It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Loses $500 Million of Weapons to Iranian-Backed Rebels

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Not that I justify the weapons being given to the Yemen government. But where in that article did it say there were stored at the US Embassy? A right to one's opinion should be protected. But sensationalism in replies does not fall under that protection.

So I have to ask do you have a link that half a billion dollars worth of weapons were stored at the US Embassy? I could be wrong but nowhere in the article did I see that claim.
edit on 20-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Yeah, the article doesn't say weapons were stored at the embassy, but rather this is the amount of weapons given to the Yemen gov't over a certain time frame and now unable to be tracked with the embassy overrun. It's just another example of the US of A handing out arms willy-nilly that "somehow" end up in terrorist hands.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

The US government does this exclusively and they are the only ones? I guess you just automatically discount every AK-47 and RPG 7 in worldwide use? I do not have a problem with you attacking a source of weapons, but please include Russia and China into your vocabulary.
edit on 20-3-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Arming the Kurds, even if their interests were to collide with US interests in the future, is still the best way to proceed, given that the alternative is to hope they can defeat IS without US military aid. That is a pretty big gamble, considering that if northern Iraq were to fall, defeating IS would prove more problematic. That is not to say that all US strategic plans would be handicapped by such a change in the current military geography, but it would mean that we would have to expend more resources to achieve the objective of eradicating IS. This could potentially mean the loss of an increased number of US military personnel and materiel. Therefore it makes more sense, if the resources have to be spent regardless, to reduce our energy expenditure and the potential loss of soldiers by letting the Kurds fight. That may be an inhumane way of appraising the situation, but that is the technical situation as it currently stands.

Do those who disagree with arming the Kurds think that the US should not have helped the USSR defeat Nazi Germany? Churchill and Roosevelt both knew the threat that was likely to emerge after WWII ended, given Stalin's behavior before and during the war, yet these leaders and their staffs realized that the alternative was unacceptable...So at present, like it was then, it is about analyzing the situation and determining which is a greater threat...the current enemy, or a potential future enemy. The Kurds will not behave like a terrorist group such as IS or Al-Qaeda. It is in their best interest to behave like a civilized nation, which they have pretty much done thus far. Had anyone gone to Iraq in the last decade or so they would be struck by the Westernization of many Kurdish cities, and despite the carnage raging across Iraq it would be seen that Kurdish regions were still intact and functioning up to Western standards. Not all regions of course, but some Kurdish regions look nothing like the rest of Iraq. The Kurdish values are different from those of the militant groups currently at odds with the US, and even differ greatly from the values in countries like Iran. It is still likely that the Kurds would be a US ally in the region.

The idea that they want to annex portions of Turkey, while true, is considered by some to be justified considering the presence of the large Kurdish population. It just depends on how each person looks at it. Personally I do not feel that the Kurds would attempt to annex debated regions by force, but that is yet to be seen. Plus, the US need not send advanced military hardware to the Kurds. They are likely in need of small arms and supply more than anything. While IS does possess some pieces of more advanced hardware, I appraise the situation as follows: the Kurds, if supplied with ample ammunition and small arms, as well as stand-off weapons like mortars and artillery, they would be in a very favorable position and could thus defeat IS in northern Iraq. I do not know what the Kurdish military objectives are, but I imagine they are limited to pushing IS far from Kurdish territory, and not defeating IS outright. They do not possess the resources to do this, and the US should not supply them with such an objective in mind. What I am getting at is that the US could supply such weaponry without fear of such weapons playing a vital role in a future conflict. Plus, the US could supply weapons chambered so that resupply would not be as easy, meaning that without US ammunition supplies it would be difficult for the Kurdish forces to continue to use these small arms in mass numbers. I do not know how easily they could acquire smaller calibers like the 5.56, but we do know that a more common caliber in the region is 7.62. Again, I don't know how much of a difference this would make, but it is something that could be considered. Edit to add: I just did some quick research, and besides the large stockpiles of US ammunition and small arms that have fallen into the hands of IS, there are 5.56 rounds coming from nearby regions as well. So while the AK-47 might still be popular in the Middle East, there have been increasing numbers of other caliber weapons finding their way into places like Iraq. The defeated Iraqi military units are responsible for much of the losses of weapons and ammunition to IS. It is easy to see how weapons and ammo used by IS could find its way to Kurdish forces in the future, and how Kurdish forces could easily find whatever ammunition they needed from nearby nations, whether they acquire them legally or illegally.
edit on 3/20/15 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
IF it IS a mistake...
I wonder if it isn't a backdoor deal like Benghazi.


my vote goes t a back door op, and to make it look 'legit' the US news said that it was 'captured' but I'm sure its all still in its boxes. with Iranian text instructions



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

OP why do you assume US government even cares when it makes mistakes

No one cares because no one is accountable

It is called techno-fascism



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

I don't care what anyone says...you don't 'lose' $500 Million worth of weapons. It doesn't happen.

You can of course, deliberately hand over the equipment, but you don't just leave it and abandon it intact.

The army policy always was and still is one of destroying or otherwise make safe ANY piece of equipment, ANY weapon or ANY vehicle that cannot reasonably be removed efficiently and recovered.

These weapons and equipment would never simply be 'left intact'...a couple of charges of C4 here and there, a grenade or so lobbed in the right direction even would have taken care of them...but apparently not, they are left intact and operational?

This is no accident. The base commander was obviously ordered to leave behind these equipment and weapons caches intact, there's no other explanation other than this gear was intentionally left for the rebels.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Oh we're just CONSPIRACY nuts on a forum ,WHAT do WE know?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: PrettyPlease1

I don't assume the government cares when it makes "mistakes", especially if it's intentional and only made out to look like a mistake (such as this may be).

I comment again and again on how nobody is held accountable in the government, so we're on the same page. Not sure why you thought I "assumed the US gov. cares when it makes mistakes"?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

How in the FU** does someone just abandon 500 million in weapons? This is fixed, there is no doubt about that in my eyes! If there was that much equipment and weapons there, why not stay and use them to fight off the "hostile takeover" nearby? My god, are the military personnel in place that big of pussies to just run away? Fight the bastards....This just stinks to high heaven of a fixed way to get arms to these terrorists without directly handing them to these people and looking bad in the process of doing so....IMHO of course



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore



" Among the items delivered to Yemen since 2010, according to the Post: 250 suits of body armor, a couple hundred (each) M-4 rifles and Glock 9mm pistols, and more than a million rounds of ammo. Oh, and 160 Humvees, four Huey II helicopters, a couple of patrol boats, and three aerial transports. "

I'm sure this is just a collateral damage to US..Nothing special
And same time there are countries who would be happy to have just four Huey II helicopters on their arsenal



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join