to be fair australia is probably one of the few 'first world' countries with infrastructure new enough to not have this problem. UK's roads are potholed to hell, as well.
weve needed a new bridge for years and the city is still slowly figuring it out
On June 21, 2011, chunks of concrete from the upper deck of the bridge fell onto the lower deck.
potholes vary by city. some places spend money on keeping the roads in good shape others use it to buy police cars and swat teams.
On June 21, 2011, chunks of concrete from the upper deck of the bridge fell onto the lower deck.
potholes vary by city. some places spend money on keeping the roads in good shape others use it to buy police cars and swat teams.
thanks obama
too busy murdering innocent 13yo kids with $35,000 missiles to prove a point to their dead terrorist relatives.
We can always order more. Land of the excess!Operation Junkyard: US scrapping 'tons' of equipment as Afghan exit looms
As the US military prepares to complete its withdrawal from Afghanistan next year, it is deliberately destroying billions of dollars worth of sophisticated equipment, according to The Washington Post.
The US military is confronted with the logistical problem of what to do with millions of pounds worth of vehicles and other military equipment presently parked in Afghanistan, where the United States is winding down a nearly 12-year military operation.
Instead of donating the equipment to the fledgling Afghan security forces, who are expected to keep the peace following the US pullout, or perhaps selling the equipment to some third-party nation, the US will engage in a “massive disposal effort, which US military officials call unprecedented,” the Washington Post reported.
In total, the US military will not be shipping home “more than $7 billion worth of equipment — about 20 percent of what the US military has in Afghanistan — because it is no longer needed or would be too costly to ship back home,” the report continued.
The US military has already destroyed more than 77,000 metric tons of military equipment, it added.
According to the Post, donating all that military equipment to the Afghan contingency “would be challenging because of complicated rules governing equipment donations to other countries.” At the same time, there is concern that Afghanistan’s fledgling forces would end up shooting itself in the proverbial foot with all that lethal hardware lying around.
This begs the question: What is the purpose of US military advisers hanging around in Afghanistan after next year’s withdrawal if not to give advice on such crucial matters?
As for selling the equipment to “allied nations,” that possibility was also brushed aside because “few are likely to be able to retrieve it from the war zone.” But if Afghanistan is still considered to be a "war zone" why are US forces in such a hurry to exit?
That leaves the US military, Uncle Sam’s prodigal son, with just one option, which is a bit hard to fathom in the post-crisis age of belt-tightening austerity measures: Call in the Afghan scrap dealers to cut up and haul away the equipment that will eventually be sold for “pennies per pound on the Afghan scrap market.”
The Post article floats the argument that the scrapping of military hardware “reflects a presumptive end to an era of protracted ground wars.” However, it could also mark the start of another round of expensive weapon procurements courtesy of the ‘military-industrial complex’ that at least one former US leader has warned on.
After all, when the final tally is made as to how much military equipment the US military ‘lost’ in the 12-year war in Afghanistan, it will certainly not hurt the bottom line of defense industry contractors if the loss is considered significant.
However, as the article admits, the scrapping of “tons of equipment is all but certain to raise sharp questions in Afghanistan and the United States about whether the Pentagon’s approach is fiscally responsible and whether it should find ways to leave a greater share to the Afghans.”
Pricey MRAPs to be junked
Much of the military scrapping process involves the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, which the Pentagon mass-produced in 2007 to counter the threat of roadside improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Afghanistan.
In May 2007, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called the acquisition of MRAPs the Department of Defense's highest priority. In total, more than 24,000 MRAPs were built for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, ultimately costing taxpayers an estimated $ 45 billion dollars, according to Pentagon figures.
In Afghanistan, the military has categorized around 2,000 of some 11,000 MRAPs “excess,” the Post reported. Of these, about 9,000 will be shipped to the United States and US “military bases in Kuwait and elsewhere.”
The majority of the unwanted vehicles, which cost taxpayers about $1 million each, will be sold to Afghan scrap dealers.
“MRAPs have served us well in the current war, but we will not need all that we bought for Iraq and Afghanistan in the future,” Alan Estevez, the assistant secretary of defense for logistics and materiel readiness, said in a statement. “It is cost prohibitive to retrograde and reset MRAPs that we do not need for the future.”
