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.

 

Russia to Fill Iraq, Afghan Helo Orders

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Russia to Fill Iraq, Afghan Helo Orders


www.military.com

October 26, 2009
Knight Ridder/Tribune

Thanks to the Pentagon and most likely the American taxpayer, the skies of Afghanistan will again be filled with the distinctive noise of Russian helicopters.

So too will the skies of Iraq, and the contracts for these choppers have caught the attention of Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

Shelby fired off a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary William Gates this week to try to figure out how much of the more than $800 million spent buying Russian made Mi-17s was taxpayer funded. He also wants to know why, in particular, the contract for Iraq was awarded w
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
This certainly is an interesting and thought provoking story. A no bid contract for military helicopters for the Iraqi Army was granted to a U.S. arms broker pledging to fill the contract with Russian Helicopters. While some are arguing that Iraq a sovereign nation has a right to purchase for it’s armed forces what ever equipment it wants many are concerned that not only were no U.S. Helicopter Manufactures asked to bid on the contract but that U.S. Tax Payer funds might be going to paying for these helicopters.

The same argument does not hold true in Afghanistan where unlike Iraq that has its own money and can pay in theory all or a significant portion of the purchase from oil revenues, Afghanistan’s government is almost entirely funded by U.S. Tax Payer Dollars and donations. In neither case where American companies invited to bid on the contracts despite our soaring unemployment and trillions of dollars in Tax Payer bailouts to big corporations in what so far has been a vein and failed effort to create new jobs here in America.

More amazingly still that one of the few products America still manufactures domestically is defense and aerospace products like military helicopters!

It defies comprehension why American companies wouldn’t at least be given a chance to competitively bid on billions of dollars worth of purchases by the Iraq and Afghani Governments for military grade helicopters.

Even more disturbing is that nearly 2 years after placing the orders Russia has failed to deliver on the merchandize that’s been prepaid by Iraq.

U.S. Senators trying to inquire into what portion of the sales are being paid for with U.S. Tax Payer funds are finding a stonewall at the Pentagon and Department of Defense as to what amount if any the U.S. Tax Payers are funding and are on the hook for as well as why U.S. Manufacturers where never invited to bid.

At least one American Helicopter Company refuses to even comment on the situation.

Behold the power of the military industrial complex and how it rules.


www.military.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Which has Shelby and others wondering why U.S. helicopter makers couldn't have taken a shot at filling these orders.

In December of 2007, a contract was given for 22 Mi-17s to a Maryland defense broker ARINC to enable Iraq to buy the helicopters.

It's a story that was originally kicked up by free lance reporter Sharon Weinberger, writing for Wired Magazine back in April. She has continued to follow the story and on Friday discussed how it came to light and why she's still pursuing it.

ARINC declined to comment on this story and the Pentagon said they would hunt down a person to discuss the issue, but didn't call.

"It's a confusing situation," she agreed, when told a couple of defense and aerospace analysts were perplexed by the deal. She explained there are many contracts involved, but the biggest is the Iraq one, which started as a $322 million deal. It's costs have

apparently increased by 10 percent or more, she said, but the helicopters have not been delivered as far as she knows.



Sounds like a lot of potential American worker paychecks lost here on this one to me.

While the argument that the sovereign nation of Iraq has a right to purchase from who ever they want, it is also telling that evidently they did not want to purchase or reward in the process the nation that spent trillions of dollars to 'liberate' them from a 'dictator' that once eliminated caused an outflow of sectarian violence that is still claiming Iraqi lives by the scores almost 8 years later.

It could be argued Regime Change does not work out well for either the American Tax Payer or the people living in the nation where the Regime is forcibly and violently changed by America.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Sounds like a lot of potential American worker paychecks lost here on this one to me.

While the argument that the sovereign nation of Iraq has a right to purchase from who ever they want, it is also telling that evidently they did not want to purchase or reward in the process the nation that spent trillions of dollars to 'liberate' them from a 'dictator' that once eliminated caused an outflow of sectarian violence that is still claiming Iraqi lives by the scores almost 8 years later.

It could be argued Regime Change does not work out well for either the American Tax Payer or the people living in the nation where the Regime is forcibly and violently changed by America.



It sounds like one of those...


Damned if you and Damned if you don't!

So if the US sells Iraq these weapons then we would be accused of forcing a sovereign country to buy our weapons. If we step aside and not interfere with the purchases they choose then we are letting down US workers in our manufacturing sector.


As far as Afghanistan...

After the soviets pulled out we also left instead of sticking around and help rebuild the country allowing a fertile situation to flourish which helped give rise to the Taliban in power...

Shall we repeat the process?

