VABills Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Jeez CNN, make up your mind. Should the military have armor or not? The people want to know since they can't make a decision without you telling them exactly how to think. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/20/pentagon....reut/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 How in the holy hell could somebody read that article and interpret it as CNN complaining that the troops have armor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Jeez CNN, make up your mind. Should the military have armor or not? The people want to know since they can't make a decision without you telling them exactly how to think. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/20/pentagon....reut/index.html 636410[/snapback] Actually, it's a reuters wire story, not a story from CNN.... In any event, nobody's complaining about armor - it's needed. You need tanks in the theater, but it still doesn't hide the fact that they use a tremendous amount of fuel which causes issues from both a logistical and cost standpoint. If you read that anyone was complaining about having armor or that perhaps the troops shouldn't have it in order to save fuel I think you read that into the story yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 How in the holy hell could somebody read that article and interpret it as CNN complaining that the troops have armor? 636473[/snapback] Because gas consumption by the military is so high in part because they were required to up-armor vehicles that were designed not to be armored to begin with, and the added weight increases fuel consumption. You can't have it both ways; you can B word about fuel efficiency or protection, but you can't have both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Because gas consumption by the military is so high in part because they were required to up-armor vehicles that were designed not to be armored to begin with, and the added weight increases fuel consumption. You can't have it both ways; you can B word about fuel efficiency or protection, but you can't have both. 636478[/snapback] Not just fuel costs, but inreased maintenance and less service life. And, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that's ever been shot at in a vehicle to turn off motors to avoid idling to save fuel. Having to start the vehicle up to move can be a death sentence in some circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Not just fuel costs, but inreased maintenance and less service life. And, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that's ever been shot at in a vehicle to turn off motors to avoid idling to save fuel. Having to start the vehicle up to move can be a death sentence in some circumstances. 636845[/snapback] Shhhhhhh. We're living in ideology land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Not just fuel costs, but inreased maintenance and less service life. And, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that's ever been shot at in a vehicle to turn off motors to avoid idling to save fuel. Having to start the vehicle up to move can be a death sentence in some circumstances. 636845[/snapback] You're not actually telling me that there's actually trade-offs to be considered, are you? You mean...the real world's complex???? It's becoming my new mantra: Americans are !@#$ing stupid. I'm about one stupid lawsuit or dumbass Condi Rice thread away from "We deserve to be nuked by terrorists." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 You're not actually telling me that there's actually trade-offs to be considered, are you? You mean...the real world's complex???? It's becoming my new mantra: Americans are !@#$ing stupid. I'm about one stupid lawsuit or dumbass Condi Rice thread away from "We deserve to be nuked by terrorists." 636883[/snapback] I missed this Condi Rice thread. What are you guys talking about? Glad to see a few folks here got my point though. !@#$ the media complains the troops don't have armor, and then they complain the armored vehicles get sh------- gas milage, and think the troops ought to conserve energy. I !@#$ing hate the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I missed this Condi Rice thread. What are you guys talking about? Glad to see a few folks here got my point though. !@#$ the media complains the troops don't have armor, and then they complain the armored vehicles get sh------- gas milage, and think the troops ought to conserve energy. I !@#$ing hate the media. 636902[/snapback] In fairness, this looked to me more like they were reporting that fuel costs are through the roof, and the military is trying to work ways to solve it. Which, incidently means more technology, more expense for expensive equipment, and etc. So, the follow up will be that the new hybrid jeep costs $197,000 each and the Pentagon is wasting money with evil government contractors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Because gas consumption by the military is so high in part because they were required to up-armor vehicles that were designed not to be armored to begin with, and the added weight increases fuel consumption. You can't have it both ways; you can B word about fuel efficiency or protection, but you can't have both. 636478[/snapback] I recognize the issue at hand, I just didn't see anything in the article that was negative or that remotely resembled complaining. It was simply a statement of figures which contained little to no commentary on what they meant. In fact, if one reads the article without being utterly paranoid and hypersensitive, one might notice that fuel consumption actually went down last year: "The military's consumption of fuel went down in 2005..... The U.S. military consumed 144.8 million barrels of fuel in 2004.....Last year, it consumed only 128.3 million barrels..." Yeah, I can really see where they're complaining about the military having armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Jeez CNN, make up your mind. Should the military have armor or not? The people want to know since they can't make a decision without you telling them exactly how to think. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/20/pentagon....reut/index.html 636410[/snapback] What I want to know is who is telling you what to think, if you think that article was bitching about armor. It points out that armored vehicles consume more fuel, but I fail to see where folks are complaining that the armor is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_House Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Jeez CNN, make up your mind. Should the military have armor or not? The people want to know since they can't make a decision without you telling them exactly how to think. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/20/pentagon....reut/index.html 636410[/snapback] Jeez, relax. I don't see any complaining. I see Reuters reporting a problem the military is facing and the steps they are taking to try to alleviate the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 What I want to know is who is telling you what to think, if you think that article was bitching about armor. It points out that armored vehicles consume more fuel, but I fail to see where folks are complaining that the armor is bad. 636982[/snapback] What I want to know is, with all the millions of gallons of various fuels and oils required to keep the equipment running, and with all of the procurement channels and personnel that the military must have; how in the world did the military not use futures contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Jeez, relax. I don't see any complaining. I see Reuters reporting a problem the military is facing and the steps they are taking to try to alleviate the situation. 636995[/snapback] You do realize you're talking to a guy who has a team of "jaws of life" experts at his beckon just to help him remove his cranium from his intestinal tract, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 What I want to know is, with all the millions of gallons of various fuels and oils required to keep the equipment running, and with all of the procurement channels and personnel that the military must have; how in the world did the military not use futures contracts? 637005[/snapback] I suspect it's probably illegal. If it's not, it probably should be. Imagine the potential for market manipulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I suspect it's probably illegal. If it's not, it probably should be. Imagine the potential for market manipulation. 637033[/snapback] Too many sources? How many markets would you have to play in? It's also real easy to get burned hedging energy futures. How does one budget for it? Oil is pretty volatile, especially at those volumes. Plus, how many different kinds of fuels and lubricants are involved. I thought he was making a funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Too many sources? How many markets would you have to play in? It's also real easy to get burned hedging energy futures. How does one budget for it? Oil is pretty volatile, especially at those volumes. Plus, how many different kinds of fuels and lubricants are involved. I thought he was making a funny. 637042[/snapback] While CTM correctly pointed out that there could be significant potential for manipulation, I think your reason - the volume that they would have to purchase calls for in order to provide any meaningful hedging is simply too large, so there is no available market to try to obtain the hedges. The number of fuels and lubes involved wouldn't be an issue, as I was just looking for hedging crude and a few distillates, but the sheer volumes that would be involved would definitely be an issue. Unfortunately, no, I wasn't making a funny (at least not intentionally ). I've gotta remember not to post here late at night after not getting much sleep. As Emily Lutella used to say: NEVERMIND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 While CTM correctly pointed out that there could be significant potential for manipulation, I think your reason - the volume that they would have to purchase calls for in order to provide any meaningful hedging is simply too large, so there is no available market to try to obtain the hedges. The number of fuels and lubes involved wouldn't be an issue, as I was just looking for hedging crude and a few distillates, but the sheer volumes that would be involved would definitely be an issue. Unfortunately, no, I wasn't making a funny (at least not intentionally ). I've gotta remember not to post here late at night after not getting much sleep. As Emily Lutella used to say: NEVERMIND. 637077[/snapback] Nah, not you, I'm not real good on smiley significance, which is why I rarely use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts