Oil for Tanks?

[Cold_Zero]

http://www.janes.com/news/defe...shtml

Iraq orders Abrams tanks through US FMS programme By Christopher F Foss12 August 2008

Iraq has requested a significant quantity of new equipment from the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme, in a major effort to enhance its armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) capability.

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency has now notified Congress of Iraqi requirements to essentially re-capitalise the entire armoured and mechanised sections of the army with main battle tanks (MBTs), armoured personnel carriers (APCs), engineering vehicles and general transports.

Given that according to several independent assessments Iraq has in the range of USD80 billion of surplus funds in its treasury, recently bolstered by the surge in oil prices, funding should not be a problem to pay for the equipment.

Under a potential USD2.16 billion deal, Iraq would get a total of 140 General Dynamics Land Systems M1A1 AIM (Abrams Integrated Management) MBTs.

Production of the M1A1 was completed some time ago and according to General Dynamics Land Systems, prime contractor for the M1A1, no decision has yet been taken on whether they would be refurbished and upgraded vehicles drawn from the US Army inventory.

Another possible alternative is that they would be supplied brand new from the Egyptian Tank Plant (ETP) in Cairo, which has been assembling the M1A1 for the Egyptian Army under a co-production plan since 1988.

Found this article interesting and thought, under the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, why not sell M1A1's to Iraq for their oil?

Operators of the M1 Abrams include:http://www.globalsecurity.org/...s.htmEgyptKuwaitSaudi ArabiaUnited States

[telcoman]

http://www.janes.com/news/defe...shtml



Found this article interesting and thought, under the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, why not sell M1A1's to Iraq for their oil?

Operators of the M1 Abrams include:http://www.globalsecurity.org/...s.htmEgyptKuwaitSaudi ArabiaUnited States

I don't often agree with you but on this I'm all for it.

Trade Iraq all the tanks and weapons they need for oil that we need.Get our troops out of there and forget the hairbrained scheme to drill off our shores that won't give us squat for 10 years and risk contaminating our beaches.

I do approve drilling in Arizona, Indiana and other sparsely settled locations

Telcoman

[AZhitman]

risk contaminating our beaches.

Awww, Howard. Your archaic and antiquated thinking, and uneducated fearmongering is so quaint.

Are you aware of the following?

U.S. offshore oil drilling is not perfectly tidy. It's only 99.999 percent clean. Indeed, since 1980 -- as U.S. Minerals Management Service figures indicate -- 101,997 barrels spilled from among the 11.855 billion barrels of American oil extracted offshore. This is a 0.001 percent pollution rate. While offshore drilling is not 100 percent spotless, this record should satisfy all but the terminally fastidious.

Ironically, in terms of oil contamination, Mother Nature is 95 times dirtier than Man. Some 620,500 barrels of oil ooze organically from North America's ocean floors each year. Compare this to the average 6,555 barrels that oil companies have spilled annually since 1998, according to MMS.

But I guess that was written by the Bush Administration too?

Wait - Let me help you with your answer. The author, Deroy Murdock, is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

I do approve drilling in Arizona, Indiana and other sparsely settled locations

In full recognition of your jocularity, I thought about not responding. But young impressionable people might read your posts and think you're onto something... So, in the interest of accuracy:

AZ contains little to no underground reserves. Indiana has a bit, but isn't considered an "untapped resource".

http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/....html

I guess anyplace looks "sparsely populated" when you reside in America's Armpit... NJ is #1 in population density.

IL is #12 (hardly "sparse"), and AZ is #33.

Still got that Tylenol for ya, let me know when to ship it out.

[rn79870]

Years ago the folks in Santa Barbara voted against off shore drilling because "the view would ruined." That was the whole reason and had nothing to do with oil spills. The spoiled view is not enough of a detriment to justify not drilling.

Whether or not we need the oil when it is available, it will be an asset that we can sell to on the foreign market. That will help offset the balance of trade and strengthen the dollar. It's win/win.

Besides, it will be nice to have some oil rigs in diverse locations so every time a hurricane shuts down a rig our prices won't go up.

Back on track...Years ago, the US sold some F15s to Iran. Iran used them until the Ayatollah overthrew the Potentate ( or whatever he was) and the F15s sat there. Then, they pulled a transponder from one of the F15s and put it on a Iranian airliner, and flew it, full of people, at low altitude towards the USS Vincennes. The Vincennes fired on it due to the return from the military transponder, plus the airliner would not respond to radio calls, and up went a missile and down went an airliner.

There is always a problem selling US technology to unstable countries. I hope we've thought this all the way through...

[AZhitman]

Years ago the folks in Santa Barbara voted against off shore drilling because "the view would ruined." That was the whole reason and had nothing to do with oil spills. The spoiled view is not enough of a detriment to justify not drilling.

Whether or not we need the oil when it is available, it will be an asset that we can sell to on the foreign market. That will help offset the balance of trade and strengthen the dollar. It's win/win.

Besides, it will be nice to have some oil rigs in diverse locations so every time a hurricane shuts down a rig our prices won't go up.

Back on track...Years ago, the US sold some F15s to Iran. Iran used them until the Ayatollah overthrew the Potentate ( or whatever he was) and the F15s sat there. Then, they pulled a transponder from one of the F15s and put it on a Iranian airliner, and flew it, full of people, at low altitude towards the USS Vincennes. The Vincennes fired on it due to the return from the military transponder, plus the airliner would not respond to radio calls, and up went a missile and down went an airliner.

There is always a problem selling US technology to unstable countries. I hope we've thought this all the way through...

Agreed, agreed, and more agreement from me.

Let the ME keep their oil. In 20 years, when we're energy-independent, they can try to eat it to survive.

[telcoman]

Awww, Howard. Your archaic and antiquated thinking, and uneducated fearmongering is so quaint.

Are you aware of the following?

U.S. offshore oil drilling is not perfectly tidy. It's only 99.999 percent clean. Indeed, since 1980 -- as U.S. Minerals Management Service figures indicate -- 101,997 barrels spilled from among the 11.855 billion barrels of American oil extracted offshore. This is a 0.001 percent pollution rate. While offshore drilling is not 100 percent spotless, this record should satisfy all but the terminally fastidious.

Ironically, in terms of oil contamination, Mother Nature is 95 times dirtier than Man. Some 620,500 barrels of oil ooze organically from North America's ocean floors each year. Compare this to the average 6,555 barrels that oil companies have spilled annually since 1998, according to MMS.

But I guess that was written by the Bush Administration too?

Wait - Let me help you with your answer. The author, Deroy Murdock, is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

In full recognition of your jocularity, I thought about not responding. But young impressionable people might read your posts and think you're onto something... So, in the interest of accuracy:

AZ contains little to no underground reserves. Indiana has a bit, but isn't considered an "untapped resource".

http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/....html

I guess anyplace looks "sparsely populated" when you reside in America's Armpit... NJ is #1 in population density.

IL is #12 (hardly "sparse"), and AZ is #33.

Still got that Tylenol for ya, let me know when to ship it out.

Gregg

Living where you do, I don't think you can grasp the importance of the beaches and coastline of the United States from Maine all around to the state of Washington? You may be suffering from sand ousis from spending too much time in the desert? You may need that Tylenol yourself?

The beaches are a tremendous tourist resource and the risk of an oil spill no matter how slight is just not worth the few thousand barrels of oil that we would receive 10 years out.Better to trade weapons for oil with Iraq and let them defend themselves.

Telcoman

[AZhitman]

Living where you do, I don't think you can grasp the importance of the beaches and coastline of the United States from Maine all around to the state of Washington?

The beaches are a tremendous tourist resource and the risk of an oil spill no matter how slight is just not worth the few thousand barrels of oil that we would receive 10 years out.Telcoman

I have lived all over the US, often near the shore... Cape Cod, Gulf Shores, and even your very own Cape May.

What risk? Are you gonna shut down Mother Nature for her filthy spills that exceed our own by 10X over the past 10 years?

Few thousand barrels? 10 years out? Ms. Pelosi, GET OFF Howard's computer!!!

[rn79870]

telco, I just don't think the risk of a spill is that great, assuming the appropriate guidelines are in place and enforced.

Look, we've put observers in the tuna fleet to protect marine mammals, we can put observers on oil platforms to insure the correct procedures are followed. The only possible problem in the Pacific might be an earthquake along one of the faults, and those fault areas can be avoided.

As far as the California coast line goes, the only drawback seems to be the "view" being spoiled. Heck, I can't see Santa Catalina 3/4 of the time due to the marine layer, and it's huge. I'll bet I couldn't see a drilling platform 90% of the time.

[AZhitman]

telco, I just don't think the risk of a spill is that great, assuming the appropriate guidelines are in place and enforced.

As far as the California coast line goes, the only drawback seems to be the "view" being spoiled. Heck, I can't see Santa Catalina 3/4 of the time due to the marine layer, and it's huge. I'll bet I couldn't see a drilling platform 90% of the time.