[edit on 26-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
have you considered the curent back log on orders for US made helo`s?

www.allbusiness.com...

the black hawk has a $20 BILLION back log -- which is years worth of production

theres also the performance of the russian kit at altitude - other than an NH90 nothing else can carry the same load to the altitudes needed



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

I don't disagree with your statements Slayer.

What I do question is why U.S. Companies were not invited to bid.

What I do question is why U.S. Funds from U.S. Taxpayers are likely involved to buy non-U.S. made equipment.

Thanks for posting.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




After the soviets pulled out we also left instead of sticking around and help rebuild the country allowing a fertile situation to flourish which helped give rise to the Taliban in power... Shall we repeat the process?


You ASSume that the US maintaining involvement in a foreign country means they will remain peaceful. Let me remind you that the US supported Saddam's party's coup and continued to support him for many years and look what happenned there

The CIA aided in the removal of the democratically elected President in Iran in the 1953 Coup and installed the Shah. Look how that has turned out.

Vietnam was a complete and abject failure with the end result being more civilians dead then enemy soldiers causing general distain for the US operation there.

I know the US Soldiers are for the most part good people it is never about them. The fact is they get false information and are propagandized by the profiteers to enable the money making scheme that is war.

No one has ever conquered Afghanistan and to ASSume that staying will make it better is folley.

You know what they say about those that ASSume


[edit on 26-10-2009 by Beefcake]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Beefcake
 


Thanks for the third grade level history lesson.


Most of that took place during the cold war. Both sides US/Soviets were involved. Both sides had their hand in propping up dictators. Eastern Europe ring a bell? Having a perverse obsession with the US you may have overlooked all of the cold war history.

We took care of Our Guy[Saddam]= Dead [New Government] The communist haven't. [Lil Kim in North Korea] hell, he is still there not only that he is now a Nuclear armed outcast.

ASSume all you want.


[edit on 26-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
have you considered the curent back log on orders for US made helo`s?

www.allbusiness.com...

the black hawk has a $20 BILLION back log -- which is years worth of production

theres also the performance of the russian kit at altitude - other than an NH90 nothing else can carry the same load to the altitudes needed


I have considered this as well as considered why with this bounty of business they aren't hiring more workers and expanding production facilities to cut down on the backlog.

It's not like there aren't workers out there. It's not like there aren't people who are desperate for a job.

Once again this underscores the phony nature of the war on terror.

During World War II, women were pressed into service in manufacturing for the first time ever to meet the needed production quotas to successfully wage a war of logistics.

All wars are about logistics. Who can put the most boots and equipment on the ground? Who has the best trained troops and the best equipment on the ground?

We aren't trying to do either in this case. Things like Liberty Ships to transport troops and equipment to the European War Zone were eventually produced at a rate of 1 a day despite their massive size and mechanical nature and often slid into the water with their rivets still hot in an all out attempt to win a war and secure a peace.

Bombers, fighter aircraft, tanks, jeeps and transport trucks, shells and ammunition were produced in a never ending growing number of facilities built just to increase the overall production and often initially staffed by entirely unskilled untrained women who had never worked outside of the home in their life let alone as welders and riveters and skilled craftsman.

Yet trained they were, and trained they became as the whole world marveled at our efficiency and output and production capabilities in time of need and war.

People employed in these jobs often voluntarily invested a portion of their wages to the War Effort to pay for all these things in U.S. War Bonds and Liberty Bonds.

In fact in less than five short years we had won the war and secured the peace over a wide swath of terrain many times larger and often even more remote than Afghanistan.

Yes in fact I have considered this back log, evidently many Americans haven't.

Understanding History is important because it not only shows what can be done, but what isn't being done.

The war on terror is as phony as the day is long. We are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan as corporate security guards.

The irrefutable proof of that is evidenced in the history factually outlined in the above.

Thanks for posting.

P.S. by the way tens of millions of Americans really do need and are desperate for jobs!



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
After the soviets pulled out we also left instead of sticking around and help rebuild the country allowing a fertile situation to flourish which helped give rise to the Taliban in power...

Shall we repeat the process?

The point is probably to maintain the war, not to win or lose it... for the war profiteers and the war machine itself. War are great times for some.

Or, some people just want to spend as much money as possible and as pointlessly as possible, if that makes any sense. What I'm trying to say is that maybe more quick-debt is required to finish off wounded US industry.

Perhaps the military kept borrowing and purchasing overseas, but it looks like they haven't borrowed and purchased enough.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beefcake

No one has ever conquered Afghanistan and to ASSume that staying will make it better is folley.



Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and The Taliban. All were foreigners to Afghanistan.




posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler


This certainly is an interesting and thought provoking story. A no bid contract for military helicopters for the Iraqi Army was granted to a U.S. arms broker pledging to fill the contract with Russian Helicopters. While some are arguing that Iraq a sovereign nation has a right to purchase for it’s armed forces what ever equipment it wants many are concerned that not only were no U.S. Helicopter Manufactures asked to bid on the contract but that U.S. Tax Payer funds might be going to paying for these helicopters.



Well then, that would exclude you wouldn't it? ;-)






The same argument does not hold true in Afghanistan where unlike Iraq that has its own money and can pay in theory all or a significant portion of the purchase from oil revenues, Afghanistan’s government is almost entirely funded by U.S. Tax Payer Dollars and donations.



I didn't see this in the article... could you point out to me the source of this allegation?




In neither case where American companies invited to bid on the contracts despite our soaring unemployment and trillions of dollars in Tax Payer bailouts to big corporations in what so far has been a vein and failed effort to create new jobs here in America.




I think what you are seeing here, is us cozying up to Russia, in order to get it's political sway over Iran...



However I'd love to hear Slayers take on this....

[UPDATE: Slayer's take is a few posts up]

[edit on 26-10-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


My opinion is that it shouldn't really matter where Iraq gets it's equipment. Sure I would like to see Americans put to work producing the equipment and arms. But the overriding concern here is Iraqi security from both internal as well external forces.

They have a budget and if Russian equipment is in their price range and available then by all means they should purchase within their means. US tax payers dollars? Well we have and will continue to spend/hemorrhaging money in both Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

In the end does it really matter where they get what they need to become self Supporting and able to Defend themselves?

[edit on 26-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



He said that country doesn't have the money for this. In fact, the Afghani's were being armed mostly through donations after the U.S. and its allies took the country in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.


It's true I refuse to fund an unjust war or a corrupt unconstitutional government.

What's it like to be an economic slave who parrots every word your Master's instill in you?

Never mind I don't want to know. I enjoy being free!

So would the Afghani people from a warmongering U.S. Corpotate Government that represents Oligarchs not the citizens.

Amazing how none of you have the courage to touch the facts I illustrated regarding our supreme War Effort in World War II and our lack luster corporate occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who cares about the hard cold truth of things when you can deflect away from it by focusing on trivial details and making excuses instead of the hard task of suceeding by honestly and realistically dealing with the big picture.

You know there are some days Hunka my friend I think I might actually fail in saving this planet.

Oh well serves me right for volunteering for a thankless job!

Not to worry Hunka I am still going to do my best. Any idea when you might?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Oh by the way Hunka these contracts date back two years.

Are you really trying to contend that two years ago the United States was engaged in third party diplomacy through an American Arms Broker in Maryland to purchase Russian Military equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan as a means two years ago to garner Russia's support in Iran when it was barely a blip on the Radar two years ago, or are you making a wildly assumptive statement for psuedo intellectual purposes or simply taking the opportunity to put out more Iran propaganda?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 

If it dates back two years, kinda makes one wonder what the big deal is now.

Seems they notified Congress of the intent to sell in 2006.


Washington, September 19, 2006 - The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of helicopters, vehicles, weapons and support as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $500 million.
The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of the following weapons:
10,126 M17 9mm Glock Pistols
50,750 M16A2 Rifles
50,750 M4A1 Rifles
3,442 M24 Sniper Rifles
8,105 M249 Machine Guns
3,037 M240B Machine Guns
1,268 Generation (Gen) II Single Tube Night Vision Goggles
15 AN/PVS-17 Gen III Assault Weapon Sights
40 AN/PVS-10 Gen II Sniper Weapon Sights
20 Mi-17 Troop Transport Helicopters


www.dsca.mil...


Washington, September 19, 2006 - The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of logistics support for Helicopters, Vehicles, Weapons as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $250 million.
The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of logistics support services/equipment for helicopters (Jet Ranger, Huey II and Mi-17) and vehicles (Standard/Non-Standard Wheeled Vehicles,


www.dsca.mil...

Looks like in 2008 Iraq wanted US stuff


WASHINGTON, July 30, 2008 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of Helicopters and related munitions as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $2.4 billion.
The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of 24 Bell Armed 407 Helicopters or 24 Boeing AH-6 Helicopters, 24 Rolls Royce 250-C-30 Engines, 565 M120 120mm Mortars, 665 M252 81mm Mortars, 200


www.dsca.mil...

Another proposed interest in buying US stuff in 2008. Could be same one as above but amended.


WASHINGTON, December 10, 2008 – On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 26 Bell Armed 407 Helicopters, 26 Rolls Royce 250-C-30 Engines, 26 M280 2.75-inch Launchers, 26 XM296 .50 Cal. Machine Guns with 500 Round Ammunition Box, 26 M299 HELLFIRE Guided Missile Launchers as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $366 million.
The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of 26 Bell Armed


www.dsca.mil...


