bug-out training when I served and bug out training is controlled chaos.  I can only imagine how it is in real time.

And I agree that whether it was Afghan equipment or US equipment it will always be looked at as US equipment left behind.

Liberals/dnc more concerned trump killed solemani, than joe killing kids (plural).

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

ITAR, trade agreements with other countries, export controls, etc. kickbacks / donations to a "Foundation" list goes on...
Not as simple as "giving free sh!t all the time"

still not wrong...

First, if you can't spell "country" correctly, then you don't get to explain anything to me or anyone else.

Second, EEF was trying to make a technical point -- that once we gave equipment to Afghanistan, that stuff ceased to be "US equipment."

That's 100% wrong.  The Afghan forces may have possession of it and use it, but it will remain US equipment because that's who provided it.

Military arms are different than vaccinations.  We can never take back vaccines which were administered, but we could take any stock that hadn't been used.  "

Most arms are maintained in armories until issued to someone.  I don't know if the armories are US or Afghani maintained and secured, but it doesn't matter much.  If the arms were never issued, we'd have every right to take them, reallocate them to another country, or destroy them.

Again, if we bought it and we provided it, then the equipment is still "US equipment," no matter its disposition after delivery.  We have every right and responsibility to keep weapons we provided out of the hands of our enemies.  To do the opposite is not being good stewards of US tax payer funding.

You're arguing like it's a personal property dispute.  Not even close. 

If someone stumbles on a cache of automatic weapons in Mexico after a cartel compound is raided, and if the weapons were made in the US, the news would read, "US Weapons Discovered in Mexican Cartel Raid."

It's a simple concept that apparently simple minds want to argue over.

Did you not watch the Rand Paul video?

Afghanistan did not pay us for the weapons and equipment.  Unless they reimbursed us for them, they remain US weapons and equipment provided for their use -- nothing more.

When US forces left, they took as much of the heavy weapons and munitions as they could.  So, I guess we were stealing weapons from the Afghanis??

If I let you borrow my weed wacker and someone stole it from your garage, did I give the weed wacker to the thief?

I don't see how purchasing it is relevant, whether it was sold, given, or on permanent load, either way we didn't give it to the Taliban, they stole it from the Afghan army.

Claiming Biden gave the weapons to the Taliban is either a blatant lie or willfully ignorant just to score political attack points. We complain about the dishonest left but then do the exact same thing.

If I let you borrow my weed wacker and someone stole it from your garage, did I give the weed wacker to the thief?

I don't see how purchasing it is relevant, whether it was sold, given, or on permanent load, either way we didn't give it to the Taliban, they stole it from the Afghan army.

Claiming Biden gave the weapons to the Taliban is either a blatant lie or willfully ignorant just to score political attack points. We complain about the dishonest left but then do the exact same thing.

Was flapps weed wacker stolen or was it eef's weed wacker that was stolen?

His ex boss supplied weapons to the mexican cartel (fast and the furious). Now biden lets the taliban have weapons.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

If I let you borrow my weed wacker and someone stole it from your garage, did I give the weed wacker to the thief?

I don't see how purchasing it is relevant, whether it was sold, given, or on permanent load, either way we didn't give it to the Taliban, they stole it from the Afghan army.

Claiming Biden gave the weapons to the Taliban is either a blatant lie or willfully ignorant just to score political attack points. We complain about the dishonest left but then do the exact same thing.

If you buy a weed whacker that was made in China, does it become a US weed whacker when take you ownership?

Still can't see how you are unable to grasp such a simple concept.

Biden ALLOWED the Taliban to take the equipment and weapons that the US bought for the Afghanis.

Is that better?

If you buy a weed whacker that was made in China, does it become a US weed whacker when take you ownership?

Still can't see how you are unable to grasp such a simple concept.

Biden ALLOWED the Taliban to take the equipment and weapons that the US bought for the Afghanis.

Is that better?

Your logic is completely backwards, purchase is irrelevant, we gave the Afghan Army weapons so they could stand and fight on their own.

So what was Biden supposed to do, demand that as they were being overrun they return all weapons to us? Or perhaps we should have never armed them in the first place because the Taliban could have potentially stolen the equipment?

The Taliban seized the weapons in combat. Claiming this as Biden giving the Taliban the weapons is just plain false, its like TDS but for Biden. BDS.

Your logic is completely backwards, purchase is irrelevant, we gave the Afghan Army weapons so they could stand and fight on their own.

So what was Biden supposed to do, demand that as they were being overrun they return all weapons to us? Or perhaps we should have never armed them in the first place because the Taliban could have potentially stolen the equipment?

The Taliban seized the weapons in combat. Claiming this as Biden giving the Taliban the weapons is just plain false, its like TDS but for Biden. BDS.

No.  Biden was supposed to assess the situation, which he and his military and national security people did.  They concluded that after the US withdrawal, the Taliban would take over.  What they got wrong was the "within 2-12 months after we leave" part. 

So, don't make up stories about what he should have done based on no facts.  The facts support the conclusion that we should have started months ago moving that equipment to other places -- if not the the US, then to other Middle Eastern countries we regularly use for shipments, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia.  Get all the advanced and heavy weaponry out of there, leaving just enough for the Afghani forces to use if necessary. 

You don't leave your stash where the bad guys can get it especially when you know the bad guys are on their way.

Biden had the time to plan.  This entire retreat was handled like a total rookie.  Very telling as to what Joe's been doing his half century in office -- coercing countries by withholding aid money to help his son, taking his son on AF Two to make Chinese business deals, ...

The US has to take responsibility for the Taliban acquiring US weapons and equipment regardless whether it was US equipment overlooked during the hasty retreat or US equipment that was given to the cowardly and gutless afghan government.

The reason I say this is because the US wanted Afghanistan to become a democratic country with a democratic government.  With this goal in mind the US is taking accountability and responsibility that the Afghan government, with the assistance of the US will eventually succeed.

What is laughable to me is how anybody couldn't see in the 20 years of this bullshit that the Afghan soldiers and the government leaders didn't have the balls or courage to actually make this a reality  My opinion is the Afghan people took advantage of the US, reaping in the monetary assistance, food, water, supplies, weapons and technologies all the while saying "yeah, yeah, whatever you say...." while secretly giving the US the middle finger behind it's back.

No foreign entity in history has ever conquered Afghanistan.  Hard to believe the US thought they could do so.  Makes me wonder if the US knew all this but milked the War on Terror cash cow for all it's worth while the defense contractors profited insanely and those in the inner circles lined their pockets with taxpayer money.

Bottom line:  The US has to own this shameful debacle.  What turned out as a noble cause for justice against the 9/11 criminals degraded into a 20 year mudbog of deception, lies, greed, and profiteering.

biden isn't the only one responsible for all of this.  But as POTUS he has to own it.  Not to mention how badly it was handled.  He couldn't have made it worse.  He deserves an award.

It will always be looked at as the US leaving munitions, supplies, and weapons behind in Afghanistan.

The “we had no idea that the Afghan Army and Gov’t would be that ineffective”.  Yeah, you did.  You just chose to fire or bury reports of that from senior leaders. . .

The “we had no idea that the Afghan Army and Gov’t would be that ineffective”.  Yeah, you did.  You just chose to fire or bury reports of that from senior leaders. . .

The US government knew more than 10 years ago that the Afghanis could not, or would not, defend themselves.

If they couldn't be trained and equipped to hold off the Taliban after 10 years, why would anyone think another 10 years would make a difference?  We should have learned from the Soviets that a war in that region isn't winnable.  Ignoring history is never a proper way to plan a war.

The war only dragged on for 20 years because WE wanted it to.  The longer it took for Afghanistan to get whipped into shape militarily, the more obvious it should have been that the entire effort was futile.

The US government knew more than 10 years ago that the Afghanis could not, or would not, defend themselves.

If they couldn't be trained and equipped to hold off the Taliban after 10 years, why would anyone think another 10 years would make a difference?  We should have learned from the Soviets that a war in that region isn't winnable.  Ignoring history is never a proper way to plan a war.

The war only dragged on for 20 years because WE wanted it to.  The longer it took for Afghanistan to get whipped into shape militarily, the more obvious it should have been that the entire effort was futile.

I was just saying that there are those who want to argue technicalities or semantics, but totally missing the point.  Leasing arms or other vehicles?   

I was just saying that there are those who want to argue technicalities or semantics, but totally missing the point.  Leasing arms or other vehicles?   

Yeah, I already got wrapped around that axle.

We call it "Quibbling."  Just because one word or fact is arguably inaccurate, they want to say the entire statement is now false. 

"I saw you come in after curfew at 12:15AM."

"That's a lie!" -- because he came in closer to 12:25AM.  Still broke curfew but wants to deflect.

Yeah, I already got wrapped around that axle.

We call it "Quibbling."  Just because one word or fact is arguably inaccurate, they want to say the entire statement is now false. 

"I saw you come in after curfew at 12:15AM."

"That's a lie!" -- because he came in closer to 12:25AM.  Still broke curfew but wants to deflect.

If one ain’t cheatin’, they ain’t tryin’… or, if one ain’t lying’, they deflecting from being wrong…

 

If one ain’t cheatin’, they ain’t tryin’… or, if one ain’t lying’, they deflecting from being wrong…

 

Either way they still WRONG!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk