oops.. in a rare fumble I kinda missed that huge point. Good thing my team has depth .FEOS wrote:
Last I heard, Congress was responsible for authorizations. And if you don't spend the amount they tell you where they tell you to spend it, you go to jail.
Who is it that runs the Congress again?
The Israel factor doesn't help your cause. But to be honest i believe most of them don't have a clue why they hate America, its the popular thing.God Save the Queen wrote:
why do you think that is?m3thod wrote:
Pakistanis hate Americans. With a passion.God Save the Queen wrote:
this is really, really good. it will only strengthen the pakistani military and our relationship with the most important ally in the region. the people of pakistan will believe that the US is a partner for the long run. This is exactly the best thing to happen, especially for the war on terror. why arent people happy?
because they hate jews and are a bunch of racist motherfuckers.God Save the Queen wrote:
why do you think that is?m3thod wrote:
Pakistanis hate Americans. With a passion.God Save the Queen wrote:
this is really, really good. it will only strengthen the pakistani military and our relationship with the most important ally in the region. the people of pakistan will believe that the US is a partner for the long run. This is exactly the best thing to happen, especially for the war on terror. why arent people happy?
Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-07-25 05:35:50)
Surely it's nothing to do with congress. It's to do with the company who make them, which is BAE. If the market is there for them, then they'll make them.God Save the Queen wrote:
I think its all about showing the pakistani government that we will remain an ally for the long run.Bertster7 wrote:
Surely armoured ground vehicles would be of far more use than fighter jets, against terrorists anyway. This is all about getting the aid money back into the US economy. They should've bought bradleys or something, then most of the money would go into the British economy......[TUF]Catbox wrote:
it's good to have them on our side... we aren't giving them Raptors...lol... If they got squirelly with the F16s(Lawn Darts as my Crew Chief friend calls them)... i'm sure our AF could deal with it...
They cant buy bradleys. The Army is in fact having a bradley shortage at the moment. The last ones built were from the mid 90's. Need some new legislature in congress if we even want to think of producing more. All we're doing is refurbishing the suckers.
No, it's Congress. Congress has to authorize the expenditures. BAE isn't going to re-start the line without significant investment from someone...and Pakistan won't provide that.Bertster7 wrote:
Surely it's nothing to do with congress. It's to do with the company who make them, which is BAE. If the market is there for them, then they'll make them.God Save the Queen wrote:
I think its all about showing the pakistani government that we will remain an ally for the long run.Bertster7 wrote:
Surely armoured ground vehicles would be of far more use than fighter jets, against terrorists anyway. This is all about getting the aid money back into the US economy. They should've bought bradleys or something, then most of the money would go into the British economy......
They cant buy bradleys. The Army is in fact having a bradley shortage at the moment. The last ones built were from the mid 90's. Need some new legislature in congress if we even want to think of producing more. All we're doing is refurbishing the suckers.
It could perhaps be to do with the fact that congress want to keep US defence expenditure being pumped straight back into the US economy, rather than buying foreign owned arms.
Read the underlined bit above. If people want to buy enough of them then BAE will make more. Market forces at work.FEOS wrote:
No, it's Congress. Congress has to authorize the expenditures. BAE isn't going to re-start the line without significant investment from someone...and Pakistan won't provide that.Bertster7 wrote:
Surely it's nothing to do with congress. It's to do with the company who make them, which is BAE. If the market is there for them, then they'll make them.God Save the Queen wrote:
I think its all about showing the pakistani government that we will remain an ally for the long run.
They cant buy bradleys. The Army is in fact having a bradley shortage at the moment. The last ones built were from the mid 90's. Need some new legislature in congress if we even want to think of producing more. All we're doing is refurbishing the suckers.
It could perhaps be to do with the fact that congress want to keep US defence expenditure being pumped straight back into the US economy, rather than buying foreign owned arms.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-07-26 07:13:21)
what?JahManRed wrote:
Work with the Afghans in the 70/80s.
no, its congress. they have to make the order for new ones.Bertster7 wrote:
Read the underlined bit above. If people want to buy enough of them then BAE will make more. Market forces at work.FEOS wrote:
No, it's Congress. Congress has to authorize the expenditures. BAE isn't going to re-start the line without significant investment from someone...and Pakistan won't provide that.Bertster7 wrote:
Surely it's nothing to do with congress. It's to do with the company who make them, which is BAE. If the market is there for them, then they'll make them.
It could perhaps be to do with the fact that congress want to keep US defence expenditure being pumped straight back into the US economy, rather than buying foreign owned arms.
Only if it's the US buying them. Congress placing an order is just the establishment of a sufficiently sized market. Any sufficient market would have BAE restarting production. Which is precisely what I've said consistently - if the market is there, they will make them.God Save the Queen wrote:
no, its congress. they have to make the order for new ones.Bertster7 wrote:
Read the underlined bit above. If people want to buy enough of them then BAE will make more. Market forces at work.FEOS wrote:
No, it's Congress. Congress has to authorize the expenditures. BAE isn't going to re-start the line without significant investment from someone...and Pakistan won't provide that.
we're not talking about the market, we're talking about the number of bradleys needed by the United States Army. that has absolutely nothing to do with the market.Bertster7 wrote:
Only if it's the US buying them. Congress placing an order is just the establishment of a sufficiently sized market. Any sufficient market would have BAE restarting production. Which is precisely what I've said consistently - if the market is there, they will make them.God Save the Queen wrote:
no, its congress. they have to make the order for new ones.Bertster7 wrote:
Read the underlined bit above. If people want to buy enough of them then BAE will make more. Market forces at work.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-26 08:36:56)
God Save the Queen wrote:
we're not talking about the market, we're talking about the number of bradleys needed by the United States Army. that has absolutely nothing to do with the market.Bertster7 wrote:
Only if it's the US buying them. Congress placing an order is just the establishment of a sufficiently sized market. Any sufficient market would have BAE restarting production. Which is precisely what I've said consistently - if the market is there, they will make them.God Save the Queen wrote:
no, its congress. they have to make the order for new ones.
