what the hell is Obama doing? US shipped 3,000 tons of weapons to Syrian rebels

[Christians4LessGvt]

US arms shipment to Syrian rebels detailed

Jeremy Binnie, London and Neil Gibson, London -

IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
07 April 2016
   
A still from a video released by the Syrian rebel group Jaish al-Izzah on 16 December 2015 shows one of its fighters preparing to fire an ATGW that could be either a 9K111 Fagot or a 9K111M Faktoria, the two being externally identical. Jaish al-Izzah also uses US-made TOW ATGWs. Source: Jaish al-Izzah
Simplified packing list for December 2015 arms shipment

Type

Weight (kg)

Aqaba

Agalar

Total

7.62x39 mm   85,190   48,998   134,188
7.62x54 mm   58,752   8,652   67,404
12.7 mm   81,468.40   36,713   118,181
14.5 mm   196,233.76   173,447   369,681
82 mm   53,885.34      53,885
PG-7VM   0.00   68,600   68,600
PG-7VT   36,795   88,224.00   125,019
9M111M   13,540   8,153   21,693
AK-47 & DShK*   12,250      12,250
AK-47 & PKM*      6,540   6,540
PKM   6,340      6,340
DShK & RPG-7*      3,585   3,585
RPG-7   4,120      4,120
Faktoria launchers   2,421.60   298   2,720
Total   550,996   443,210   994,206

* The packing list merged some categories

Documents released by the US government's Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website have provided an indication of the types and numbers of Eastern European weapons and ammunition the United States is providing to Syrian rebel groups as part of a programme that continues despite the widely respected ceasefire in that country.

The FBO has released two solicitations in recent months looking for shipping companies to transport explosive material from Eastern Europe to the Jordanian port of Aqaba on behalf of the US Navy's Military Sealift Command.

Released on 3 November 2015, the first solicitation sought a contractor to ship 81 containers of cargo that included explosive material from Constanta in Bulgaria to Aqaba.

The solicitation was subsequently updated with a detailed packing list that showed the cargo had a total weight of 994 tonnes, a little under half of which was to be unloaded at Agalar, a military pier near the Turkish town of Tasucu, the other half at Aqaba.

The cargo listed in the document included AK-47 rifles, PKM general-purpose machine guns, DShK heavy machine guns, RPG-7 rocket launchers, and 9K111M Faktoria anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) systems. The Faktoria is an improved version of the 9K111 Fagot ATGW, the primary difference being that its missile has a tandem warhead for defeating explosive reactive armour (ERA) fitted to some tanks.

http://www.janes.com/article/59374/us-arms-shipment-to-syrian-rebels-detailed#.VwfSpE0TX6g.twitter

[Xavier_Onassis]

One hopes that they are going to the good rebels, and not the bad ones,

[Plane]

has a tandem warhead for defeating explosive reactive armour (ERA) fitted to some tanks.

That is pretty neat.

ERA is installed on several Russian tanks , and Israeli.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If some Republican were elected, then suddenly doing this exact same thing would be celebrated as the Right Thing to Do. But for the right wing, Obama can do nothing right, ever.

[Plane]

I am familiar with this concept , especially because I observed hilarious examples of catch 22 or dammed if you do and dammed if you don't applied to everything President Bush ever did.

But President Obama is a genuine bonehead in military matters.
The aid he has given to Assad's opponents has been late and weak and small.

If he means to really help , what is giving less than half enough good for?

At least when President Bush did this same sort of thing he was more committed and effective.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Juniorbush was NOT "effective"  He was a major screw up from the very beginning. He should never have invaded.

[Plane]

Juniorbush was NOT "effective"  He was a major screw up from the very beginning. He should never have invaded.

Try to remember you said this, as we invade some more.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is why we have not invaded even more.

[Plane]

That is why we have not invaded even more.

You are not paying attention.

Or perhaps you don't count acts of war committed with robots?

President Obama says that no one has taken out more terrorists than he has, and he is doing it in more locations.

So what would a spreading war look like?

[Xavier_Onassis]

We have a war with very few American casualties.

When Americans start coming home in body bags, that is when the antiwar movement grows.

Obama knows this and acts accordingly.

Bush & Cheney considered our soldiers to be trailer trash and therefore expendable.

[sirs]

Under those parameters, Presidents Roosevelt & Lincoln must have been the worst Presidents to soldiers, we've ever seen

 

[sirs]

Let's add some persepctive:
Revolutionary War - 25,000+ lives lost
WWI - 116,000+ soldiers lives lost
WWII - 405,000+ soldiers lives lost
Civil War - 750,000+ soldiers lives lost

Iraq war - less than 5000 soldiers lives lost

Rarely, is there any evidence of a President classifying any soldier's life as "expendable".  If war could be waged with 0 lives lost, that would be miraculous.  So, when we are at war, the goal of war is to win it with the least causualties possible.  If you just throw soldiers, without any strategy, you may get a win, but at a great human cost.  If you try waging war with pin prick strikes, you may not lose any soldiers, but you'll never win, and the war simply gets dragged on, with no end in sight

What the Bush's did with Iraq, with the leadership of Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, Tommy Franks, and yes, David Petraeus, they wanted to bring the war to their respective ends, ASAP.  And they did.  And the loss of life as a percentage of our military force, compared to other wars, is a mere fraction in loss of life, compared to other wars

No, Xo, you're arguing the wrong point.  Both Bush's were highly caring for their troops, and managed to wage war with a staggeringly low amount of military lives lost.  What you need to be arguing is the tangent that H makes, that of were the wars justified in the 1st place.  And not the debunked nonesense about Bush lying us into war, and no, not about the nonesense of a nuke being shot from Bagdad, aimed for Manhattan.  Those are garbage attempts at trying to mislead and mirepresent what's been said.   Actual points about should we have gone in, and why not.  Its the notion of should we have gone in, because Saddam wasn't really that much of a threat to the region and/or didn't really have much in the way of connections to terrorist cells, headed by AlQeada, following the events of 911.  THAT's your strongest, most credible thread.  Try not to break it