Even the "view" issue is irrelevant.

A little more "education" for our freind Howie:

When people think of offshore drilling platforms, an image tends to form of gargantuan eyesores, scarring earth and marring skyline. This stereotype is actually quite far from the truth. Due to the curvature of the Earth, the distance (in terms of visibility) to the horizon is limited by the relative height of the eye above sea level. Even from the 10th story of a beachfront condominium, one can only see roughly 11 nautical miles (20km) offshore*, neglecting atmospheric refraction, which distorts visibility, even on a clear day.

Though beachgoers have nothing to fear, what of our delicate oceanic ecosystem? You may be surprised to learn that oil rigs, rather than directly impinging upon the surrounding marine habitat, spawn lush profusions of coral in the shallow waters where sunlight penetrates, creating environments in which tens of thousands of fish can thrive. These miniature ecosystems delight divers, who frequently admire the verdant marine life that clings to the substructure of oil rigs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiJ78k6GgNY)(see below). This interest could, in fact, promote tourism, rather than deter it.

Radical environmentalists (bless their well-intentioned souls) have portrayed oil rigs as ready-made cataclysms, but a moment away from oozing black catastrophe into our oceans and onto our beaches. While this may have been closer to the truth many decades ago, it is far from an accurate characterization today. In an effort to protect, not only the environment, but the profitable oil they extract from it, corporations have dramatically improved the safety of drilling practices. To prevent spills, today's oil rigs employ blowout prevention systems (BOP's). These systems, via a series of hydraulically operated closure devices, are capable of sealing off oil wells and routing harmful fluids into specialized containment equipment, preventing chemicals from hemorrhaging into the ocean.

So, what's the problem now?

[Cold_Zero]

and risk contaminating our beaches.

Ah yes, because the bags of medical waste and toxic waste is much better on New Jersey's beaches rather than oil contamination. Bahhaahahahaaaaa.... Sorry man, I couldn't resist since all of New York's trash gets sent to New Jersey.

See, unlike most "Not in my backyard" people, I dont mind they drill under my daughter's pool and put up an oil derrick.bud

[Marenta]

I don't think Telco has actually gone to the ocean near NJ at all. If he had, he'd know that there's some rather unscrupulous things floating around in the water near the eastern seaboard, especially anything in the arc from Providence to Dover. It's all pretty filthy, adding an Oil Rig Platform (if there's even oil out there) would only increase the landscape as far as I'm concerned.

And, as far as California goes.. everything south of Oakland is an industrial landfill.. NorCal4Eva! Excluding the western part of the state.. you know.. Fresno/Bakersfield and west if you were to draw a line between them.. like on 99 or so.

[Cold_Zero]

Back on track...Years ago, the US sold some F15s to Iran. Iran used them until the Ayatollah overthrew the Potentate ( or whatever he was) and the F15s sat there. Then, they pulled a transponder from one of the F15s and put it on a Iranian airliner, and flew it, full of people, at low altitude towards the USS Vincennes. The Vincennes fired on it due to the return from the military transponder, plus the airliner would not respond to radio calls, and up went a missile and down went an airliner.

There is always a problem selling US technology to unstable countries. I hope we've thought this all the way through...

Bob, we had sold F-14A's to the Shah's Military, not F-15's. When the Shah was overthrown, American contractors sabotaged a lot of the F-14's systems before they were pulled out. That coupled with the arms embargo kept most of their F-14 fleets aged and on the ground. Anyway, I thought the issue with Flight 655 was that the Iranians turned off the transponder, not transmitted an F-14 signal. I am not sure if you can just plug and play transponders into civilian to military jets.We sell all sorts of fun stuff to foreign governments through the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. Ships to Spain and Australia. Jets to Spain, Switzerland, Pakistan and potentially India. http://www.janes.com/news/defe...shtml

We (the US) make some good money off of FMS.bud

[AZhitman]

NICOclub: Educating Democrats One Post At a Time.

[Jager]

Bob, we had sold F-14A's to the Shah's Military, not F-15's. When the Shah was overthrown, American contractors sabotaged a lot of the F-14's systems before they were pulled out. That coupled with the arms embargo kept most of their F-14 fleets aged and on the ground. Anyway, I thought the issue with Flight 655 was that the Iranians turned off the transponder, not transmitted an F-14 signal. I am not sure if you can just plug and play transponders into civilian to military jets.We sell all sorts of fun stuff to foreign governments through the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. Ships to Spain and Australia. Jets to Spain, Switzerland, Pakistan and potentially India. http://www.janes.com/news/defe...shtml

We (the US) make some good money off of FMS.bud

yep I just bought an APC and my sr20det should be here in a week to preform the swap.

do you think i should put a FMIC on there or keep the tow missile and 25mm chaingun?

