Aug 2015
Posted on 01/26/2017 12:40:05 PM PST by HarleyLady27
U.S. Army tanks recently deployed to Europe arrived at a port in Germany, some of them with dead batteries and without sufficient fuel.
The Wall Street Journal reported this week on logistical challenges that the U.S. military faced when sending an armored unit of 4,000 soldiers and 90 tanks to Europe in order to protect NATO member states and deter Russian aggression.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
When I post a thread, I like to interact with the people posting...sorry if I seem like an ‘air head’ but have a lot of people coming in and out today...
I just hope our new leaders in our military will put some steel in their spine and we don’t need to send our people anywhere...
I know we have to take care of ISIS and I’m all for that, but lets give them the things they need to bring them back safely home...we have lost way to many Veterans since 9/11 and before...
No trivial thing to spool-up a gas turbine tank engine with weak batteries. Put these tanks on a fast transport for a week/10-days without the ability to fire up the engines regularly to charge those batteries — heck, what do you expect?
Perhaps, someone found one of Hillary’s missing blackberries and decided to test it out.
One of the reasons to deploy units (with their equipments) every now and then, is to learn what goes wrong. This learning by doing is all part of the exercise. And, bigger picture, part of being able to project force to the eastern edge of the alliance.
Fulda Gap, West Germany 81-85.
2nd Plt. Delta Co. 1/11 ACR
Call sign - Delta 21
REFORGER 83-84-85
Dead batteries and calling the DAT retriever is an embarrassment.
Thanks for the Matt Lauer You-tube. I hadn’t seen that.
Of course I did see the one where Barky said to tell Vladimir I’ll have a lot more leeway after the re-election. I also have seen the news items from a black man named Obama at Patrice Lumumba University (who knows how many there were).
It’s all somewhat confusing as there are contradictory forces at work in these times. It was pretty clear that Hillary wanted a war with Russia or maybe just a convenient war somewhere to grease the way to complete control of everything and everyone because after all we’re at the mercy of the government when nukes are about to fly.
Right there at the end, when both Hillary and Obama were looking for someway (no matter how ridiculous) to stop Trump from actually taking over on the 20th, I think they were grasping at straws.
Why would Obama care if Russia attacked a NATO country. Only if we were “attacked” and couldn’t “change horses midstream in a war”...
I was living in fear that either Hillary or Obama would actually find a way for us to incite Russia to kill some of our troops (totally disposable as far as they would care).
There are so many incongruities in today’s world, but I do remember how WWII started. The only thing I could figure why the little xxxt would endanger our troops is for an incident he or she could use to derail Trump.
I also wonder why Vladimir is glued to Iran. I know there’s a possibility of a prosperous oil deal (pipeline?). But there again how can he forget Beslan?
I’m pretty glad I don’t have to know the 4 dimensional chess needed to keep the country safe. I think maybe Trump can do it.
Things will change. We have a Man in charge and he chose Men to man the departments. Remember who was in charge when those tanks and troops were sent to Europe. A fellow who always looked for ways to humiliate our country and troops.
Yes. New car manufacturers that ship cars usually have a “battery shut-off switch” that gets removed before sale.
Mr. Trump’s chance to just bring them right back home. Battery chargers/new batteries await here! ;-)
Two words, “trickle charger”.
Putin's goal is to basically restore the evil empire that was the Soviet Union, and then-some with the addition of the oil/gas-rich Middle East, which he is in the beginning stages of grabbing control of. So, of course, a nuclear-armed Iran would be a significant ally/partner given his aims.
Major: Sir, we haven’t got the supplies - it’s just a matter of logistics.
General Colt: Logistics?
Major: Yes, Sir.
General Colt: We got logistics comin’ out of our ears! What we need is fighting spirit. The will to win! Where are those aerial photographs?
"according to some calculations, the Uranium One deal, involving top Clinton donors Frank Guistra and Ian Telfer, has transferred as much as 50 percent of projected American uranium production to Kremlin control."
