News Forum - Cambodia PM orders to destroy, store US weapons following arms embargo ban

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/planes-guns-night-vision-goggles-talibans-new-us-made-war-chest-2021-08-19/

Another official said that while there are no definitive numbers yet, the current intelligence assessment was that the Taliban are believed to control more than 2,000 armored vehicles, including U.S. Humvees, and up to 40 aircraft potentially including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.

https://cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/B374KBCWVFJ6ROKNHZRDUE7MLU.jpg

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/11F34/production/_120342537_gettyimages-1234972038.jpg

None of which is the latest or most expensive US equipment. 

[Stonker]

8 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/planes-guns-night-vision-goggles-talibans-new-us-made-war-chest-2021-08-19/

Another official said that while there are no definitive numbers yet, the current intelligence assessment was that the Taliban are believed to control more than 2,000 armored vehicles, including U.S. Humvees, and up to 40 aircraft potentially including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.

The "definitive numbers" are all readily available, and have been given before, correcting the same out-of-date link.

This has no relevance to the thread, and it's been covered in at least a couple of threads about it, as well as in several others you've also tried to de-rail.

 

[longwood50]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

None of which is the latest or most expensive US equipment. 

Oh I think that is a distinction "without a difference'  While it may not represent the latest technology or most expensive, it hardly was leaving behind muskets. 

Much of the equipment including the night vision, Black Hawk helicopters attack fighter planes, drones etc. are still current use equipment  Hardly old obsolete equipment.  No not an Atlas Rocket with a nuclear warhead but you make it sound as if what they received was just old worn out obsolete junk. 



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-20/taliban-new-us-made-war-chest-afghanistan/100393572?utm_source=abc_news_web&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link

[Poolie]

You have to admit, its kind of amusing though.

[Stonker]

24 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

Oh I think that is a distinction "without a difference'  While it may not represent the latest technology or most expensive, it hardly was leaving behind muskets. 

Much of the equipment including the night vision, Black Hawk helicopters attack fighter planes, drones etc. are still current use equipment  Hardly old obsolete equipment.  No not an Atlas Rocket with a nuclear warhead but you make it sound as if what they received was just old worn out obsolete junk. 



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-20/taliban-new-us-made-war-chest-afghanistan/100393572?utm_source=abc_news_web&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link

What you're saying was completely wrong  before, and it's completely wrong now.

Your claim that  "$83 billion ..... was the  total amount of military equipment the Afghans Security Force had that was lost after the Taliban took over" is simply wrong since according to your own link and as your screenshot clearly shows: "The US provided an estimated $83 billion worth of training and equipment to Afghan security forces since 2001".

There were no "attack fighter planes" that are "current use equipment", no serviceable drones, and only one serviceable Blackhawk out of six delivered (the rest of the helis were Russian).

I'm not going to help you drag this thread off-track as you have others, but what you're saying is completely incorrect and not just unsupported by your links but contradicted by them.

[HolyCowCm]

4 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

My own (un)forgettable experience of PP airport, was being extorted to pay the Visa fee ($25) twice. This was in the days before E-visas.

I had already read about this scam but there was really nothing you could do about. You would hand over the money, and then they would say, "$25 please". If you said you'd already paid, they would deny it. Next you ask to speak to a supervisor, and they tell you to sit down, while they wait for him to return. So you take seat in a large hall where there are no vending machines, and you wait, and wait and wait.

Eventually, you realise that every time you look at the desk full of immigration officers, they are all smiling at your stupidity, and one of them is almost certainly the supervisor. I have heard of people sitting there for up to 4 hours before the "penny dropped".

There were quite a few complaints to the Cam gov. Their response was to deny that extortion was taking place, and claiming that it was the public giving tips for "good service". I think in most countries, attempting to "tip" immigration officers would lead to speedy visit to the cells. However, this led to the introduction of E-visas by Cam. In addition, there are now signs in arrivals hall at PP stating, "Pay no money here". If you don't have an E-visa, you still go to the same desk, but now it is covered by CCTV. Not sure whether it is for your protection, or to make sure that the "higher-ups" get their cut.