The MRAPs that the Pentagon has decided to scrap have been arriving “by the dozen” at junkyards at four US bases in Afghanistan in recent months.
Although the move to send millions of dollars’ worth of MRAPs to the junkyard could be interpreted as the “end of protracted ground wars,” it could signal the dawn of drone warfare, which has increased exponentially since the early days of the war in Afghanistan.
Robert Bridge is the author of the book, Midnight in the American Empire, which discusses the dangerous consequences of extreme corporate power in the United States.
http://rt.com/news/afghanistan-us-withdrawal-war-003/
Last edited by 13/f/taiwan (2013-06-20 13:16:27)
Have any of you eaten at an American Diner? The servings are enormous.
GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world's communications
Exclusive: British spy agency collects and stores vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook posts, internet histories and calls, and shares them with NSA, latest documents from Edward Snowden reveal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/2 … CMP=twt_gu
Don't know if we should be angry, or jealous that you beat us at something
Exclusive: British spy agency collects and stores vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook posts, internet histories and calls, and shares them with NSA, latest documents from Edward Snowden reveal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/2 … CMP=twt_gu
Don't know if we should be angry, or jealous that you beat us at something
gchq is based in my hometown and i know about 3 guys that work there. mostly on the IT/network side of things, though. only serious top-nobs work there in the actual code-breaking or intelligence stuff. i think it sucks. seems the PRISM crap facilitated a decent amount of it as well. the US is the worst influence on the UK, period. i wish we just hung around with france all the time. you guys are cunts.
I'd say the UK was a far worse influence on the US than the US ever was on the UK.
Our so called "imperialism" is mere childs play compared to the past imperialism and horrible shit that's been done in the name of the crown. The majority of the worlds current problems are direct result of past British decisions. Fuck, even America, which you seem to loath, is a result of poor British decisions.
Blame yourselves cunt.
Our so called "imperialism" is mere childs play compared to the past imperialism and horrible shit that's been done in the name of the crown. The majority of the worlds current problems are direct result of past British decisions. Fuck, even America, which you seem to loath, is a result of poor British decisions.
Blame yourselves cunt.
the majority of the world's current problems are the result of british crown? uh. i think you should read a book.
america is a poor decision on our part though, yeah, i agree. we shouldn't have let you win that war. was a throwaway trifle to us at the time. too busy in europe.
america is a poor decision on our part though, yeah, i agree. we shouldn't have let you win that war. was a throwaway trifle to us at the time. too busy in europe.
Read a book? I suggest you READ a fucking book.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the majority of the world's current problems are the result of british crown? uh. i think you should read a book.
The majority of the worlds problems have taken place in, around, for or because of the areas, countries, people or resources of the middle east. Those problems are a direct result of British actions. Read a book about the Sykes-Picot agreement sometime. Or maybe, the Iranian Revolution rings a bell? Or perhaps the concept of Israel, which was suggested by, taken seriously for the first time, and later heralded by, yep, the British. The Versailles treaty was a pretty neat co-op between mostly Britain and France and bungled to the point that radicals were able to come to power in Germany in the 30's and.....well, you know. Good job. Should we even go on about India and all the fun stuff that rippled down throughout history over that?
Good thing too, because the next couple of times you guys got busy in Europe, that throwaway provided you with munitions, food, oil and troops so you guys wouldn't have to sing the Horst Wessel song. Later on we provided you with munitions, food, oil and troops so you wouldn't have to sing the Soviet anthem. Always someone wanting you to sing an anthem...........maybe you should try "O' Say can you see".Uzique The Lesser wrote:
america is a poor decision on our part though, yeah, i agree. we shouldn't have let you win that war. was a throwaway trifle to us at the time. too busy in europe.
the israel-palestine settlement suggested by the brits is 100x better than any current-day situ.
also LOL at the versailles treaty and the iranian revolution.
haaaaaaaaaaahahahaha.
and how are you blaming india's state on britain? india-pakistan is what they wanted. british overseers didn't. it was a bad move from gandhi.
also LOL at the versailles treaty and the iranian revolution.
haaaaaaaaaaahahahaha.
and how are you blaming india's state on britain? india-pakistan is what they wanted. british overseers didn't. it was a bad move from gandhi.