(snip)
"But wait — the Uranium One deal, as important and stunningly corrupt as it may be, is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
As we have been reporting here for years, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been one of Putin’s biggest enablers, facilitating enormous transfers of advanced technology to the Russian regime she now sees as a threat.
It was Secretary Clinton, please recall, who, in May 2009, presented Putin’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a red “reset” button, and then mugged with Lavrov in a giggly photo-fest celebrating the U.S.-Russian “convergence” agenda.
Clinton and Lavrov then served as joint coordinators of the U.S.-Russian Bilateral Presidential Commission established in July of that year by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The annual reports of the Bilateral Presidential Commission are replete with chummy photos of Clinton-Lavrov, Obama-Medvedev, Biden-Putin, etc., as well as details of the many deals worked out to give technology, knowhow, capital, and other resources to Moscow. ..."
***********************************************
RUSSIAGATE
Who paid Bill Clinton's $2.5 million commission and $500k speaking fee for brokering the sale of 20% of America's uranium deposits to Russia?
You are speaking about a really interesting deal that ended up giving Vladimir Putin and the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.
Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. ..."
Hook up a recovery vehicle, put the Abrams in neutral and dump it in gear at a decent speed.
It might’ve worked if the Abrams had a manual transmission.
As part of just-inaugurated President Obama’s new foreign policy to improve relations between the United States and Russia, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in March 2009. Meeting in her hotel’s Salon Panorama in Geneva, she presented him with a small gift box containing a bright red button symbolizing the Obama administration’s desire to “reset” the relationship between the two governments.
Thus began an effort to transfer American technology to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s own “Silicon Valley,” called Skolkovo. In a report released in late July by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) entitled From Russia With Money, authors Stephen Bannon and Peter Schweitzer reviewed the long sordid history of the technology transfer from companies such as Google, Intel, and Cisco of hi-tech technology with useful military applications.
The report quoted warnings from the FBI and the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth that the transfer would work against American interests. Warned the U.S. Army:
[The “reset” would serve as] a vehicle for world-wide technology transfers to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.
It was clearly a “quid pro quo” arrangement: 17 of the 28 companies involved in the technology transfer gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation or to Bill Clinton for giving some speeches.
When those authors, both of whom are affiliated with Breitbart News, summed up their conclusions, one question remained: “The GAI investigative report says it’s unclear how much, if any, money [John] Podesta made.” Podesta, having served the Clintons for years, first as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and then as counselor to President Obama and finally as Hillary’s campaign chairman, deserved a payoff.
But it wasn’t clear until the latest batch of e-mails provided by WikiLeaks went public last week that Americans now know. For his efforts Podesta received thousands of shares of common and preferred stock in one of the companies involved in the transfer. The fact came to light when WikiLeaks published e-mails Podesta sent to the company ordering it to transfer his shares to a shell corporation he had created a month earlier.
The e-mails included a letter Podesta wrote to the corporate secretary of that company instructing him to retitle 33,693 shares of preferred stock to Leonidio Holdings, LLC, a corporation that Podesta (or one of his staff) created using a Corporation Service Company to hide the shares from public view.
The company that gave Podesta the stock shares, Joule Unlimited, claims to be a producer of “alternative” energy technology that will eventually be able to produce energy that will be competitive with oil priced at $50 a barrel. It was a recipient of millions of Putin’s rubles as one of the gang of companies working to transfer American technology to Russia, one of America’s enemies.
As Schweizer told the New York Post in an interview in July:
The Clintons, they get their donations and speaking fees in the millions of dollars. The Russians get access to advanced US technology. The tech companies get special access to the Russian market and workforce….
All I ask is that people look at the money. Who made the deals, who benefited from the deals?
Thanks to WikiLeaks the “people” now know the name of at least one of those who participated in the deals and how he benefited from them: John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign manager.
