lots cheaper than having them used against us.
This all could have been avoided if Obama had sent the A-10s and attack helicopters to destroy the columns of ISIS as they rolled over the border.
Our armature government has lost credibility again world wide so the cost is another piece of credibility.
“dont do stupid sh!t”, say the obamites. I would think that blowing up your own weapons is “stupid sh!t”.
Anytime we leave a country we should destroy all military infrastructure we built and bring all weapons home.
Obama continues to downsize our military capacity.
3 Seals and an Ambassador?
We left billions of dollars of equipment and munitions in Iraq. The vehicles probably still had the keys in them. Gee, I wonder why? If you’re going to have a war, you need a well-equipped enemy.
Although this thread seems like something Cindy Sheehan would post, it does present an important subject for discussion.
If all these weapons are paid for by the country where it exists the people of that country own them and I couldn't care less how they deal with the double problem of holding their privileged position of limitless graft, and of having those weapons, which he previously totally controlled, used against him.
How those weapons are neutralized is his problem.
On the other hand, if the weapons are 'given," by the United States, willy-nilly to all sides of a conflict, The House of Representatives, the ONLY Constitutionally authorized keepers of the national purse, must put their big boy pants on and put an end to it. Period. permanently.
If the present version of the subject problem is not one of the above, I would love to learn what it might be.