Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: ribonucleic on February 21, 2007, 12:29:40 PM
-
7 shot down in a month.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
-
7 shot down in a month.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070221/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
28 soldiers and civilians dead as a result and seven destroyed helicopters. I'm sure that $28 Billion Bush wants will cover the cost of personnel and machinery.
-
what a mess.
-
I'm sure that $28 Billion Bush wants will cover the cost of personnel and machinery.
Not even the machinery.
They're $5.9 billion per.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-60_Black_Hawk
-
Not even the machinery.
They're $5.9 billion per.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-60_Black_Hawk
That's got to be wrong, no way are they nearly $6 Billion a piece. I'd peg the cost more at somewhere around $100 million.
-
That's got to be wrong, no way are they nearly $6 Billion a piece.
You're not familiar with military contracting, are you. :)
I honestly don't know. It is Wikipedia after all. But I don't find the number implausible.
-
Sikorsky's major plant is a couple towns over from me. Their contract is roughly 4-6 billion but that was for a large number of helicopters.
-
You're not familiar with military contracting, are you. :)
I honestly don't know. It is Wikipedia after all. But I don't find the number implausible.
We were both wrong, it's actually $5.9 Million each for the Army version and $10.2 Million for the Air Force version.
http://www.answers.com/topic/uh-60-black-hawk-1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/uh-60-black-hawk-1)
-
We were both wrong, it's actually $5.9 Million each for the Army version and $10.2 Million for the Air Force version.
http://www.answers.com/topic/uh-60-black-hawk-1 (http://www.answers.com/topic/uh-60-black-hawk-1)
OK. So there'll be plenty of money to replace the helicopters.
But the safety of our soldiers is priceless, right?
Right?
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/
-
OK. So there'll be plenty of money to replace the helicopters.
But the safety of our soldiers is priceless, right?
Right?
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/
That reminds me of the stories that used to air about soldiers driving in unarmored Humvees. They were sitting ducks and apparently they weren't being supplied with the protection they needed.
-
That reminds me of the stories that used to air about soldiers driving in unarmored Humvees. They were sitting ducks and apparently they weren't being supplied with the protection they needed.
Well, you go to war with the armor you have. ::)
-
Well, you go to war with the armor you have. ::)
If it is so bad for us why have I attended more than one reenlistment per day (average) this month?
-
If it is so bad for us why have I attended more than one reenlistment per day (average) this month?
So you're saying there weren't any issues with unarmored vehicles?
-
If it is so bad for us why have I attended more than one reenlistment per day (average) this month?
I guess you don't care about dad American soldiers, as long as your numbers are there.
Could mean the economy, while good for 2% of the population is so bad (and growing worse) for the other 98% that people are being forced to enlist (despite knowing they're going to baghdad) to keep the lights on.
But your numbers are good. Hey, is "3147" one of your numbers?
-
I guess you don't care about dad American soldiers, as long as your numbers are there.
Could mean the economy, while good for 2% of the population is so bad (and growing worse) for the other 98% that people are being forced to enlist (despite knowing they're going to baghdad) to keep the lights on.
But your numbers are good. Hey, is "3147" one of your numbers?
Not saying there aren't issues and I'm not talking about ENLISTMENTS, I am talking straight up RE-ENLISTMENTS. Guys that have done a minimum 4 years and have been to Iraq at least once. 240, you know I care about dying soldiers. But in this profession we realize that is our job.