In my case I immediately paid the $25 again. I had already been victimised and to do anything else was to become a self-victimiser.

Attitude and mean looks. They benched me and made me wait a long time. Don’t know the reason except being a-homes. 

[Rookiescot]

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Oh I think that is a distinction "without a difference'  While it may not represent the latest technology or most expensive, it hardly was leaving behind muskets. 

Much of the equipment including the night vision, Black Hawk helicopters attack fighter planes, drones etc. are still current use equipment  Hardly old obsolete equipment.  No not an Atlas Rocket with a nuclear warhead but you make it sound as if what they received was just old worn out obsolete junk. 



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-20/taliban-new-us-made-war-chest-afghanistan/100393572?utm_source=abc_news_web&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link

And six months from now all that equipment will be redundant.

Stuff like that requires constant maintenance from qualified personnel. And a shit load of spares.

[Poolie]

32 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

And six months from now all that equipment will be redundant.

Stuff like that requires constant maintenance from qualified personnel. And a shit load of spares.

Does it keep breaking down then?

[Rookiescot]

7 minutes ago, Poolie said:

Does it keep breaking down then?

Constantly. We suspected that a lot of the unreliability was intentional. Nothing like a lucrative maintenance contract after all. 

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, HolyCowCm said:

Attitude and mean looks. They benched me and made me wait a long time. Don’t know the reason except being a-homes. 

I forgot to mention, the visa was a pre-printed label and was signed by the aptly named "Captain Sam Mean"

[Guest1]

6 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Now I guess 83 Billion is not much to you.  Now mind you this was the total amount of military equipment the Afghans Security Force had that was lost after the Taliban took over.  It says nothing about what U.S. forces left behind also. 

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/planes-guns-night-vision-goggles-talibans-new-us-made-war-chest-2021-08-19/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/08/23/staggering-costs--us-military-equipment-left-behind-in-afghanistan/?sh=5ab5ff5c41db

Another official said that while there are no definitive numbers yet, the current intelligence assessment was that the Taliban are believed to control more than 2,000 armored vehicles, including U.S. Humvees, and up to 40 aircraft potentially including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.

And fun fact:

It was mentioned, they even have some pilots for the planes and helis

[longwood50]

14 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

And six months from now all that equipment will be redundant.

Stuff like that requires constant maintenance from qualified personnel. And a shit load of spares.

Perhaps some of it will be junked.  But for years the vehicles will have the parts stripped from inoperable ones to service those that can be repaired.  Certainly the rifles, grenade launchers etc will be around for decades. 

 

[Cabra]

Can't get more weapons, so lets destroy the weapons we already have  that will show'em

[Rookiescot]

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Perhaps some of it will be junked.  But for years the vehicles will have the parts stripped from inoperable ones to service those that can be repaired.  Certainly the rifles, grenade launchers etc will be around for decades. 

The Taliban have never been short of rifles and grenade launchers or any other small arms.

The Humvee trucks are exactly that. Trucks. They probably still prefer using their Hilux's though given they use far less fuel.

[longwood50]

19 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

The Taliban have never been short of rifles and grenade launchers or any other small arms.

That may be true however there are reports that the Taliban were taking the new rifles preferring them to their AK-47.  At the very least the Taliban can use or sell whatever the USA left behind.  The fact that the USA had been in Afghanistan for two decades but suddenly had to just up and leave and not destroy or take back the weapons brought to Afghanistan shows just how badly botched this exit was. 

[Rookiescot]

34 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

That may be true however there are reports that the Taliban were taking the new rifles preferring them to their AK-47.  At the very least the Taliban can use or sell whatever the USA left behind.  The fact that the USA had been in Afghanistan for two decades but suddenly had to just up and leave and not destroy or take back the weapons brought to Afghanistan shows just how badly botched this exit was. 

They did take their weapons back with them. The stuff the Taliban have was owned by the Afghan National Army. Mint condition. Only dropped once.

The will tire of those rifles though. They require regular cleaning and ammunition will be harder to come by.

[longwood50]

4 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

The stuff the Taliban have was owned by the Afghan National Army.

