Political Crossfire Forums

The Afghan forces should be equipped, but not with the best weapons, hence Russian helicopters and not American helicopters.

Plus, having Rosoboronexport supply them means that all we supply is a change in our accounting papers, while Russia supply the actual physical goods.

Plus, these are the helicopters Afghan forces have already been flying for decades. If we were to send them unfamiliar American choppers, we'd have to also spend time and money on training them to use them, and install the support infrastructure, etc. Hell with that noise.

The Russians actually make pretty damn good choppers. This is all just political goal tending.

Ok, but why is it OUR responsibility to give them Russian helos?? And how is it ok to violate something passed by congress to do this? How is this in the interest of national security? There are hundreds of used helos of the same make and model out there that we could give them, why do they need brand new helos?

According to your own source there was no violation. A clause was intentionally written in that allows the SecDef to go around this thing. You just didn't bold that part.

I have my own trepidations about partnering with Afghan forces on anti-terrorism. I think they are corrupt, and definitely infiltrated. But on the other hand, its their country, we can't hang around over there forever, and they've got to take on that role. Its in our interest to help them to that end, obviously.

They are our puppet. It's either let someone else have them, arm them, or send our soldiers to defend them. Of the choices I think helping them set up their own army is the best choice.

Russian choppers are the best for that terrain, why not use them? It's just a little capitalistic free trade after all, right?

Oh that Obama! He makes me so mad!

Obama was merely trying to save money by purchasing them through thu HeloTrader®

I heard he also picked up a cherry 65 Mustang.

Or how trade is involved, for that matter.