On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 05:57:34 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:01:36 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 07:14:22 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
I've always questioned the sanity of selling our top-of-the-line
equipment and _TRAINING_ to countries who would surely be our next war
stop, if not the next terrorist training camp site. sigh

We dont sell our top of the line weapons to anyone..and the
training..given the raw materials..is sporadic at best..as we have
seen in Iraq

Y'mean Britain doesn't have a few of our nuclear subs and guided
missile frigates? We're not still selling weapons systems, F-16s, and
F-16 parts to most of the world, including some "friendly" Islamic
countries (like our "ally", Saudi Arabia)? We (and, quietly, the CIA)
didn't train Iraqis, Afghanis, and many Al Quaeda infiltrators in both
countries? Israel doesn't have beaucoup of everything? We're arming
LIBYA? We're even starting to rearm Viet Freakin' Nam, fer chrissake.
Every time we sell to the bad actors, it's used against us. SAM
missiles are a perfect example in history for that.

When we leave a country, we apparently sell (or just leave) most of
our military assets there. I'd rather we didn't do that.


It is a bit more complex that your simple statement. I was in Thailand
when the U.S. Army vacated some of their bases and from the newspaper
articles I read, there are specific (US apparently) rules and
regulations that specify what can be left and what has to be removed.

The decision to leave, is I believe, primarily a logistics decision.
It the value is X and it costs X x 2 to ship it home then it is left.
--
Cheers,

John B.