Back to SoWal Lounge

US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan

mtlinscomb avatar
Beach Fanatic
3,308 views
US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan | Raw Story

Last year, the price of gasoline in the United States topped the $4 per gallon mark.
This year in Afghanistan, the price has topped $400.
The stunning revelation emerged Thursday in a report from the Pentagon to House officials. The information conveyed offers new insight into a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, which found that the US spends $1 million per year for each servicemember on the ground in Afghanistan.
Why so much? The cost includes shipping, which sometimes includes the pricetag of a helicopter flight. Sending fuel by helicopter is woefully inefficient, because it uses up almost as much fuel as it carries.
Speaking to the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, House Appropriations chairman John Murtha (D-PA) said the figure was ?worrisome? and "we started looking into it.?โ€‹
โ€‹
Afghanistan is also landlocked, meaning that fuel must be transported in ways that stretch the limits of economic reason.
Because the country has no seaports, fuel is shipped to Karachi, in Pakistan, then carried across land by commercial trucks through Afghanistan. For remote bases, gasoline is sometimes transported by air.
"One of the most expensive ways to supply fuel is by transporting it in bladders carried by helicopter; the amount that can be flown at one time can barely satisfy the need for fuel," the Hill notes.
The paper notes that the $400 pricetag is referred to in Pentagon argot as the ?fully burdened cost of fuel.?
The government's Defense Energy Support Center provides fuel to the military at $2.78 per gallon, the conveyance of which then grows exponentially more expensive as it travels through dangerous combat zones.
Gen. James Conway, who runs the Marine Corps, told a Navy forum that perilous risky routes up gasoline that originally cost $1.04 gallon up to $400.
?These are fairly major problems for us,? Conway was quoted as saying.



:eek:

Replies

78
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#52
No one here is saying that we believe the gov't is paying $400 per gallon for gas. We are saying that it is plausible that after we pay for the planes, trains and automobiles to transport it in, after we pay for the people to ensure those planes, trains and automobiles are safe, after we pay for the people to maintain and fix those planes, trains and automobiles, after we pay for someone to coordinate all those planes, trains and automobiles, ETC ETC ETC that it is probably plausible (and problematic) that the total amount divided by the number of gallons we transport = $400...

Jack, you seem to be reacting as if someone here believes there is an invoice being paid where the per gallon charge for gas = $400...

The article did not say this...
Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#53
What? :idontno:

Don't the teabaggers keep saying they are so worried about spending, the debt, the deficit?

Seems like a pretty big issue they could be taking a stand on! ;-)

Really? The US is wasting BILLIONS of dollars on this and the discussion has already ended ....................

Calling all teabaggers, libertarians, taxpayers, and people with a brain!!!

Dumb and substance free... Krazy K, that could be your new tag line!

Seriously, where does the $400 go? To Halliburton, who probably outsources the tanker truck drivers from Pakistan for $8 an hour...[/quote]

I find this absolutely ridiculous - how is it noone can think of any lower cost alternatives?

Alternate energy? Bio-diesel? Dropping fuel tanks out of airplanes? Using humans or animals to carry fuel?

Yes, there aren't a lot of airports or infrastructure in Afghanistan - but exactly where do we fight wars where there are?

The Afghans and Taliban sure as hell aren't spending $400 a gallon on fuel. Of course, they also aren't giving private contractors carte blanche at the taxpayer's expense......................which tends to raise prices quite a bit. :angry:

We could have all of the oil in the middle east but still cant burn it to run vehicles....

p.s.....It's still no excuse for $400 a gallon...:yikes:

Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again? Why not just enlight us as to where you get your information instead?

As I have taken the time to go back and provide you with the statements that elude to the belief in these articles. Please GEO help me here. Are these not statements giving creditability to the articles. Sorry I was so unaware that my reading comprehension was in such disarray! Thank you for your bringing this to my attention! (Bow)
:banging:
Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#54
No one here is saying that we believe the gov't is paying $400 per gallon for gas. We are saying that it is plausible that after we pay for the planes, trains and automobiles to transport it in, after we pay for the people to ensure those planes, trains and automobiles are safe, after we pay for the people to maintain and fix those planes, trains and automobiles, after we pay for someone to coordinate all those planes, trains and automobiles, ETC ETC ETC that it is probably plausible (and problematic) that the total amount divided by the number of gallons we transport = $400...

Jack, you seem to be reacting as if someone here believes there is an invoice being paid where the per gallon charge for gas = $400...

The article did not say this...

