Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

[MDlaxfan76]

How many Helos did we leave in the desert in 1979?

7 of 8. The one that had problems on the way in, turned around & made it back to the ship.
https://photorecon.net/bluebeard-5/

Regarding spare parts, 2 of the 8 were not flown during workups & were cannibalized as hangar queens to keep the other 6 flying.
The lack of spare parts at that time made cannibalization widespread & degraded readiness & training throughout naval aviation.

This left an entire minesweeping squadron with no aircraft at a time when the Iranians were mining the Persian Gulf.
2 of the abandonded H-53's were not destroyed & were put into service by the Iranians who also operated the H-53.

Understood...my only point is that military spending was nevertheless a ton of $, but how it was prioritized to be spent evidently didn't meet the actual needs of the moment.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/histo ... lspend.htm

Defense spending as a percentage of GDP actually went up during the Carter years versus late Nixon/Ford.

Look at spending compared to the height of the Vietman war. D spending in the Carter years was down compared to before & after, at a time when things were worn out from Vietnam & becoming obsolete, & we were switching to an all volunteer force which cost more.

In 79 or 80, Carter's SecDef was booed when he came to address the squadrons & test center engineers & flight crews at Pax River.
The hangar's were filled with cannibalized hangar queens, In SD in '75-77 we were taking components off of up aircraft, driving them to LAX, shipping them comml air to our Dets in WPac, circumventing an empty supply chain. The military really was hollowed out.

Obviously spending was higher as a % of GDP during Vietnam at full speed, height of war..we weren't dropping nearly as many bombs, losing aircraft and men anymore...but then spending dropped (but still large) under Nixon/Ford...actually went up as % during Carter years.

I'm not debating that the prioritization of that spending was correctly apportioned, but let's not pretend that there weren't lots and lots of dollars to prioritize.

I'm also not surprised the Sec Def would have been unpopular with those crew, etc. I would think the same would be true of his predecessor under Ford. Or should have been given the "hollowing out" that occurred during those years.

I very much doubt that the decision not to spend adequately on spare parts was one made in the Oval Office, at least not explicitly. I'd be looking at the overall military industrial complex decision and prioritization processes to look for that.

% of GDP is a dodge. It was a time of inflation. Prices & pay were increasing while dollars available, year to year, were going down. Energy prices rose sharply.

I linked to the numbers, adjusted to 1996 dollars. Including inflation, obviously.

Again, I'm not saying the $ were prioritized correctly, just that were still a lot of $.
High as a percentage of GDP except for hot war periods.

You can certainly argue that there wasn't enough for every priority the military had, but clearly there was enough to have a some helos that would work in that mission.

Again, you reserve your disdain for the Dems, won't apply the same critique to GOP...loss of credibility.

[old salt]

How many Helos did we leave in the desert in 1979?

7 of 8. The one that had problems on the way in, turned around & made it back to the ship.
https://photorecon.net/bluebeard-5/

Regarding spare parts, 2 of the 8 were not flown during workups & were cannibalized as hangar queens to keep the other 6 flying.
The lack of spare parts at that time made cannibalization widespread & degraded readiness & training throughout naval aviation.

This left an entire minesweeping squadron with no aircraft at a time when the Iranians were mining the Persian Gulf.
2 of the abandonded H-53's were not destroyed & were put into service by the Iranians who also operated the H-53.

Understood...my only point is that military spending was nevertheless a ton of $, but how it was prioritized to be spent evidently didn't meet the actual needs of the moment.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/histo ... lspend.htm

Defense spending as a percentage of GDP actually went up during the Carter years versus late Nixon/Ford.

Look at spending compared to the height of the Vietman war. D spending in the Carter years was down compared to before & after, at a time when things were worn out from Vietnam & becoming obsolete, & we were switching to an all volunteer force which cost more.

In 79 or 80, Carter's SecDef was booed when he came to address the squadrons & test center engineers & flight crews at Pax River.
The hangar's were filled with cannibalized hangar queens, In SD in '75-77 we were taking components off of up aircraft, driving them to LAX, shipping them comml air to our Dets in WPac, circumventing an empty supply chain. The military really was hollowed out.

Obviously spending was higher as a % of GDP during Vietnam at full speed, height of war..we weren't dropping nearly as many bombs, losing aircraft and men anymore...but then spending dropped (but still large) under Nixon/Ford...actually went up as % during Carter years.

I'm not debating that the prioritization of that spending was correctly apportioned, but let's not pretend that there weren't lots and lots of dollars to prioritize.

I'm also not surprised the Sec Def would have been unpopular with those crew, etc. I would think the same would be true of his predecessor under Ford. Or should have been given the "hollowing out" that occurred during those years.

I very much doubt that the decision not to spend adequately on spare parts was one made in the Oval Office, at least not explicitly. I'd be looking at the overall military industrial complex decision and prioritization processes to look for that.

% of GDP is a dodge. It was a time of inflation. Prices & pay were increasing while dollars available, year to year, were going down. Energy prices rose sharply.

You sure that’s how the math works?

this is what his response was premised upon.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/histo ... lspend.htm

[old salt]

I linked to the numbers, adjusted to 1996 dollars. Including inflation, obviously.

...& according to your link, there were fewer of those constant dollars available 76-79 than in the years before & after. Fact.
During a time of rising military pay & energy prices.

[Farfromgeneva]

How many Helos did we leave in the desert in 1979?

7 of 8. The one that had problems on the way in, turned around & made it back to the ship.
https://photorecon.net/bluebeard-5/

Regarding spare parts, 2 of the 8 were not flown during workups & were cannibalized as hangar queens to keep the other 6 flying.
The lack of spare parts at that time made cannibalization widespread & degraded readiness & training throughout naval aviation.

This left an entire minesweeping squadron with no aircraft at a time when the Iranians were mining the Persian Gulf.
2 of the abandonded H-53's were not destroyed & were put into service by the Iranians who also operated the H-53.

Understood...my only point is that military spending was nevertheless a ton of $, but how it was prioritized to be spent evidently didn't meet the actual needs of the moment.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/histo ... lspend.htm

Defense spending as a percentage of GDP actually went up during the Carter years versus late Nixon/Ford.

Look at spending compared to the height of the Vietman war. D spending in the Carter years was down compared to before & after, at a time when things were worn out from Vietnam & becoming obsolete, & we were switching to an all volunteer force which cost more.

In 79 or 80, Carter's SecDef was booed when he came to address the squadrons & test center engineers & flight crews at Pax River.
The hangar's were filled with cannibalized hangar queens, In SD in '75-77 we were taking components off of up aircraft, driving them to LAX, shipping them comml air to our Dets in WPac, circumventing an empty supply chain. The military really was hollowed out.

Obviously spending was higher as a % of GDP during Vietnam at full speed, height of war..we weren't dropping nearly as many bombs, losing aircraft and men anymore...but then spending dropped (but still large) under Nixon/Ford...actually went up as % during Carter years.

I'm not debating that the prioritization of that spending was correctly apportioned, but let's not pretend that there weren't lots and lots of dollars to prioritize.

I'm also not surprised the Sec Def would have been unpopular with those crew, etc. I would think the same would be true of his predecessor under Ford. Or should have been given the "hollowing out" that occurred during those years.

I very much doubt that the decision not to spend adequately on spare parts was one made in the Oval Office, at least not explicitly. I'd be looking at the overall military industrial complex decision and prioritization processes to look for that.

% of GDP is a dodge. It was a time of inflation. Prices & pay were increasing while dollars available, year to year, were going down. Energy prices rose sharply.

You sure that’s how the math works?

this is what his response was premised upon.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/histo ... lspend.htm

Ok but do you understand how percentages and proportions work? Or how inflation is not monolithic but based on a basket of goods? Then there’s a concept of purchasing power parity when you introduce global trade which you did w OPEC and lil prices as that is a global market not a discrete country by country one.

Also ever heard of Breton Woods? We pulled out in the early 70s. Inflation you closely linked to oil prices actually had a lot more to do with that factor and the policies of LBJ (and to a lesser extent JFK & Nixon) than they did so easily aimed at OPEC.

Did you know that we adjusted the way we measure inflation about a decade ago and it’s changed the math to make inflation look much lower in subsequent years to current? It’s a big deal actually worse than when the reset the SAT scores and inflated them higher for no reason around roughly 1997.

