Abrams Tank Pushed By Congress Despite Army's Protests

he actually made a decent point that losing the ability to manufacture this equipment could be a mistake in the long run .

I suspect our society will not maintain its level of high technology forever ...

Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.
 
he actually made a decent point that losing the ability to manufacture this equipment could be a mistake in the long run .

I suspect our society will not maintain its level of high technology forever ...

Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.
Especially after we go broke
 
Id rather them pour the money into a weapon system that is combat proven and WORKS vs billions into programs for equipment that is questionable and gets canceled anyway......see Marine Expeditionary Vehicle. id rather them Upgrade the M1A2s with the longer gun out of the Leapord 2 tank. Now that is an upgrade worth having



BS. The money should be spent on upgraded Obama phones.
 
Look spending any amount of money that you DO NOT HAVE IS WRONG now with that being said why not sell the old tanks use that money to rebuild the others that you want ( I was laid off I took all the money we had in the bank paid off all bills cut up credit cards sold anything we did not need or use ) yes I would like to buy a new car or new firearm maybe take my 3 grandykids on vacation but I CAN'T why because I don't have the money YOU DON'T SPEND MONEY THATS NOT YOURS TO SPEND O wait I could rise my wifes (husband taxs) after all its only her money that she works for RIGHT
 
You're barking up the wrong tree.

First consider the US Constitution and the constitutional role of the fed gov.

Sorry, but most of us are not going to suggest that the fed gov abdicate its constitutional obligation to provide for defense.

You want to make a difference and cut spending then start cutting unconstitutional sections of gov like welfare, dept of education, EPA, dept of energy, HHS, DHS, TSA etc etc etc....

I'm all for selling old tanks....I'd love to snap one up and put it in the driveway.
Sorry didn't mean to be that stuped But I can't find the part of the CONSTITUTION that said buy more tanks that the ARMY said we DO NOT want or need

2) You are 100% right about spending
 
I don't understand. Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy these tanks in China?


No it would cost half the price to rebuild them in china But our gov would still pay China full price for them just like ford dodge chevy ect ect LOL
 
CONUS also doesn't say anything about muskets, m4's or f-22's but they fall squarely within the realm of defense and raising an army/navy

True and I would not spend 1 dime on any of it till we start to control speeding
 
Thats as effective a strategy as refusing to control our borders until spending is under control and how is that working out for us?

You're biting off your nose to spite your face
Not at all

You talking apples to oranges (we have to many tanks)now but as for the borders if you control the borders would would be cutting down on speeding (welfare)
2) stop sending money to ME 3) shut down the UN 4) make all gov.employee pay for there own lunch ,cars,ins, gas, ect ect ect thats how you start to control speeding it's a small step but still a step
 
You don't understand and don't want to understand.

No point in argueing why maintaining our ability to build/maintain tanks is valuable

Best of luck

Thanks for argueing with me it was fun BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU DON'T SPEND MONEY JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN !!!

But thanks and you have a nice day
 
It might be more productive to ask why the US Army alone is operating nearly 50 facilities/bases in germany alone? Surely we could consolidate ALL branches into 1-3 bases in germany without sacrificing our abilities one bit....in fact it would probably improve security by having to secure fewer bases.

The U.S. Army is actually in the process of reducing forces in Germany BIG TIME, and they do it for several years now.
IIRC the last armored (as in tanks) unit is gone already, leaving some training facilities and one Stryker Brigade (2nd Cav
in Grafenwoehr).
Just in my vicinity an entire Armored Division (3rd "Spearhead") has left some years ago and has subsequently been
inactivated, along with V Corps Commandin Frankfurt. 1st Armor "Old Ironsides" has been relocated to Ft. Bliss and
2nd Armor "Hell on Wheels" is history, too.
Not sure of what Infantry units are left, but it can't be much. IMHO most of the facilities left are training, support
and supply - they're closer to the sandbox or A'stan than the 'ole U.S. of A. are.
 
The U.S. Army is actually in the process of reducing forces in Germany BIG TIME, and they do it for several years now.
IIRC the last armored (as in tanks) unit is gone already, leaving some training facilities and one Stryker Brigade (2nd Cav
in Grafenwoehr).
Just in my vicinity an entire Armored Division (3rd "Spearhead") has left some years ago and has subsequently been
inactivated, along with V Corps Commandin Frankfurt. 1st Armor "Old Ironsides" has been relocated to Ft. Bliss and
2nd Armor "Hell on Wheels" is history, too.


Not sure of what Infantry units are left, but it can't be much. IMHO most of the facilities left are training, support
and supply - they're closer to the sandbox or A'stan than the 'ole U.S. of A. are.

The point I was making is this if you need to speeding more money on tanks then you need to stop speeding money on DHS ,Welfare, cars, ins, lunchs,gas, anything but something and it must be for the same amount .You can speeding 436 Million and only cut 40,000
 
We don't need them, along with 80% of the military infrastructure we have. Our military is sized and geared for invading and "democracy building", not mainland defense. Let's go back to doing just mainland defense, with a big bowl of popcorn to watch what happens over there. No one can touch us over here with a military assault if we do that, and everyone knows it.
 
We don't need them, along with 80% of the military infrastructure we have. Our military is sized and geared for invading and "democracy building", not mainland defense. Let's go back to doing just mainland defense, with a big bowl of popcorn to watch what happens over there. No one can touch us over here with a military assault if we do that, and everyone knows it.

Hey everyone is entitled to their own opinion so I respect yours. However I tend to disagree this is the exact kind of isolationist attitude that I think gets you into trouble.

We should be against tyranny and evil wherever it exists.
 
We don't need them, along with 80% of the military infrastructure we have. Our military is sized and geared for invading and "democracy building", not mainland defense. Let's go back to doing just mainland defense, with a big bowl of popcorn to watch what happens over there. No one can touch us over here with a military assault if we do that, and everyone knows it.

The days when a vast ocean protected anything ceased 100's of yrs ago.

You want reduce our forces to what, nukes? A weapon that half the country doesn't think we should even have, and would never allow its use.

If what happened on the other side of the planet stayed there, things would be different.
 
The days when a vast ocean protected anything ceased 100's of yrs ago.

You want reduce our forces to what, nukes? A weapon that half the country doesn't think we should even have, and would never allow its use.

If what happened on the other side of the planet stayed there, things would be different.[/QUOTE]

True but we are not the worlds police or the worlds bank
 
True but we are not the worlds police or the worlds bank

Actually, given we spend more on our military than the next 10 nations combined, given the US pays for 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget, and given the US dollar is the GLOBAL RESERVE CURRENCY, I'd say we have firmly planted ourselves in the position of both global financier and global police force.

TEAM AMERICA **** YEAH!
 
Here is the link...I think the OP is quoting.

Abrams Tank Pushed By Congress Despite Army's Protests

Also, I found an interesting video on YouTube. Not sure about who these people are, but they do make an interesting point that it was really the DEMS who first empowered the Military Industrial Complex.



ETA: I like how the reporter refers to the Military Industrial Complex as the "Permanent War State". Very Orwellian and very true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom