Upset
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Biden’s Gift to Taliban Included 110 Helicopters, 20 Light Attack Airplanes, 42,000 Light Attack Vehicles, 25,000 Grenade Launchers

If you thought the Joe Biden Afghanistan disaster was bad now – things are going to get much worse.
Joe Biden supplied the Taliban terrorist organization and their Islamist accomplices with billions of dollars worth of US armaments.


Rather than destroying the equipment before leaving the country, Joe Biden decided to leave the nearly $85 billion worth of US military equipment to the Taliban.

Here is a breakdown of estimated vehicle costs:

Armored personnel carriers such as the M113A2 cost $170,000 each and recent purchases of the M577A2 post carrier cost $333,333 each.
Mine resistant vehicles ranges from $412,000 to $767,000. The total cost could range between $382 million to $711 million.
Recovery vehicles such as the ‘truck, wrecker’ cost between for the base model $168,960 and $880,674 for super strength versions.
Medium range tactical vehicles include 5-ton cargo and general transport trucks were priced at $67,139. However, the family of MTV heavy vehicleshad prices ranging from $235,500 to $724,820 each. Cargo trucks to transport airplanes cost $800,865.
Humvees – ambulance type (range from $37,943 to $142,918 with most at $96,466); cargo type, priced at $104,682. Utility Humvees were typically priced at $91,429. However, the 12,000 lb. troop transport version cost up to $329,000.
Light tactical vehicles: Fast attack combat vehicles ($69,400); and passenger motor vehicles ($65,500). All terrain 4-wheel vehicles go up to $42,273 in the military databases.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Jackaloftheazuresand · 31-35, M
You realize these weapons were in the hands of the people we left in charge don't you. Why is everyone so stupid about this, they didn't leave OUR stuff. They were basically gifts to the counter taliban forces so why the hell would we destroy them?
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Jackaloftheazuresand The people left in charge, deserted!
Jackaloftheazuresand · 31-35, M
@Budwick Yeah but pretending that was the trajectory is the kind of fake news bullshit I expect from leftists. You know damn well it was to give them superiority over the taliban so they could effectively control their country. It's counterintuitive to believe that someone with all that stuff provided would just give up.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Jackaloftheazuresand
It's counterintuitive to believe that someone with all that stuff provided would just give up.

But, they did.
And when they did - the crap should have been destroyed.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Stereoguy Who is being hunted?
By who?
Jackaloftheazuresand · 31-35, M
@Budwick Yes let's just make an offensive move in the middle of an agreement, that will go over well and won't suck us right back into the region
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Jackaloftheazuresand Destruction of our own stuff is not an offensive move.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 31-35, M
@Budwick We are withdrawing and the weapons get seized, they are in the possession of the taliban. How do you propose we destroy them at that point without being offensive? Can't use bombs, can't send in a team, the equipment wasn't fitted with disabling devices and never were going to be because we already gave them away. So what's the grand plan?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Jackaloftheazuresand Should have been destroyed before seized.

Remember grampa saying - close the bard door BEFORE the horses get out?
Jackaloftheazuresand · 31-35, M
@Budwick So then we go back to the start of what I said. There was no reason to believe they were going to be seized and if you see them about to be taken like let's say we see taliban moving in with guns and we see our anti-taliban guys put up their hands and walk away and somehow we are able to just happen to be in that area at the same time. You want us to destroy them in that moment I presume. You realize how unfeasible that is when our guys are withdrawn to our own installments and are currently in the state of leaving.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 31-35, M
@Stereoguy People will always support America if we are useful to them. That's how we got as far as we did with them in the first place. Humans are fickle that way and quick to take up with their benefactor.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Jackaloftheazuresand
You realize how unfeasible that is when our guys are withdrawn to our own installments and are currently in the state of leaving.

Yes, yes I do.
And THAT is the crux of the problem.
Biden fucked things up.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 31-35, M
@Budwick This was always going to happen because it was a no win situation. Sometimes we just have to take our licks because the aftermath, while still undesirable, is the only way forward.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Jackaloftheazuresand
it was a no win situation.

With Biden in charge - I suppose you're right.
Just bail and chalk up thousands of citizens death to another consequence of stolen elections.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 31-35, M
@Budwick Biden's handling of this whole situation can be contested but even under the former plan these weapons would have been lost, this specific thing would have happened because this never had any contingency to begin with. No plan to take the weapons back before leaving, no further tests or training to make sure the natives would stand their ground. This was not one of the things Biden did change.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Jackaloftheazuresand
Biden's handling of this whole situation can be contested

That's what we're doing here.
You hopelessly trying to support that loser - is a bad look.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 31-35, M
@Budwick I'm a realist who can recognize good and bad in the opposition. I just can't see this as his fault. Do you have anything to say on what I have said in that comment about how this part of the plan was the same under the previous administration. That is what I'm trying to do here, trying to see if perhaps you have a point.
@Jackaloftheazuresand I got a response similar, on a post I made. This issue should have been made clear by the administration the minute it became a concern, albeit that this hardware may have been left for the Afghan forces. Apparently it was not and since the removal, then return of military personnel to assist/ evacuate the hardware issue is still being bantered about.
Oberon1 · 61-69, M
@Jackaloftheazuresand Okay. Let's be clear. The spooks said that they expected the ANA to fold, but not this quickly. 11 days. Why would the US give 80 billion dollars worth of war toys to a force they knew were going to be quickly defeated? Doesn't add up at all.
Jackaloftheazuresand · 31-35, M
@Oberon1 It wasn't as simple as that, they pulled a quantum physics position. That is, they essentially predicted that anything was possible. This prediction was there, among others, but it was not given the best of confidence ratings. Then after forces were defeated in other parts of the country is when they adopted it as a prominent position which by then was too late.