The point is the idea that % of GDP isn’t relevant and the way you dismissed it and your subsequent arguments aren’t even superficially correct and lack any evidence of a deeper understanding of these things. You’re not an economist that’s fine but then the dismissive nature with which you waived it off is wildly inappropriate unless you are just trying to cheaply shut the conversation down.

[old salt]

How many Helos did we leave in the desert in 1979?

7 of 8. The one that had problems on the way in, turned around & made it back to the ship.
https://photorecon.net/bluebeard-5/

Regarding spare parts, 2 of the 8 were not flown during workups & were cannibalized as hangar queens to keep the other 6 flying.
The lack of spare parts at that time made cannibalization widespread & degraded readiness & training throughout naval aviation.

This left an entire minesweeping squadron with no aircraft at a time when the Iranians were mining the Persian Gulf.
2 of the abandonded H-53's were not destroyed & were put into service by the Iranians who also operated the H-53.

Understood...my only point is that military spending was nevertheless a ton of $, but how it was prioritized to be spent evidently didn't meet the actual needs of the moment.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/histo ... lspend.htm

Defense spending as a percentage of GDP actually went up during the Carter years versus late Nixon/Ford.

Look at spending compared to the height of the Vietman war. D spending in the Carter years was down compared to before & after, at a time when things were worn out from Vietnam & becoming obsolete, & we were switching to an all volunteer force which cost more.

In 79 or 80, Carter's SecDef was booed when he came to address the squadrons & test center engineers & flight crews at Pax River.
The hangar's were filled with cannibalized hangar queens, In SD in '75-77 we were taking components off of up aircraft, driving them to LAX, shipping them comml air to our Dets in WPac, circumventing an empty supply chain. The military really was hollowed out.

Obviously spending was higher as a % of GDP during Vietnam at full speed, height of war..we weren't dropping nearly as many bombs, losing aircraft and men anymore...but then spending dropped (but still large) under Nixon/Ford...actually went up as % during Carter years.

I'm not debating that the prioritization of that spending was correctly apportioned, but let's not pretend that there weren't lots and lots of dollars to prioritize.

I'm also not surprised the Sec Def would have been unpopular with those crew, etc. I would think the same would be true of his predecessor under Ford. Or should have been given the "hollowing out" that occurred during those years.

I very much doubt that the decision not to spend adequately on spare parts was one made in the Oval Office, at least not explicitly. I'd be looking at the overall military industrial complex decision and prioritization processes to look for that.

% of GDP is a dodge. It was a time of inflation. Prices & pay were increasing while dollars available, year to year, were going down. Energy prices rose sharply.

You sure that’s how the math works?

this is what his response was premised upon.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/histo ... lspend.htm

Ok but do you understand how percentages and proportions work? Or how inflation is not monolithic but based on a basket of goods? Then there’s a concept of purchasing power parity when you introduce global trade which you did w OPEC and lil prices as that is a global market not a discrete country by country one.

Also ever heard of Breton Woods? We pulled out in the early 70s. Inflation you closely linked to oil prices actually had a lot more to do with that factor and the policies of LBJ (and to a lesser extent JFK & Nixon) than they did so easily aimed at OPEC.

Did you know that we adjusted the way we measure inflation about a decade ago and it’s changed the math to make inflation look much lower in subsequent years to current? It’s a big deal actually worse than when the reset the SAT scores and inflated them higher for no reason around roughly 1997.

The point is the idea that % of GDP isn’t relevant and the way you dismissed it and your subsequent arguments aren’t even superficially correct and lack any evidence of a deeper understanding of these things. You’re not an economist that’s fine but then the dismissive nature with which you waived it off is wildly inappropriate unless you are just trying to cheaply shut the conversation down.

Fine. I was discussing the specific chart he cited.
I say what time it is. We don't need to know how to make a watch.

Based on the link he referenced, it confirms my contention that there were fewer dollars spent on defense in 76-79, which impacted readiness.
Who cares WHY inflation & energy prices were increasing at that time? What matters is that they were, at a time when defense spending was reduced.

% of GDP is irrelevant to the impact of reduced defense spending (in constant dollars) on readiness.
He did not present GDP data, just made an undocumented assertion.
% of GDP is usually cited when comparing how much different nations dedicate to defense spending.
It does not necessarily correlate directly to readiness. Look at how little bang for buck we got from military aid to the ASF.

[Farfromgeneva]

How many Helos did we leave in the desert in 1979?

7 of 8. The one that had problems on the way in, turned around & made it back to the ship.
https://photorecon.net/bluebeard-5/

Regarding spare parts, 2 of the 8 were not flown during workups & were cannibalized as hangar queens to keep the other 6 flying.
The lack of spare parts at that time made cannibalization widespread & degraded readiness & training throughout naval aviation.

This left an entire minesweeping squadron with no aircraft at a time when the Iranians were mining the Persian Gulf.
2 of the abandonded H-53's were not destroyed & were put into service by the Iranians who also operated the H-53.

Understood...my only point is that military spending was nevertheless a ton of $, but how it was prioritized to be spent evidently didn't meet the actual needs of the moment.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/histo ... lspend.htm

Defense spending as a percentage of GDP actually went up during the Carter years versus late Nixon/Ford.

Look at spending compared to the height of the Vietman war. D spending in the Carter years was down compared to before & after, at a time when things were worn out from Vietnam & becoming obsolete, & we were switching to an all volunteer force which cost more.

In 79 or 80, Carter's SecDef was booed when he came to address the squadrons & test center engineers & flight crews at Pax River.
The hangar's were filled with cannibalized hangar queens, In SD in '75-77 we were taking components off of up aircraft, driving them to LAX, shipping them comml air to our Dets in WPac, circumventing an empty supply chain. The military really was hollowed out.

Obviously spending was higher as a % of GDP during Vietnam at full speed, height of war..we weren't dropping nearly as many bombs, losing aircraft and men anymore...but then spending dropped (but still large) under Nixon/Ford...actually went up as % during Carter years.

I'm not debating that the prioritization of that spending was correctly apportioned, but let's not pretend that there weren't lots and lots of dollars to prioritize.

I'm also not surprised the Sec Def would have been unpopular with those crew, etc. I would think the same would be true of his predecessor under Ford. Or should have been given the "hollowing out" that occurred during those years.

I very much doubt that the decision not to spend adequately on spare parts was one made in the Oval Office, at least not explicitly. I'd be looking at the overall military industrial complex decision and prioritization processes to look for that.

% of GDP is a dodge. It was a time of inflation. Prices & pay were increasing while dollars available, year to year, were going down. Energy prices rose sharply.

You sure that’s how the math works?

this is what his response was premised upon.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/histo ... lspend.htm

Ok but do you understand how percentages and proportions work? Or how inflation is not monolithic but based on a basket of goods? Then there’s a concept of purchasing power parity when you introduce global trade which you did w OPEC and lil prices as that is a global market not a discrete country by country one.

Also ever heard of Breton Woods? We pulled out in the early 70s. Inflation you closely linked to oil prices actually had a lot more to do with that factor and the policies of LBJ (and to a lesser extent JFK & Nixon) than they did so easily aimed at OPEC.

Did you know that we adjusted the way we measure inflation about a decade ago and it’s changed the math to make inflation look much lower in subsequent years to current? It’s a big deal actually worse than when the reset the SAT scores and inflated them higher for no reason around roughly 1997.

The point is the idea that % of GDP isn’t relevant and the way you dismissed it and your subsequent arguments aren’t even superficially correct and lack any evidence of a deeper understanding of these things. You’re not an economist that’s fine but then the dismissive nature with which you waived it off is wildly inappropriate unless you are just trying to cheaply shut the conversation down.

Fine. I was discussing the specific chart he cited.
I say what time it is. We don't need to know how to make a watch.

Based on the link he referenced, it confirms my contention that there were fewer dollars spent on defense in 76-79, which impacted readiness.
Who cares WHY inflation & energy prices were increasing at that time? What matters is that they were, at a time when defense spending was reduced.

% of GDP is irrelevant to the impact of reduced defense spending (in constant dollars) on readiness.
He did not present GDP data, just made an undocumented assertion.
% of GDP is usually cited when comparing how much different nations dedicate to defense spending.
It does not necessarily correlate directly to readiness. Look at how little bang for buck we got from military aid to the ASF.

