Army says "we don't need anymore tanks, thanks bro", Congress says "take more, it's not like we coul - Polidicks

[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) -- Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle. Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams. But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks." It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt. Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed. "If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week. Why are the tank dollars still flowing? Politics.[/quote] [url]http://news.yahoo.com/army-says-no-more-tanks-115434897.html[/url]

Excess tanks might show up at military auctions so I'll try and buy one, need a new ride to work that's flashy yet intimidating

That is really stupid. When the ARMY says " We are cool, no more tanks." You know they don't need ANYMORE. Yet congress still gives them money for tanks. Why.jpeg

[QUOTE=Trogdon;40455757]Excess tanks might show up at military auctions so I'll try and buy one, need a new ride to work that's flashy yet intimidating[/QUOTE] Someone took your parking space? No problem

US Congress: proof that War Profiteering can still happen even if there's no war going on.

Fuck you congress. Instead of letting us train our tank crews, you decide to just give us more tanks? The fuck is that logic? For those that don't know, tank crews can't even start tanks for training anymore because of the budget cuts. So, they can't operate their equipment, but they can have more said equipment? Fuck you congress.

Stop shoving tanks down the army's throat and give more money to NASA

Come on, war industry, you can do better than this at concealing your lobbying power.

[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;40455767]That is really stupid. When the ARMY says " We are cool, no more tanks." You know they don't need ANYMORE. Yet congress still gives them money for tanks. Why.jpeg[/QUOTE] Because the companies that make the tanks spend millions in lobbying money and the politicians are all cashwhores

Why not give that 436 million to NASA to build SPACE TANKS

Give them to the Marines.

How about putting some of that to lowering the national debt?

or me

[QUOTE=Apache249;40455800]Give them to the Marines.[/QUOTE] I'll take them if the army doesn't want them, I mean wouldn't want that to go to waste

Give it to NASA so they can build us this: [img_thumb]http://www.heise.de/imgs/18/9/0/5/9/4/0/iron_sky2.jpg-2d81905fe4bea82c.jpeg[/img_thumb] The USS George W. Bush.

[QUOTE=Killowatt;40455853]Give it to NASA so they can build us this: [img_thumb]http://www.heise.de/imgs/18/9/0/5/9/4/0/iron_sky2.jpg-2d81905fe4bea82c.jpeg[/img_thumb] The USS George W. Bush.[/QUOTE]Not to mention invest more in railguns, so space nazis can't git us.

[QUOTE=Ghost656;40455786]Stop shoving tanks down the army's throat and give more money to NASA[/QUOTE] And stop trying to funnel money to NASA, we genuinely have more problems than space right now.

Aren't most of the M1's already just sat mothballed in a giant tank parking lot?

Fucking military industrial complex. They probably won't stop this, either. Yay blatant and widespread corruption in American politics!

[QUOTE=nomad1;40455807]How about putting some of that to lowering the national debt?[/QUOTE] The amount of money spent on these tanks are about 0.0026% of what the national debt is. It isn't going to make a lot of difference.

Worst is that army knows they don't need them as from strategic point of view, past certain amount they become useless. They have far far enough to deal with Iraq sized and tech leveled conflict, and in conflict with Russia or China or other somewhat-on-the-par superpower, they would be next to useless, as in today all out combat, tanks are sorta obsolete past some minor quantity. Air superiority is far more important.

Well if they say we don't need anymore tanks, then go ahead and send me home! PLEASE!

[QUOTE=whoosy;40456285]The amount of money spent on these tanks are about 0.0026% of what the national debt is. It isn't going to make a lot of difference.[/QUOTE] With that attitude we'll never get rid of it.

[QUOTE=counterpo0;40455772]Someone took your parking space? No problem[/QUOTE] Neighbours dog keeps shitting in your yard? No problem

America has enough tanks, around 9000 I believe.

buy more abrams - ignoring the few thousand M1s that we have in storage waiting to be used, updated, up-gunned, and put into service. instead we buy more m1a2s!!! m1a2s that don't even have crews!!

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz1o7zM_Zt0[/media] i'm imagining the Congress is somewhere to the left [sub][sub][sub]i know the original context of the clip but this just seemed fitting[/sub][/sub][/sub]

While it's understandable to be annoyed at this expenditure, and I do still tend to side with the belief that the Congressmen in question are only doing this to please constituents, there is definitely an argument to be made for the funding- if you stop the funding, the ONE tank plant we have in the U.S. producing Abrams' tanks could potentially get shut down, basically losing a very skilled and practiced production line that is already scheduled to be utilized in 2017 with the production of a newly designed Abrams'. So while the Army is explicitly saying they do not need more tanks, they did not say we will never need new tanks, which is why the funding could be important- to keep the assembly plant and workers there for future use.

[QUOTE=Killowatt;40455853]Give it to NASA so they can build us this: [img_thumb]http://www.heise.de/imgs/18/9/0/5/9/4/0/iron_sky2.jpg-2d81905fe4bea82c.jpeg[/img_thumb] The USS George W. Bush.[/QUOTE] we cannot afford an anti-space nazi spacezepplin gap! but apparently we can afford to have more tanks... [editline]28th April 2013[/editline] send some to nasa though, we never know when spacenazis are going to attack and when we'll need some sort of treaty violation to take them out [editline]28th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zambies!;40455975]And stop trying to funnel money to NASA, we genuinely have more problems than space right now.[/QUOTE] well all things considered, due to budget cuts, and contractual obligations, nasa actually getting more money will reduce the national debt as they will require less money later when those contracts that are defunded are forced to be payed with interest, keeping nasa on track is fiscal responsibility

I take it the congressmen enforcing this are being paid by the war industry to keep them in business.