Sorry clicked on wrong post to respond... read the prior post. Thanks
Douglas the Intrepid avatar
Beach Fanatic
#55
I do believe that Jack is trying to imply that he is privy to top secret information that he is unable to disclose due to the fact that its all hush hush and the simple fact that he is privileged to be privy to such information should make us believe him and discount all other sources because he says so... :roll:
sunspotbaby avatar
SoWal Insider
#56
source: "if i tell you, i have to kill you" :funn:
Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#57
I do believe that Jack is trying to imply that he is privy to top secret information that he is unable to disclose due to the fact that its all hush hush and the simple fact that he is privileged to be privy to such information should make us believe him and discount all other sources because he says so... :roll:

No this information is obtainable with very little effort. Try it you might like it. Looks like the SMART ONES are here now. The Scholar brigade is here!

:eek:
Douglas the Intrepid avatar
Beach Fanatic
#58
No this information is obtainable with very little effort. Try it you might like it. Looks like the SMART ONES are here now. The Scholar brigade is here!

:eek:

Nice attempt at baiting....isn't that what trolls do? Enjoy your evening Jack. :wave:
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#59
Sorry clicked on wrong post to respond... read the prior post. Thanks

Hi Jack,

I don't want to play with you. I'm calling it the way I see it-

1) Someone posts an article about the cost of gas being $400 (not the price we pay but what it costs us to get it to Afghanistan).

2) Jack posts in the thread that he knows for "fact" that we don't really pay $400 per gallon and that he has first hand knowledge of this

3) Posters ask Jack to share with us how he knows the article is false

4) Instead of sharing his sources Jack repeats over and over again that he knows for "fact" that we don't really pay $400 per gallon and that he has first hand knowledge of this

5) Jack expresses frustration that he needs to repeat himself

6) Jack starts throwing around insults and using sarcasm when he is called on all of this

I think my reading comprehension skill level is pretty high so let me know if this isn't what we see here

:wave:

Edited

Bob avatar
SoWal Insider
#60
great thread!
Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#61
Hi Jack,

I don't want to play with you. I'm calling it the way I see it-

1) Someone posts an article about the cost of gas being $400 (not the price we pay but what it costs us to get it to Afghanistan).

2) Jack posts in the thread that he knows for "fact" that we don't really pay $400 per gallon and that he has first hand knowledge of this

3) Posters ask Jack to share with us how he knows the article is false

4) Instead of sharing his sources Jack repeats over and over again that he knows for "fact" that we don't really pay $400 per gallon and that he has first hand knowledge of this

5) Jack expresses frustration that he needs to repeat himself

6) Jack starts throwing around insults and using sarcasm when he is called on all of this

I think my reading comprehension skill level is pretty high so let me know if this isn't what we see here

:wave:

Geo,

Good to know you don't want to play with me. The point is you and several others want answers but are unwilling to do anything to get them. A little effort with all the tools we have today to find information and people still want the problem solved for them by someone else. Here Geo, Not the end Not all the answers but a place if you seriously are interested (Which I Doubt) do some further research find the answers for yourself. Interesting how it is the same same posters from thread to thread. Please step up Geo, You pointed fingers, now lets see what you know? What do you offer this thread? Come young man.. Its not at your local Wal-Mart...
:clap:

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/bryan-whitman-2/



In Part I of this series, Raw Story revealed that Bryan Whitman, the current deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations, was an active senior participant in a Bush administration covert Pentagon program that used retired military analysts to generate positive wartime news coverage.

This is what 1st hand knowledge means. I know as a fact what this was about. Hope this answers your question Geo.

I had hoped someone else would have figured out what this and many other stories we have been told in the past. I was a part of this program for 7 years. Some of what has been told is not what really happened. I know, I was there. I retired last year and bought a place in sowal. I still have my place in Atlanta and own a business (Media) in Mississippi.

Jack

Edited

Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#62
Hi Jack,

I think you just said the reason you know that the article is false is because you worked for the government helping to influence the media to say positive and sometimes untrue things.

But I'm not entirely sure because a lot of what you write is really hard to follow. Plus- I'm also distracted by the condescension in your posts.

No disrespect intended but here is a big hint for you-
when people on message boards ask you to support YOUR statements, it isn't because they are too lazy to do research on the subject. And it isn't because they are younger than you or not as smart or informed as you.

:wave:

Edited

Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#63
Hi Jack,

I think you just said the reason you know that the article is false is because you worked for the government helping to influence the media to say positive and sometimes untrue things.

But I'm not entirely sure because a lot of what you write is really hard to follow. Plus- I'm also distracted by the condescension in your posts.

No disrespect intended but here is a big hint for you-
when people on message boards ask you to support YOUR statements, it isn't because they are too lazy to do research on the subject. And it isn't because they are younger than you or not as smart or informed as you.

:wave:


Hint? Geo, when does a thread about a titled subject such as this become about a poster. My point is very clear. You as well as a few others stray away from the FACTS of the original post and ATTACK another posters creditability because this poster says he/she knows something to be untrue. Instead of offering facts about the article you attack the poster. Seems we have a circle here of pointing fingers. The fact is YES I have 1st hand knowledge of this subject. I also stated I know these publishers to be biased. I suggest that if you wish to become fully aware and be able to FOLLOW read ALL the post. Not just a couple. Comprehension is being able to take everything in and understanding what was said or written. I find this thread as many here to be a turkey shoot for a handful of childish egocentric individuals.

Clear this up for you and a few others. Before one post on a subject know a little something about the what is being discussed so you learn from these message boards.

Geo I still await to see what you have to offer on this subject" US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan ". We have now cleared up my understanding of FACTS, what do you bring here other then an attempt to look good before the groupies? These are what we in the media call "Drive By" postings. No knowldge on subject matter, Just Gang like mentality with same motive of operation. I am pretty well done here with this group of wanna be blog gang bangers.


Hint, if you want to learn something, the best way to do so is to put personal effort in to obtain the facts yourself. Do your own homework, stop taking the easy way out and expect someone else to do it for you. Also give a poster room. He/She might be able to help you find information if they are shown a willingness from others that they too want to learn. The rule of posting here appears to be start a subject with no background and toss it out there to look like you know what you sharing. In this case you found someone who lived it daily for 7 plus years. Instead of learning from the experience some are more interested in Blog relations. Myself, I see this as the same pattern of generation Y,
Generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Point in case, Had you or others used Private communication that is available on this site to question my FACTS instead of using the thread as their soap box to show the world they are smarter because they take a Drive By at a poster, this would have been proper etiquette as someone was so willing to post publicly a link. Again proof they never read or comprehended the very link they stood on as fact. I could go on but even though I have retired I still work. Off to Mississippi this week. Bottom line Geo... Use the thread to discuss FACTS about the thread, Not a turkey shoot to look good in front of the groupies. At least look and show some intelligence on ones self. Now hopefully the subject at hand will be discussed and others can learn. Feel free to start a thread about me if you wish to discuss me. Thanks for your input and your concerns. Good Day,
Jack:wave:
Lynnie avatar
SoWal Insider
#64
Well, we have raw story and the hill both posted by astute sowallers and both articles explain the cost to keep tankers, etc. fueled in Afghanistan.

Googled: US pays $400 per gallon of gas in Afghanistan and received the following links.

Search Results
  1. <LI class=g>US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan | Raw Story

    Oct 16, 2009 ... US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan. By John Byrne ..... and I certainly don't want to spend it listening to your drivel all day. ...
    rawstory.com/.../us-pays-400-per-gallon-for-gas-in-afghanistan/ - Cached - Similar
    <LI class=g>Gasoline in Afghanistan Costs the U.S. $400 Per Gallon - Topix

    2 posts - 2 authors
    Gasoline in Afghanistan Costs the U.S. $400 Per Gallon. Full story: snafu-ed.blogspot.com. Shades of those old stories of wasteful spending on nuts and ...
    www.topix.com/forum/pk/karachi/T47951OV2CUNVJ5V6 - Cached - Similar
    <LI class=g style="MARGIN-LEFT: 3em">Gasoline in Afghanistan Costs the U.S. $400 Per Gallon - Topix

    21 posts - 13 authors - Last post: Oct 16
    Shades of those old stories of wasteful spending on nuts and bolts! ... that the U.S. spends $400 per gallon for gasoline in Afghanistan. ...
    www.topix.com/us/.../gasoline-in-afghanistan-costs-the-u-s-400-per-gallon - Cached - Similar
    Show more results from www.topix.com



    <LI class=g>SNAFU-ed .... Situation Normal: Gasoline in Afghanistan Costs the ...

    Oct 16, 2009 ... Gasoline in Afghanistan Costs the U.S. $400 Per Gallon. Shades of those old stories of wasteful spending on nuts and bolts! ...
    snafu-ed.blogspot.com/.../afghanistan-gasoline-costs-us-400-per.html - Cached - Similar
    <LI class=g>$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in ...

    Oct 16, 2009 ... The top U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, reportedly has ... The $400 per gallon reflects what in Pentagon parlance is known as the .... So we've spent a few trillion in the past 7 years rearranging rubble ...
    thehill.com/.../63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-?... - Cached - Similar
    <LI class=g>US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan, page 1

    20 posts - 11 authors
    Discusion about US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan in the ... requests for funds with the $636 billion spending bill that the Senate passed. ...
    www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread511229/pg1 - Cached - Similar
    <LI class=g>US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan - SoWal Beaches Forum

    62 posts - 14 authors
    US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan | Raw Story Last year, ... Don't the teabaggers keep saying they are so worried about spending, the debt, ...
    www.sowal.com/.../41613-us-pays-400-per-gallon-gas-afghanistan.html - Cached - Similar
    <LI class=g>Silobreaker: US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan

    US spending 400 dollars for a gallon of gas for... - Sify [10/18/2009] .... US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan [Raw Story - 10/16/2009] ...
    www.silobreaker.com/us-pays-400-per-gallon-for-gas-in-afghanistan-5_2262678405352783879 - Cached - Similar
    <LI class=g>US Pays $400 Per Gallon for Gas in Afghanistan | Drudge Retort

    Oct 23, 2009 ... US Pays $400 Per Gallon for Gas in Afghanistan (61 comments) . ..... I just spent the whole day looking for a $10 heat sensor for my Ford ...
    www.drudge.com/news/126314/us-pays-400-per-gallon-gas - Cached - Similar
  2. US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan | DoomDaily

    US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan 071009banner3 ... UK.gov backs ID scheme with peanuts promo spend ? White House met secretly with corporate ...
    www.doomdaily.com/.../us-pays-400-per-gallon-for-gas-in-afghanistan/ - Cached - Similar

I don't have time to click on each of these, but agree with Geo and others, Jack. If you have info. that can further explain, please post as I think we are all interested in the bottom line currently. Just with my quick search, I am not finding anything negating the story, which will be debated before Congress.

Enjoy your week in MS! Let us know how much the gas/gal. is there. :wave:
Alicia Leonard avatar
SoWal Insider
#65
:wacko::wacko::wacko:
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#66
I already told you that I don't want to play with you. This is my last attempt to right things with you.

You asked me what my contribution has been to this thread. Kindly refer to Posts 52 and 59.

In Post 52, I attempted to clarify that the $400 per gallon figure is completely plausible because it represents the total cost of getting the gas to Afghanistan (rather than the price of just the gas itself). I see this as being pretty important so that we are all on the same page.

In Post 59, I tried to point out to you that you aren't being attacked but rather- folks are calling you out for advancing a contradictory position to the article and declaring what you say to be "fact" and "firsthand knowledge" without citing your sources despite numerous requests from other posters. In addition, I pointed out to you (in response to your own complaints about repeating your points) that we aren't any happier about you repeating yourself than you are. Is this a contribution? I believe it is. It was an attempt to bridge the gap between the person who claims the article is false and the folks who want to understand if it is false and why.

Just for fun- here is an example of the way this thread *could* have played itself out.

JACK: The article isn't true. I know this for fact. I have firsthand knowledge of this.

OTHER SOWALLERS: Really? Do tell?

JACK: I worked for the last 7 years for a government organization that used the media for PR purposes. My job was X, Y, Z and here is what I learned, from whom, etc, etc. In conclusion, this supports my point that the article is completely false.

OTHER SOWALLERS: Wow- we are lucky to have you as a source. Thanks for sharing. Keep posting!

(Instead you just kept declaring your words to be facts and ignored requests for you to cite sources to back up your statements and got kind of snarky to folks).
***********************

Jack,
If you are interested in exchanging ideas with me I would respectfully request that you drop the condescending attitude and cease to name call. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing this then I will be forced to hit the IGNORE button, which I don't want to do because then I would miss out on your insight (no saracasm intended).

I will follow your lead, Jack. Show some respect and you will get it back. Otherwise I am disengaging.

Edited

Banned
#67
Beanstalk, I don't believe you have any inside knowledge about anything, in fact I believe you're full of crap. Now get off your lazy butt and search the internet to prove me wrong!:popcorn:
sunspotbaby avatar
SoWal Insider
#68
:wacko::wacko::wacko:

:funn: (when i quote you, it says wacko: wacko: wacko:) :floor:
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#69
Beanstalk, I don't believe you have any inside knowledge about anything, in fact I believe you're full of crap. Now get off your lazy butt and search the internet to prove me wrong!:popcorn:


:lol:
Lynnie avatar
SoWal Insider
#70
Maybe the info. is Classified?
Banned
#71
Maybe the info. is Classified?

He's afraid if he talks Cheney will waterboard him.
Alicia Leonard avatar
SoWal Insider
#72
He's afraid if he talks Cheney will waterboard him.

Maybe it is Cheney. :shock:
Lynnie avatar
SoWal Insider
#73
Duck!
Douglas the Intrepid avatar
Beach Fanatic
#74
Duck!

Goose! ;-)
Alicia Leonard avatar
SoWal Insider
#75
Duck!

Goose! ;-)


Pony!:biggrin:......................:idontno:
Lake View Too avatar
SoWal Insider
#76
Jackass! :blink:

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.