Most of what you said here doesn’t follow logic but ok. I guess process, order and logic doesn’t matter. Then you’re last sentence negates everything else you stated. But the inconsistency is consistent on your part in these discussions at least.

[youthathletics]

Being an incompetent moron equates to having the guts? Who knew???

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-repor ... am-sources

If the Taliban needs cash they found a new love interest with lots of it.

This is the next phase in the new war plan, remember GWAT is shutting down and now its the GPC: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=3031

The Chicoms sure are getting themselves a wonderful facility to help them with their foothold in the region. The Taliban will be paid handsomely for allowing the Chicoms access to a state of the art airbase. I thought this might have concerned dementia Joe. He has already put his f**k up in Afghanistan in the rear view mirror. Time to switch gears to more important stuff. Covid vax for federal employees and saving the planet.

The more important and potential issue....if China snuggles up and supports the new regime in Afghanistan it benefits both sides. The Afghanis get cash and support and China can negotiate for all those precious metals on their land.....with a damned airport at their disposal. Setting up a tipping point for the GPC, with Russia trying to figure out how to pit us against each other.

... too much is being made of the Afghan rare earth metals. There is no infrastructure for extraction and processing. Will be expensive in an era where others are better positioned to extract from other deposits around the globe more cheaply.

Thanks Nostradamus.. . As afan likes to say.....the chinese can just wait everyone out. Much like a Lettuce inspection...btw, this is a great film.

1) even the Chinese are answerable to basic economics these days;
2) no one can out wait the Afghans! They aren't going to like the Chinese any better than they liked us.

They don't have to like the Chicoms. They will have quite the fondness for their money. Bagram Airfield is a cash cow for the Taliban. Chicoms will happily pay and not give a flying fig about what the Taliban thinks of them. This is a win/win for the Chicoms and the Taliban.

China is already sending aid to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, filling the gap the US left

Last week, China pledged $31 million worth of food, medicine, and COVID-19 vaccines, to Afghanistan, the first sizeable foreign-aid promise from a major nation since August 15.

[tech37]

Being an incompetent moron equates to having the guts? Who knew???

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-repor ... am-sources

If the Taliban needs cash they found a new love interest with lots of it.

This is the next phase in the new war plan, remember GWAT is shutting down and now its the GPC: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=3031

The Chicoms sure are getting themselves a wonderful facility to help them with their foothold in the region. The Taliban will be paid handsomely for allowing the Chicoms access to a state of the art airbase. I thought this might have concerned dementia Joe. He has already put his f**k up in Afghanistan in the rear view mirror. Time to switch gears to more important stuff. Covid vax for federal employees and saving the planet.

The more important and potential issue....if China snuggles up and supports the new regime in Afghanistan it benefits both sides. The Afghanis get cash and support and China can negotiate for all those precious metals on their land.....with a damned airport at their disposal. Setting up a tipping point for the GPC, with Russia trying to figure out how to pit us against each other.

... too much is being made of the Afghan rare earth metals. There is no infrastructure for extraction and processing. Will be expensive in an era where others are better positioned to extract from other deposits around the globe more cheaply.

Thanks Nostradamus.. . As afan likes to say.....the chinese can just wait everyone out. Much like a Lettuce inspection...btw, this is a great film.

1) even the Chinese are answerable to basic economics these days;
2) no one can out wait the Afghans! They aren't going to like the Chinese any better than they liked us.

They don't have to like the Chicoms. They will have quite the fondness for their money. Bagram Airfield is a cash cow for the Taliban. Chicoms will happily pay and not give a flying fig about what the Taliban thinks of them. This is a win/win for the Chicoms and the Taliban.

China is already sending aid to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, filling the gap the US left

Last week, China pledged $31 million worth of food, medicine, and COVID-19 vaccines, to Afghanistan, the first sizeable foreign-aid promise from a major nation since August 15.

We can only hope China gets bogged down in Afg like every other opportunistic power before them.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Being an incompetent moron equates to having the guts? Who knew???

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-repor ... am-sources

If the Taliban needs cash they found a new love interest with lots of it.