Remember those side deals Obama forged with Iran that were not part of the text of the official treaty? Now we are finding out some of the details.
Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Iranian officials confirmed they have received at least $10 billion in cash, commodities, and assets from Washington since 2013. And that is likely a conservative estimate.
But cash is not the only thing the Islamic Republic of Iran is receiving for gracing us with their willingness to sign onto our own capitulation. The AP is reporting that Russia, with the support of President Obama, is shipping Iran 116 metric tons of natural uranium.
While Iranian officials have obviously declined to disclose the use of such uranium, AP notes that this is enough to enrich weapons-grade uranium for nuclear bombs:
“Despite present restrictions on its enrichment program, however, the amount of natural uranium is significant should Iran decide to keep it in storage, considering its potential uses once some limits on Tehran’s nuclear activities start to expire in less than a decade.
David Albright, whose Institute of Science and International Security often briefs U.S. lawmakers on Iran’s nuclear program, says the shipment could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium for more than 10 simple nuclear bombs, “depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon.” ...”
Former Senator Al D’Amato (R-NY) dropped a bomb on Sunday Morning Futures this AM. D’Amato told Maria Bartiromo that Hillary allowed Russia to take ownership of US uranium so they could sell it to Iran.
Hillary made it possible for the Russians to take control of one of our huge uranium producers and allow them to own the company, export the uranium and who do they sell the uranium to? Iran!
Now if people knew that and that the foundation as a result of that got $135 million. I think people would start saying, “What?”
It’s true.
In January 2013, Pravda celebrated the Russian atomic energy agency’s purchase of the company “Uranium One” in Canada.
That same company, Uranium One, owned uranium concessions in the United States. Because uranium is a strategically important commodity, the Russians would need approval from the Obama administration, including Hillary’s State Department, before the purchase took place.
Nine shareholders in Uranium One just happened to provide more than $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation in the run-up to State Department approval.
The Clintons took the cash from Uranium One officials before the deal was approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The Clintons hid the donations which is a clear violation of the Memorandum of Understanding Hillary Clinton signed with the Obama administration wherein she promised and agreed to publicly disclose all donations during her tenure as Secreatary of State. (Via Breitbart)
The New York Times reported on the crooked deal in 2015.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And then there’s this...
Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) told Greta Van Susteren the deal Hillary approved gave Putin ownership of 20 percent of US uranium and Russia sells uranium to unfriendly countries, including Iran.
Aug 2015
From Real Clear Politics, Sept 10, 2015...
"In a 2014 New Yorker interview, Obama said his goal was to create a 'new equilibrium' in the Middle East.
In the short run, at least, his signature diplomatic undertaking can be counted on to bring more violence to this volatile region.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the [Obama-Putin Iran deal] agreement is formally known, provides the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism an infusion of somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion of unfrozen assets and a great deal more of continuing revenues as businesses and governments around the world rush to profit from oil-and-gas-rich Iran's reintegration into the world economy.
The agreement relaxes the international isolation of the Islamic Republic and ratifies Tehran's status as a nuclear threshold state. And it relieves restrictions on Iran's acquisition of weapons, including ballistic missiles. ..."
There is a difference in shipping a tank from the States to Germany, where it is off loaded with a crane, and doing a combat landing on a foreign shore. For a combat landing you come a shore fully loaded and fighting. For a long distance shipment, you keep the fuel tanks nearly empty and disconnect the batteries. When we practiced rail heading our artillery pieces from Ft. Hood to Houston around 1979, one of the instructions was to have minimal diesel in the fuel tanks. Safety factor for shipping across the Atlantic.
Both times I shipped my POV to & from Germany, I was told to arrive at the port of embarkation with less than a quarter of a tank of gas. The gas cap was removed for shipment and what gas was in it was siphoned out. And the battery was disconnected. The arrival port put in a couple of gallons of gas, reconnected the batteries and drove the card to the pickup yard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.