[Jager]

seriously though, considering the technologuy involved, are there any major concerns over iran getting a few m1a1's? or are we (the US) far enough along to not be worried by our tech being used against us? lets be honest the m1a1 last i heard was still the MBT for us, where as the f14 incident while still high tech, was not latest tech (we had f15 and fa18s did we not?)

[Marenta]

I don't think we really care enough about our own technology being used against us. Mainly because I think we actually remove quite a bit of the sensitive technologies from most of the stuff we sell. I don't really know, though, I haven't looked into the program that much.

[Cold_Zero]

I think Marenta is right. A few months back, the Indian Navy was told by the Russians that their Carrier (which the Russians were retrofitting to put the next gen of MIGs on) was going to be delayed and over budget. The US stepped in and made a counter offer for the Indian Navy to buy FA-18's and they would throw the USS Kittyhawk in for a nominal cost. The hope was to get India so invested in the Super Hornet that the Indian Air Force (see above) would bid on them as well. They would strip the USS Kittyhawk of most of its electronics and sonar before it was transfered ownership. We do it all the time with aircraft, tanks and ships.

[rn79870]

seriously though, considering the technologuy involved, are there any major concerns over iran getting a few m1a1's? or are we (the US) far enough along to not be worried by our tech being used against us? lets be honest the m1a1 last i heard was still the MBT for us, where as the f14 incident while still high tech, was not latest tech (we had f15 and fa18s did we not?)

That F15 incident occurred in the 70s when the F15 was the USAF mainline fighter.

The other problem might involve a US tank having to hesitate on firing on a foreign M1A1. I think they ID them by shape, and that might make friend/foe ID a little dangerous.

[Cold_Zero]

Bob,We NEVER sold F-15's to Iran. We sold F-15I's to Israel and F-15's to Japan but not to Iran. They were outdated F-14A's when we were on B block upgrades.

bud

[rn79870]

Whoops. But weren't the F14s current when we sold them to Iran? Don't know what a B block upgrade is...

And, at the risk of... aren't the F14 and F15 similar except for the wing sweep changes on the 14?

[Jager]

the f14 is a navy plane made for aircraft carrier usage and dogfighting. swing wings for low speed versus high speed flight, a ilot and a rio (radar intercept officer)

the f-15 was a close airsupport fighter/b0mber for the airforce. fixed wing and 1 pilot no rio

I dont remember the navy using f15s much they went from f14 to fa18 hornets i thought.

(i could be very wrong here i am heavily medicated atm, so apologies if i am)

[Cold_Zero]

Good questions, Bob.

Yes, at the time we sold the F-14As to the Iranian Shah, they were our current long range AAW carrier based interceptors. They were designed to engage Russian TU-95/142 Bears, later TU-22 Backfires and later TU-160s Blackjacks beyond the missile range of the Carrier Groups defenses. The F-14A's sold to the Iranians were the same as our except for the avionics. We would have run the same aircraft concurrently with the 79 Iranian F-14's for 11 years (1976-1987) until we upgraded the F-14A+ program.

Listening to the Grumman techs talk, when they were pulled from Iran, apparentlyl they sabotaged the aircraft and missiles to make sure they couldnt fire their munitions.bud

[Cold_Zero]

And Bob, we did offer them F-15's during the same time. The Iranians choose the F-14.

[skylndrftr]

NICOclub: Educating Democrats One Post At a Time.

Given that Fox News insists there were no oil spills from Katrina, I would argue that what we are doing here is educating illinformed people. There are lots of stupid people who believe lots of stupid things for lots of stupid reasons...just remember its been proven that facts have a liberal bias

On the topic, Hitman your figures sure make interesting reading...but they ignore several things. First, that study only concerns itself with oil spilled by accidents. It ignores things thta could be called 'acts of god' (Read: Katrina). Also, if you take the Exxon Valdez spill and average it out over the 19 years since it occured...you still get about 12000 barrells a year spilled.

I am not saying technology hasn't improved, I am simply pointing out how easily those figures can be manipulated by either including or ignorign major events....if you woudl want 300000gal of oil spilled on you (~6,555 barrels) just say so.