This is the next phase in the new war plan, remember GWAT is shutting down and now its the GPC: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=3031

The Chicoms sure are getting themselves a wonderful facility to help them with their foothold in the region. The Taliban will be paid handsomely for allowing the Chicoms access to a state of the art airbase. I thought this might have concerned dementia Joe. He has already put his f**k up in Afghanistan in the rear view mirror. Time to switch gears to more important stuff. Covid vax for federal employees and saving the planet.

The more important and potential issue....if China snuggles up and supports the new regime in Afghanistan it benefits both sides. The Afghanis get cash and support and China can negotiate for all those precious metals on their land.....with a damned airport at their disposal. Setting up a tipping point for the GPC, with Russia trying to figure out how to pit us against each other.

... too much is being made of the Afghan rare earth metals. There is no infrastructure for extraction and processing. Will be expensive in an era where others are better positioned to extract from other deposits around the globe more cheaply.

Thanks Nostradamus.. . As afan likes to say.....the chinese can just wait everyone out. Much like a Lettuce inspection...btw, this is a great film.

1) even the Chinese are answerable to basic economics these days;
2) no one can out wait the Afghans! They aren't going to like the Chinese any better than they liked us.

They don't have to like the Chicoms. They will have quite the fondness for their money. Bagram Airfield is a cash cow for the Taliban. Chicoms will happily pay and not give a flying fig about what the Taliban thinks of them. This is a win/win for the Chicoms and the Taliban.

China is already sending aid to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, filling the gap the US left

Last week, China pledged $31 million worth of food, medicine, and COVID-19 vaccines, to Afghanistan, the first sizeable foreign-aid promise from a major nation since August 15.

My wife and I are helping to sponsor an Afghan family being resettled in the state. Nothing wrong with helping those that need help.

[youthathletics]

My wife and I are helping to sponsor an Afghan family being resettled in the state. Nothing wrong with helping those that need help.

+1 that is awesome

[cradleandshoot]

My wife and I are helping to sponsor an Afghan family being resettled in the state. Nothing wrong with helping those that need help.

+1 that is awesome

+2 there are approximately 300 Afghan refugees being sent to Rochester NY. My wife and I have dug up a bunch of warm cloths in good shape. We are going to donate the old pots and pans and china that we don't use anymore. There will be donations accepted soon for non perishable foods. I could not be more happy to welcome these folks to upstate NY. So many of them sacrificed everything they had and then lost it helping our soldiers. Welcome to America and we got your six.

[Kismet]

How many Helos did we leave in the desert in 1979?

7 of 8. The one that had problems on the way in, turned around & made it back to the ship.
https://photorecon.net/bluebeard-5/

Regarding spare parts, 2 of the 8 were not flown during workups & were cannibalized as hangar queens to keep the other 6 flying.
The lack of spare parts at that time made cannibalization widespread & degraded readiness & training throughout naval aviation.

This left an entire minesweeping squadron with no aircraft at a time when the Iranians were mining the Persian Gulf.
2 of the abandonded H-53's were not destroyed & were put into service by the Iranians who also operated the H-53.

Understood...my only point is that military spending was nevertheless a ton of $, but how it was prioritized to be spent evidently didn't meet the actual needs of the moment.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/histo ... lspend.htm

Defense spending as a percentage of GDP actually went up during the Carter years versus late Nixon/Ford.

Look at spending compared to the height of the Vietman war. D spending in the Carter years was down compared to before & after, at a time when things were worn out from Vietnam & becoming obsolete, & we were switching to an all volunteer force which cost more.

In 79 or 80, Carter's SecDef was booed when he came to address the squadrons & test center engineers & flight crews at Pax River.
The hangar's were filled with cannibalized hangar queens, In SD in '75-77 we were taking components off of up aircraft, driving them to LAX, shipping them comml air to our Dets in WPac, circumventing an empty supply chain. The military really was hollowed out.

2019 documentary Desert One premiered on History Channel last night. Very well done and should apologize to Cradle as it contained evidence of how Iranians politically used and then desecrated the dead prior to returning the remains for burial here. Despicable. It also gruesomely detailed how those men died in an inferno created by the collision of one helo and the C130 and why survivors could not take those remains as they could not wait for the fire to subside with daylight coming. Truly awful.