Don't understand why Shelby is so alarmed when Congress was notified of the intent to sale? He should have kept an eye on everything from the beginning.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


I think in part what is upsetting the Senator and others on Capitol Hill is the fact that Russia hasn't fulfilled to contracts and delivered the merchandise even though they have been paid.

Now that seems to have led to a question as to why Russia was selected at all, and what portion of the funds used to pay the Russians have come from the American Tax Payer.

Thanks for posting.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




Amazing how none of you have the courage to touch the facts I illustrated regarding our supreme War Effort in World War II and our lack luster corporate occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.


Afternoon Traveler. I will try to touch on that subject. One possibility, these current wars are a way to make money where as WW2 was a necessity. Another, we are not there to win, we are there to disable the region. Another, chaos is and always has been the way to further the Elitist's agenda of conquer by confusion and deceit, besides destabilizing that region, they are destabilizing the US.

It seems the very same people that railed against Bush and these wars have forgotten their stance just 2 short years ago. Now that their idiot is in power everything they thought before is discounted now. Blinded by their own hypocrisy.

I cannot understand the ignorance of people that do not see the obvious. I have dealt with the government bureaucracy in construction. Remember when gas was at $4+/gal. and the supposed cause was our ability to refine the oil. And their argument was it would take 10 fracking years to build one single refinery. WHAT THE HELL. As a construction super I could build 15 refineries in that time. Just stay the hell out of my way. That is the problem. Government interference in everything.

But no one can see the GIANT WALL in front of their own face. IGNORANCE.

A perfect example, in California when that overpass collapsed. The contractor gave a bid and he was asked to get it done in a certain time frame. He told the state he would need a Inspector 24/7 and that the government had to stay the frack out of his way.

Guess what, complete ahead of his own schedule and under budget. That is the American way. Not the government interference into everything we do.

To think that people, still cannot see socialism and communism does not work!


S&F, maybe some day the sheeple will awaken to their blinders.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Outstanding post friend and you pointed out a lot of what I and many other people feel are the underlying truths.

These wars are about profit and control not a genuine need for security because of imminent threat and hostile intent by a sovereign aggressive foreign power.

It almost boggles the imagination that American citizens are attempting to justify the purchase and placement of Russian military equipment into War Zones the U.S. Military occupies.

In part because its a complete reversal of their cold war programming to view Russia as the Evil Empire in everything in all ways and at all times. It shows the true power of government propoganda to acheive a complete reversal of thinking in a short matter of time.

Very much the same way that anti-Bush people were anti-War people when they were Bush's Wars but are now pro-war when it's Obama war.

Once again a rapid complete reversal of their programming.

Amazingly most people will believe anything and everything that the government and the media broadcasts and tells them to believe especially when the government and media is one of their theoretical own choosing.

As you pointed out the Oil refinary argument is an insane one, and in part what gives it credibility is the insane way the powers that be seed different orginizations to work at cross purposes.

Thanks to environmentalists like prisons no one wants an oil refinery in their community even thought existing refineries have not created adverse environmental impacts on the communities they are in.

Yet should you try to build a new refinery expect the Sierra Club and others to spend millions of dollars in years of lawsuits to get injuction after injunction to prevent the start of construction on it.

The oil companies like to pretend that the environmentalists are their worst nightmare but the reality is they are the oil companies best friends because its their obstruction to new refineries being built that helps to keep the Gasoline is scarce even though oil isn't argument alive to gouge people at the pump.

Want to know of what I think of that argument. I sold my car and bought a bicycle! That of course is really doing something for the environment as opposed to driving your gas guzzling SUV down to the court house to file a lawsuit and injunction against a new refinery being built.

As far as Iraq and Afghanistan buying Russian military equipment? All the more power to them if they are using their own money, but the U.S. Military has no business being there and propping up these unpopular regimes that aren't even supported by the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thanks for posting friend.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 





Another, we are not there to win, we are there to disable the region.


The US wins in this region when other regional powers either fail to win or are fighting amongst themselves. I think the US is there to maintain a balance of power, put leadership in the hands of those sympathetic to the US and the West. What more could we want? I fail to see that Afghanistan or even Iraq has any major profit potential for the US considering military expenses.

I also think the US is there because the EU is still in the process of sorting out its social, economic and military potential. And non of its constituent countries are willing to go it alone in a substantive way like the US.

We are there not to disable the region as much as stabilize it in the US's favor. I don't think Bush thought it would be this costly in dollars or maybe he did but the cost of say Al Qaeda controlling the resources including all oil and gas transport routes? Not to mention having the country as a base to launch terrorist attacks? That would be unacceptable.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join