YocumRidge Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 If congress wants to know where those $400 went (and continue to go!), all they have to do is to check in the pockets of the private "contractors" that Dicky, Rummy, Wolfey, Bushy and Co. hired to provide logistical support for the wars. Even Wall Street have not come up with a better way to siphon public tax $$ into private pockets! http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_rutl Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 did you even read the article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 i don't know how to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_rutl Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YocumRidge Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 Are you saying you prefer $1000 per gallon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 You and your government (Bush era) is spending $50,000 per fish (fifty thousand dollars per fish, not a misprint) and I'd think you'd be pretty worried, pissed and concerned about that too, but not a word hey? Hey, it's only paper, piss it away and flush it down, the taxpayers always have more. did you even read the article? She probably did what most of us do in those situations, our knees jerk upon reading the first paragraph and knocks us senseless, silly or both. Angry response ensures. Probably a good thing that no one has calculated how much money each dead Taliban or Al Queefer insurgent costs us. Make those fish look cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_rutl Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 nada mito! the article was realated to the fully burdened cost of fuel by the military to the military...$400 per gallon in logistical, transportation and protection costs is the info to speak about...if it were truly about Bush and his Admin's "alliances" Obama and his Admin have had 8 months to rectify so i dont think that would be the case...if it were he wouldnt have stepped up operations pumping more $400-$1000 gallons of gas out of the tank while i'll say contractors are giving the best deal on their "services"...why rail on about things that arent pertinent to the article in question...tis all i was getting at! T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Apparently our problem is fuel efficiency because these guys could kick America's ass just fine with pickups and donkeys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YocumRidge Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 nada mito! if it were truly about Bush and his Admin's "alliances" Obama and his Admin have had 8 months to rectify so i dont think that would be the case...if it were he wouldnt have stepped up operations pumping more $400-$1000 gallons of gas out of the tank while i'll say contractors are giving the best deal on their "services"...why rail on about things that arent pertinent to the article in question. Oh, really? UNLESS you have not noticed, other than reversing Bush' stem cell policy, we are still in Dubya's Dark Ages! All the wars are fine and doing well, thank-you-very-much, there is no health care reform ... need I go on? What is 8 months to rectify the B's leftovers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I don't think $400 is exhorbitant for transporting fuel to the front...think about it, its either in convoy or in airlift...its not rocket science... now if the base price was $400, then there'd be some serious issues... is the war worth it? that's another debate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 one must wonder what the fully burdened cost of transporting a slew of brand new Petzl QD's to an A0 boltline in central oregon is to a yuppie climber... It must surely be more than the $22.95 cost per draw that the Evil Empire (aka REI) charges at the checkout counter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I don't think $400 is exhorbitant for transporting fuel to the front...think about it, its either in convoy or in airlift Maybe if they are transporting from the USA....but arent they transporting from where they make the shit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Maybe if they are transporting from the USA....but arent they transporting from where they make the shit? yeah all they need to do is like drive a truck over to the nearest oil well and fill 'er up why does it cost so much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_rutl Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Oh, really? UNLESS you have not noticed, other than reversing Bush' stem cell policy, we are still in Dubya's Dark Ages! All the wars are fine and doing well, thank-you-very-much, there is no health care reform ... need I go on? What is 8 months to rectify the B's leftovers? regardless...the $400 per gallon of fuel has little if any "contractor" influence as you proclaimed...if i am wrong, please show some supporting information and i will withdraw my statement and agree with you but per your article: Military transport is used to distribute fuel to forward operating bases. For many remote locations, this means fuel supplies must be provided by air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I don't think $400 is exhorbitant for transporting fuel to the front...think about it, its either in convoy or in airlift Maybe if they are transporting from the USA....but arent they transporting from where they make the shit? yer a moron...i don't recall reading about refineries or drilling in afghanistan... now...if you were talking the unburdened cost of dope and opium, ok, then you are onto something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 The Army uses 12 times more fuel per deployed soldier per day than it did during WWII. Hasn't helped us win wars any faster, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 afterburning does that...the modern tvash is quite a bit bigger than the younger one too!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Actually, the modern tvash is exactly the same size as the younger one...but more fuel efficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 yeah...i'm more fuel efficient now for sure...hell, i look at a cheeseburger and i gain five pounds!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Whatever you say, Mary-Kate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.