Even in defeat, those involved did heroic service despite a complex plan driven largely by political motives for an upcoming election. On one level one could empathise with President Carter over his disappointment and agony as things unraveled, you ultimately could sense his political motives taking over at points. Murphy's Law and other complications doomed the mission almost from the outset. Interesting to note that, unlike the Osama mission, there was no real-time communications between those on the ground and military command.

Well worth your time, to invest two hours but be ready for some visceral material.

Also note the weather phenomenon HABOOB (or dust storm) and how it played adversely into the situation as well especially for the helos.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10793982/reference

relevant articles for analysis/context

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0199desertone/

https://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/buck.pdf

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/l ... eport.html

[Farfromgeneva]

My wife and I are helping to sponsor an Afghan family being resettled in the state. Nothing wrong with helping those that need help.

+1 that is awesome

+2 there are approximately 300 Afghan refugees being sent to Rochester NY. My wife and I have dug up a bunch of warm cloths in good shape. We are going to donate the old pots and pans and china that we don't use anymore. There will be donations accepted soon for non perishable foods. I could not be more happy to welcome these folks to upstate NY. So many of them sacrificed everything they had and then lost it helping our soldiers. Welcome to America and we got your six.

If they are anything like Laotian refuges the will toughen up the area ten fold. Binghamton, at the time anyway, had the largest Laotian refugee center in the country. I was friend with some of those kids (thankfully) who all had shortened names like “Toto” or “Van” but while many were super nice and glad I got to know them I watched them break arms and legs in fights in 6th/7th grade just to make sure a fight was over when we all saw it was over already. One of them left for Boston and was a prep cook for a while at a legit spot after high school, came back to our area and couldn’t even get a gig washing dishes at Red Lobster so he and his dad scraped some money together along with a lot of labor and an SBA loan and started a highly successful local restaurant on the river on Front St that was a sex toy shop when we were in HS that’s called Thai Time. That’s an American success story. It may not be as good as my spots in DC/NYC/Atlanta but best of its kind in the area and very good for what you’d get in upstate/WNY in general so I’d encourage anyone going through there to check it out.

[tech37]

My wife and I are helping to sponsor an Afghan family being resettled in the state. Nothing wrong with helping those that need help.

+1 that is awesome

Yeah nice. Nice to have resources to do so...count your blessings. Too bad TLD felt the need to come on and wave his flag about it. His altruism would have been so much more impressive without the self-promotion. The need to feel accepted, or I'm better than you virtue signaling by some on here, is amazing. Just my opinion...

[Brooklyn]

Last week, China pledged $31 million worth of food, medicine, and COVID-19 vaccines, to Afghanistan, the first sizeable foreign-aid promise from a major nation since August 15.

Strange how we are not hearing calls for reparations from anywhere. Since Republicans wanted this war so much and defended it so strenuously, how much is the party willing to fork over to the Afghans after losing the war?

[cradleandshoot]

My wife and I are helping to sponsor an Afghan family being resettled in the state. Nothing wrong with helping those that need help.

+1 that is awesome

+2 there are approximately 300 Afghan refugees being sent to Rochester NY. My wife and I have dug up a bunch of warm cloths in good shape. We are going to donate the old pots and pans and china that we don't use anymore. There will be donations accepted soon for non perishable foods. I could not be more happy to welcome these folks to upstate NY. So many of them sacrificed everything they had and then lost it helping our soldiers. Welcome to America and we got your six.

If they are anything like Laotian refuges the will toughen up the area ten fold. Binghamton, at the time anyway, had the largest Laotian refugee center in the country. I was friend with some of those kids (thankfully) who all had shortened names like “Toto” or “Van” but while many were super nice and glad I got to know them I watched them break arms and legs in fights in 6th/7th grade just to make sure a fight was over when we all saw it was over already. One of them left for Boston and was a prep cook for a while at a legit spot after high school, came back to our area and couldn’t even get a gig washing dishes at Red Lobster so he and his dad scraped some money together along with a lot of labor and an SBA loan and started a highly successful local restaurant on the river on Front St that was a sexy toy shop when we were in HS that’s called Thai Time. That’s an American success story. It may not be as good as my spots in DC/NYC/Atlanta but best of its kind in the area and very good for what you’d get in upstate/WNY in general so I’d encourage anyone going through there to check it out.