Yes a distinction without a difference.  It was 83 billion dollars worth of arms that the U.S. government gave to Afghanistan since 2001.  

The fact was that the U.S. government knew by withdrawing it was giving control over to the Taliban.  Not any different than when the U.S. vacated Vietnam.  They certainly knew that the Afghans were not going to be a deterrent any more than South Vietnam was going to provide a defense against the Vietcong. 

[Rain]

Arms and weapons dealers R Us.

Same as it ever was. 

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

It was 83 billion dollars worth of arms that the U.S. government gave to Afghanistan since 2001

No it wasn't, as your own link and screenshot state.

 

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

The fact was that the U.S. government knew by withdrawing it was giving control over to the Taliban.  Not any different than when the U.S. vacated Vietnam.  They certainly knew that the Afghans were not going to be a deterrent any more than South Vietnam was going to provide a defense against the Vietcong. 

The "fact" was that they'd already given it away to the ANSF over the 20 year period.

They didn't "leave it behind" - it wasn't theirs.

What else were they going to do?

Try to take it back?

I know it's asking a lot, but try to get real.

[Stonker]

On 12/15/2021 at 1:54 PM, Cabra said:

Can't get more weapons, so lets destroy the weapons we already have  that will show'em

The situation in Cambodia is a bit like that in Cyprus when I was there with UNFICYP.

The captured Marmon-Herrington's the Turkish Cypriots had in their open-air museum near Kyrenia were in better condition than the ones the Greek Cypriots were still using ...

As for their T-34 /85 ...

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

Yes a distinction without a difference.  It was 83 billion dollars worth of arms that the U.S. government gave to Afghanistan since 2001.  

The fact was that the U.S. government knew by withdrawing it was giving control over to the Taliban.  Not any different than when the U.S. vacated Vietnam.  They certainly knew that the Afghans were not going to be a deterrent any more than South Vietnam was going to provide a defense against the Vietcong. 

No the US did not give control to the Taliban. They gave control to the Afghans. Its their country after all.

The fact the Afghans made no effort to stop the Taliban is the real issue.

Are you suggesting the US should still be in Afghanistan?

[CamPat]

On 12/14/2021 at 12:56 PM, Stonker said:

You can find an update at https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Cambodia-naval-base-set-to-undergo-China-led-expansion

and at 

https://amti.csis.org/changes-underway-at-cambodias-ream-naval-base/

Difficult to know how "nothing chinese was found" as it's a Chinese company doing the dredging (China Metallurgical), openly paid for by China, as clearly stated by the Cambodian Navy.

unquote

This makes me laugh. If these 2 links would proof anything. Yes, the contractor is a chinese company simply cause Cambodia does not have the ability for such projects and if you read the posts in detail the US Paranoia includes the Sihanoukville Beach Areas that are developed for Tourism. What took Pattaya 45 years to build was built in Sihanoukville in merely 6 years and yes again with mostly chinese Investors (Casino).  It also includes the big Tourist Resort near Koh Kong which even features an own Airport. Sure, the Tourists that are expected will be Chinese. The country has 1.5 billion people so figure. Cambodia is part of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative and benefits greatly on Infrastructure Projects, Investments in Manufacturing etc. And yes, it's a Win-Win Situation. What has the US to offer ? SANCTIONS, SANCTiONS and more SANCTIONS. Not a way to make friends really.

 

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, CamPat said:

On 12/14/2021 at 12:56 PM, Stonker said:

You can find an update at https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Cambodia-naval-base-set-to-undergo-China-led-expansion

and at 

https://amti.csis.org/changes-underway-at-cambodias-ream-naval-base/

Difficult to know how "nothing chinese was found" as it's a Chinese company doing the dredging (China Metallurgical), openly paid for by China, as clearly stated by the Cambodian Navy.

unquote

This makes me laugh. If these 2 links would proof anything. Yes, the contractor is a chinese company simply cause Cambodia does not have the ability for such projects and if you read the posts in detail the US Paranoia includes the Sihanoukville Beach Areas that are developed for Tourism. What took Pattaya 45 years to build was built in Sihanoukville in merely 6 years and yes again with mostly chinese Investors (Casino).  It also includes the big Tourist Resort near Koh Kong which even features an own Airport. Sure, the Tourists that are expected will be Chinese. The country has 1.5 billion people so figure. Cambodia is part of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative and benefits greatly on Infrastructure Projects, Investments in Manufacturing etc. And yes, it's a Win-Win Situation. What has the US to offer ? SANCTIONS, SANCTiONS and more SANCTIONS. Not a way to make friends really.

You seem as knowledgeable about Cambodia as you are about how to use this forum.

China isn't 'winning friends' in Cambodia - it's simply bought the country.

"Win-Win" for China and Hun Sen, but Cambodians aren't 'winning' anything as they're not included.

"What took Pattaya 45 years to build was built in Sihanoukville in merely 6 years and yes again with mostly chinese Investors (Casino)."

There's no comparison between Pattaya and Sihanoukville on any level - size, population, hotels, tourist numbers, tourist nationality, etc. - even crime, where Sihanoukville makes Pattaya look like the Vatican City.

They're simply totally different tourist destinations.

As for "merely 6 years", you're in la-la land. Sihanoukville has been Cambodia's only deep water port since the mid 50's and it was trying to develop tourism and investors thirty years ago when I was there.

It's now occupied not just by Chinese 'investors' but a largely Chinese resident population.

I'm not in favour of American expansion anywhere, but what you're churning out is just propaganda - China isn't making friends or investing in Cambodia, it's just bought it up as Hun Sen's sold it off.

If propaganda's your game, fine.

[longwood50]

14 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

No the US did not give control to the Taliban. They gave control to the Afghans. Its their country after all.

I never felt the U.S.A. should have been in Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place.  Not any different than Vietnam.  None of those countries posed a threat or attacked the USA.  The hijackers of 9-11 were 9 Saudi's, 2 UAE, 1 Egyptian 1 Lebanese  

Just like the USA vacated South Vietnam "ceding" control to the South Vietnamese they knew that the Afghans would not be able to stop the Taliban and hence the weapons would fall into enemy hands. 

They should have destroyed or removed those weapons.   In both Iraq and Afghanistan the only think accomplished was to have thousands lose their lives, or be injured.  Trillions in spending that only served to leave both countries worse off than they were before and now with a terrorist group supplied with more weapons. 

 

[Rookiescot]

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

I never felt the U.S.A. should have been in Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place.  Not any different than Vietnam.  None of those countries posed a threat or attacked the USA.  The hijackers of 9-11 were 9 Saudi's, 2 UAE, 1 Egyptian 1 Lebanese  

Just like the USA vacated South Vietnam "ceding" control to the South Vietnamese they knew that the Afghans would not be able to stop the Taliban and hence the weapons would fall into enemy hands. 

They should have destroyed or removed those weapons.   In both Iraq and Afghanistan the only think accomplished was to have thousands lose their lives, or be injured.  Trillions in spending that only served to leave both countries worse off than they were before and now with a terrorist group supplied with more weapons. 

 

You keep referencing Vietnam. The point of the war in Vietnam was to stop communist expansionism. It demonstrated the US was prepared to go to war to do that. In many regards it was successful. Apart from North Korea please name a single country which is communist now.

The invasion of Afghanistan came about because of Al Qaeda training camps within its borders which plotted and executed the 9/11 attack on the US. The US asked the Taliban to destroy those camps. The Taliban refused thus forcing the US to go into Afghanistan and destroy them itself. The Taliban were routed in the process and militarily defeated. The US had no long term plans to remain in country so slowly control was handed back to the Afghans.

The fact the Afghans decided to allow the Taliban to take back over after the US left is something you simply cannot accept or acknowledge. However the Taliban will have learnt from this. I would be highly surprised if they allow those terrorist training camps to come back so as far as the US is concerned its job done good result.

Iraq is not worse off than when it was invaded. Iraq now has a stable government with free elections and is accepted as a full member of the UN. It is not a threat to its neighbors. None of that was happening under Hussain. So again its job done good result as far as the US is concerned.