# Where our funds are going



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I don't like to quote or parrot sites or stations very often, especially regarding political matters, but this time something really caught my ear. I was listening to a 60 minutes program on the radio, and one of the reporters noted how money is being spent so improperly in the military. We are spending literal billions on outdated weapons of war. Nuclear submarines are essientally useless in this post cold war world, yet we invested in several of them just a year back. Stealth bombers are now useless, but we invested in 21 of them last year. Battleships, which have never been of much benefit are still being bought for wars which we will never see the likes of again. These all add up to higher taxes, and wasted funds which could be used to update the vehicles of war now in use, humvees and foot soldiers.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

WOW!!!!!!!!!!! All this from 60 minutes. I am impressed uke: :toofunny:


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I'm guessing some money went here. By Ralph R. Reiland 
Published 10/18/2004 12:05:34 AM

The big news is that the U.N. has flunked "the global test." And as big as it is, it's a story that isn't likely to find its way into the newspaper that trumpets "All the news that's fit to print" in the upper left corner of its front page every day. To find that "the global community" is made up of a bunch of crooks, that "the global test" is a racket, and that John Kerry is either utterly naïve or in cahoots with these global con artists is something that's just too unfit to think about, let alone broadcast to the masses, especially right before election day.

The whole shady story is in the Duelfer report. And while the Old Gray Lady in Manhattan tried valiantly to blur the real news under the headline "U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's," what the report from the CIA's Iraq Survey Group shows is that Saddam Hussein played the United Nations like a fiddle.

Highlighted in the first line of its "Key Findings," the Duelfer report states that Saddam "wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted." To get there, Saddam set up an epic bribery scheme that put three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council in his pocket.

"It's pretty clear that the Iraqi strategy and tactics of dividing the Security Council were having a fair amount of success," said Charles Duelfer, the chief of the Iraq Survey Group, in public testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime."

Saddam got within striking distance by corrupting the Oil-for-Food Program. With the U.N. in the role of overseer, Saddam was given a green light to sell oil in order to get funds to import "humanitarian goods." Instead, as Duelfer told Congress, Saddam exploited the program to pile up billions in illicit money, import military items expressly banned by U.N. sanctions, and develop a massive kickback scheme to buy the votes and influence of strategic individuals and countries.

Especially targeted by Saddam were three veto-wielding members of the Security Council -- Russia, France, and China. The bait was cut-rate oil vouchers which could be offloaded on the world markets at the going rate or surreptitiously swapped for cash. The alleged beneficiaries identified by the Survey Group included individuals with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and French President Jacques Chirac, i.e., Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, retired UN Oil-for-Food director Benon Sevan, and former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua.

In a shrewd tactic to rake in millions for himself, Saddam ordered voucher recipients to pay kickbacks. Duelfer reports that recipients made the payments by carrying bags of cash to Iraqi embassies in Moscow, Geneva, Ankara, Amman, Beirut and Hanoi, among other places.

By the time it was over, 45 percent of Saddam's cut-rate vouchers had found their way into pockets in France and Russia, with Russia and France subsequently becoming the two most vociferous opponents of military action against Iraq. France went further, assuring Saddam that it would use its veto in the Security Council to prevent any invasion.

Having successfully corrupted and divided the international community, Saddam was a step away from celebrating the end of sanctions and reconstituting his WMD programs. As described by New York Times columnist David Brooks: "With sanctions weakening and money flowing, Saddam rebuilt his strength. He contacted WMD scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40."

Iraqi nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi, writing in the New York Times on September 26, stated that "our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary." Additionally, Duelfer reports that Saddam "clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems" for missiles with strike capacities in excess of 600 miles.

The problem for John Kerry? It seems increasingly far-fetched to say that Saddam wasn't a threat, or that we're the ones running a "coalition of the bribed," or that U.S. moves should pass a "global test."


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

what does this have to do with the issue at hand? You can't pop any random article that you agreed with into a post and expect it to be swallowed.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Here is some more of our useless military.

NORFOLK, Va. - With bells ringing and horns blaring, the Navy on Saturday commissioned the lead ship of its latest class of fast-attack submarines specifically designed for post-Cold War (search) security threats.

The $2.2 billion, nuclear-powered USS Virginia (search) differs from other submarines because it can not only roam the deep blue ocean but also get close to shore in shallow water, which Navy officials say is important in fighting terrorism.

Lynda Johnson Robb (search), daughter of President Lyndon Johnson and wife of former Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., gave the traditional order to "man our ship and bring her to life" in ceremonies at Norfolk Naval Station, the world's largest Navy base.

"Aye, aye, ma'am," the crew of about 130 responded. They then raced up both ends of the sub and lined up on deck as a Navy band played "Anchors Aweigh."

The 377-foot-long sub is the first to be built without a periscope, using a high-resolution digital camera instead. That meant the control room, which always had to be directly below the periscope, could be moved to a larger space in the sub's lower deck.

The Virginia also can launch unmanned undersea vehicles. Other improvements include a new computerized autopilot designed to reduce stress on the crew and a reconfigurable torpedo room that can hold extra beds for special operations forces.

In his keynote address, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said the Virginia will help lead the fight against terrorism.

"We cannot ever blink. We cannot ever flinch. We cannot yield," said Warner, a former Navy secretary. "This ship will very definitely play a role in that war on terror."

The sub is the first of 10 Virginia-class submarines scheduled to be built through a partnership between Northrop Grumman Newport News and General Dynamics Electric Boat. The class is projected to have 30 subs.

First lady Laura Bush christened the USS Texas, the second sub in the class, at the Newport News shipyard in July.

Ralph Folger, 81, of Troy, N.Y., was among more than 4,000 invited guests at the ceremonies Saturday. He served on three subs during World War II.

"It's the newest and latest thing out and completely different from anything I've ever served on," Folger said. "It's spectacular."

Crew members were excited about the commissioning.

"It really means that we are joining the ranks of the rest of the warships," said Lt. Cmdr. Luis Molina, 34, of Jacksonville, N.C., who will serve aboard the Virginia. "You're going from a big hunk of steel that was built by the shipyard to a ship of the line."


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Please explain how our stealth bombers, nuclear subs, and battleships are useless? Seems to me they did a pretty good job of kickin butt.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

None of said machines of war were used in Iraq nor Afghanistan (to my knowledge). Battleships have never done much more than be sunk, nuclear submarines are not needed anymore because water warfare with terrorists is improbable. Stealth bombers are not necissary, full size planes with larger payloads can be used due to the low grade technology used by the insurgents/terrorists. Though it is better to have them and not need it, we should focus more on what is being used most, the individual soldier during wartime.


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

MT, your short sightedness is typical of the Liberal viewpoint. Terrorists are not long term enemies--they will be incapacitated as technology matures. As we speak, I am designing active defense mechanisms to render RPG's useless and detect explosives on suicide bombers. Enemies the likes of Russia will rise again (China, Iran, North Korea). Get educated.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

By the time they do, these weapons will be outdated. Who exactly is short sighted?


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

You must be under the misguided impression that the lifespan of a weapons system is akin to that of a computer or software. Weapons systems have life spans measured in terms of a half century or longer (M-16, Bradley, Paladin, M1-Abrams, etc). We are continually upgrading these system with the latest technologies. "Battleships" were frequently used in this war to launch tomahawk cruise missiles. Nuclear subs can launch a varity of missile with various payloads--may not have been used in this war, but certainly will in future wars.


----------