We don't know anything about them. If they had been left in Afghanistan they probably would be dead very shortly. Time will tell, my guess is they will be very grateful to have a chance to live in freedom. These are people that already risked their lives to help our soldiers in their country. IMO we owe everyone of them we can bring to our country a debt of thanks. I'm guessing these new arrivals will have no idea about the tradition of Halloween and people with skeletons with blazing LED lights in their front yards.

[Brooklyn]

We don't know anything about them. If they had been left in Afghanistan they probably would be dead very shortly. Time will tell, my guess is they will be very grateful to have a chance to live in freedom. These are people that already risked their lives to help our soldiers in their country. IMO we owe everyone of them we can bring to our country a debt of thanks. I'm guessing these new arrivals will have no idea about the tradition of Halloween and people with skeletons with blazing LED lights in their front yards.

Traitors usually have to face the hangman's rope so that in this case they were lucky the Taliban showed mercy and allowed them to leave. But I saw something interesting on one of those conspiracy websites on youtube: some right wing conspiracy freak said the Taliban released 5,000 prisoners when they took over in Kabul. That when they did so, some of those prisoners were allowed into the groups claiming asylum in the West and that they were permitted to enter unvetted into our shores. That by doing this, supposedly, the Taliban or others associated with it are now here without any government oversight. And that this was done in order to increase our nation's vulnerability to domestic terrorism. Sounds like more tin hat stuff to me, but I bet the right wing will soon make a meal out of it.

[Farfromgeneva]

We don't know anything about them. If they had been left in Afghanistan they probably would be dead very shortly. Time will tell, my guess is they will be very grateful to have a chance to live in freedom. These are people that already risked their lives to help our soldiers in their country. IMO we owe everyone of them we can bring to our country a debt of thanks. I'm guessing these new arrivals will have no idea about the tradition of Halloween and people with skeletons with blazing LED lights in their front yards.

Traitors usually have to face the hangman's rope so that in this case they were lucky the Taliban showed mercy and allowed them to leave. But I saw something interesting on one of those conspiracy websites on youtube: some right wing conspiracy freak said the Taliban released 5,000 prisoners when they took over in Kabul. That when they did so, some of those prisoners were allowed into the groups claiming asylum in the West and that they were permitted to enter unvetted into our shores. That by doing this, supposedly, the Taliban or others associated with it are now here without any government oversight. And that this was done in order to increase our nation's vulnerability to domestic terrorism. Sounds like more tin hat stuff to me, but I bet the right wing will soon make a meal out of it.

My post was more that all these declining cities and towns in places like Upstate and WNY conflate hard life with tough but wait until they see people who came from really hard lives and are really tough.

Edit: it’s a rough way of thinking about it but simply looking at avg life and mortality rates would indicate that these folks have been nurtured to value a life less than anyone in the United States by virtue of the risk to life there

[MDlaxfan76]

I linked to the numbers, adjusted to 1996 dollars. Including inflation, obviously.

...& according to your link, there were fewer of those constant dollars available 76-79 than in the years before & after. Fact.
During a time of rising military pay & energy prices.

0.5% less than the year prior, about 1-1.5%% less than the 4 years avg. and no, those are inflation adjusted dollars. Lots of money.

I guess in your world, as the military was shrinking fast from its Vietnam era expenditures, they should have actually spent more money...

I just think you might consider that there was plenty of money, and focus more on how it was being prioritized. I think that likely remains the biggest challenge in defense budget management. Not insufficient $.

[Farfromgeneva]

I linked to the numbers, adjusted to 1996 dollars. Including inflation, obviously.

...& according to your link, there were fewer of those constant dollars available 76-79 than in the years before & after. Fact.
During a time of rising military pay & energy prices.

0.5% less than the year prior, about 1-1.5%% less than the 4 years avg. and no, those are inflation adjusted dollars. Lots of money.

I guess in your world, as the military was shrinking fast from its Vietnam era expenditures, they should have actually spent more money...

I just think you might consider that there was plenty of money, and focus more on how it was being prioritized. I think that likely remains the biggest challenge in defense budget management. Not insufficient $.

This would be the nicest reply you can get and it’s written by Aaron Sorkin but ignores or misunderstands everything from procurement to the iron triangle and revolving door.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7R9kH_HOUXM