Ohh, so I guess your PRIME FUCKING MINISTER going to Pakistan and telling everyone that Britain is the source of the majority of the worlds problems and that Pakistan's current situation is a direct result of British policy is just me being a dumbass then. I could only imagine what you would say if an American president said ANYTHING like that.
And yes, contrary to popular brainwashing, I believe 100% that Britain and France were the sole reason the world plunged into WWII. A direct result of the Treaty of Versailles and the poor treatment of the Germans afterwards caused that shit.
And yes, contrary to popular brainwashing, I believe 100% that Britain and France were the sole reason the world plunged into WWII. A direct result of the Treaty of Versailles and the poor treatment of the Germans afterwards caused that shit.
i would suggest to you the cause of ww2 was ww1. and the cause of that lies in the history of weimar and the politics of the austro-hungarian empire. isolating versailles is arbitrary and stupid. hitler and a whole generation of germans/austrians were alienated by the conflict itself. and it was a war, they lost. UK is not the only nation to handle victory like... well, victors.
also well done for taking politicking and PR-managed visits as bible-like truth. idiot. guess obama is a crypto-nazi cause he sucked merkel's tit last week in berlin. derp. it's called diplomacy.
also well done for taking politicking and PR-managed visits as bible-like truth. idiot. guess obama is a crypto-nazi cause he sucked merkel's tit last week in berlin. derp. it's called diplomacy.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-21 15:55:01)
I never said Britain caused WWI, they did not. They most certainly had a hand in causing WWII. The Wiemar Republic failed because they tried to adhere to the demands of the French and British and to the absolutely unfair Versailles treaty. You guys shit on a group of people so hard that you made a man like Hitler look like a pretty good idea, mainly because he didn't give a shit about the treaty or what you had to say about it. Even the invasion of Poland was a direct result of post-war politics because you cut Germany in fucking half. Hitler was even quoted as saying before the invasion "Who would start another world war over Danzig?". FUCKING BRITAIN WOULD!Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i would suggest to you the cause of ww2 was ww1. and the cause of that lies in the history of weimar and the politics of the austro-hungarian empire. isolating versailles is arbitrary and stupid. hitler and a whole generation of germans/austrians were alienated by the conflict itself. and it was a war, they lost. UK is not the only nation to handle victory like... well, victors.
As far as victors acting like victors.....you mean the Marshall Plan right? That's the one where America essentially paid money to the losers. I know, you wouldn't know anything about that. American bastards, stabilizing Europe and shit, freakin assholes.
Nice comeback, where'd you get it? The toilet store?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
also well done for taking politicking and PR-managed visits as bible-like truth. idiot. guess obama is a crypto-nazi cause he sucked merkel's tit last week in berlin. derp. it's called diplomacy.
Really, you know you have nothing to come back with when you say Merkel is anything resembling a Nazi. Russia is that way ------>
Britain built some ships for the Germans, breaking the Versailles treaty. They did it because someone was going to do it anyway, and if Britain built it then at least they would know exactly what tonnage Germany had.
Fun fact.
Fun fact.
Even-stevens I suppose since most of the German fleet took up permanent residence in the Scapa Flow.Adams_BJ wrote:
Britain built some ships for the Germans, breaking the Versailles treaty. They did it because someone was going to do it anyway, and if Britain built it then at least they would know exactly what tonnage Germany had.
Fun fact.
the german and british establishments were incredibly close. both wars in europe were essentially family arguments at the dinner table.
Nope. Try again.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the german and british establishments were incredibly close. both wars in europe were essentially family arguments at the dinner table.
Dude, put down the pipe and crawl out of the opium den, you're sucking today.
research family ties and history of fascism in little england. many countryside toffs flirted with both the bosch and fascism. our landed gentry are all connected. tell me some more from your amazon reading list.
None of that has anything to do with WWI nor it's cause. Family ties and monarchies played into 0% of the causes for WWI or WWII.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
research family ties and history of fascism in little england. many countryside toffs flirted with both the bosch and fascism. our landed gentry are all connected. tell me some more from your amazon reading list.
where did i say that? i said our establishments were close. think you may like to check a dictionary.