The army needs congress to authorize the purchase of more bradleys.
Producing more. So we're talking about production. It is BAE who produce them. Congress has little to do with whether or not they produce them, other than the fact that they are the most likely candidates to make an order big enough to make it worthwhile. It is entirely to do with the market, which congress form a big part of when it comes to global defence expenditure.God Save the Queen wrote:
Need some new legislature in congress if we even want to think of producing more.
Read the highlighted bit above.Bertster7 wrote:
Read the underlined bit above. If people want to buy enough of them then BAE will make more. Market forces at work.FEOS wrote:
No, it's Congress. Congress has to authorize the expenditures. BAE isn't going to re-start the line without significant investment from someone...and Pakistan won't provide that.Bertster7 wrote:
Surely it's nothing to do with congress. It's to do with the company who make them, which is BAE. If the market is there for them, then they'll make them.
It could perhaps be to do with the fact that congress want to keep US defence expenditure being pumped straight back into the US economy, rather than buying foreign owned arms.
Because it is all about the market. This thread is nothing to do with the US army, I don't know where you got any of that from. You said they can't buy Bradleys, which they could. An order of $230 million wouldn't make it worthwhile to provide them (equates to about 70 vehicles - whereas the previous production run (ending in 1994) cost nearly $18 billion). If enough people placed orders, totally independently of the US, who need have nothing to do with it whatsoever, they could be made to fill that order. That is market forces at work. Why you seem to think congress are the only ones capable of placing orders for them is beyond me. If I had a few billion dollars I could place an order for them myself.God Save the Queen wrote:
in order for them to produce a line of bradleys they need the order. they arent going to make one or two at a time.
why did you bring the market in this again. I could care less about the market., my original statement was that congress needs to authorize the production of bradleys because there is a shortage in the US army. What are you arguing here. The market could demand or not demand for all I care, I was addressing the need for congress to give the army more vehicles, not supply and demand.
That's just not the case (unless they've bought specific exclusivity rights to the design, which I suppose is possible, but certainly not typical). As has been seen in previous BAE deals (like the Typhoon deal with Saudi) that national production partners were opposed to.FEOS wrote:
and Congress would have to approve the sale, since the US owns the design, regardless of where the manufacturer's HQ is.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-07-26 09:19:23)
You say it's simply not the case and then say it's possible.Bertster7 wrote:
That's just not the case (unless they've bought specific exclusivity rights to the design, which I suppose is possible, but certainly not typical). As has been seen in previous BAE deals (like the Typhoon deal with Saudi) that national production partners were opposed to.FEOS wrote:
and Congress would have to approve the sale, since the US owns the design, regardless of where the manufacturer's HQ is.
again, I am talking about the United States Army. Again I could care less about what who and when of whatever youre talking about. Im only bringing the US Army into the topic and their shortage of bradleys. They CANNOT aquire bradleys independently from the congress. You just want to argue something Im not even debating with you.Bertster7 wrote:
Because it is all about the market. This thread is nothing to do with the US army, I don't know where you got any of that from. You said they can't buy Bradleys, which they could. An order of $230 million wouldn't make it worthwhile to provide them (equates to about 70 vehicles - whereas the previous production run (ending in 1994) cost nearly $18 billion). If enough people placed orders, totally independently of the US, who need have nothing to do with it whatsoever, they could be made to fill that order. That is market forces at work. Why you seem to think congress are the only ones capable of placing orders for them is beyond me. If I had a few billion dollars I could place an order for them myself.God Save the Queen wrote:
in order for them to produce a line of bradleys they need the order. they arent going to make one or two at a time.
why did you bring the market in this again. I could care less about the market., my original statement was that congress needs to authorize the production of bradleys because there is a shortage in the US army. What are you arguing here. The market could demand or not demand for all I care, I was addressing the need for congress to give the army more vehicles, not supply and demand.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-26 12:49:27)
I'd say Gore has shown himself quite capable of profitting from speeches and global warming hysteria. He's a good businessman -- you can't deny that.Kmarion wrote:
Bush ran on the platform of being a conservative. He fed us a lie. And given the choice between Kerry and that douche bag gore I'd still vote for Bush. Two incompetent fucks that couldn't run a burger king. There is no such thing as "the point of no return". If you believe that than you truly have no grasp on the historic, real challenges humanity and your forefathers have faced.
Other than the fact that Pakistan has about zero proper internal security for state secrets, is overrun by everyone else's spy services, would/have/will sell anyone out for a few dollars, sells nuclear weaponry technology to anyone/everyone hostile to the USA, has the worst border security this side of Arizona & Texas, siphoned off 90% of the money the USA routed through them for the USSR/Afghan war to the wrong side...God Save the Queen wrote:
this is really, really good. it will only strengthen the pakistani military and our relationship with the most important ally in the region. the people of pakistan will believe that the US is a partner for the long run. This is exactly the best thing to happen, especially for the war on terror. why arent people happy?
