- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Army Says "We don't want Tanks"
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:37 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:37 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
R's don't do it more, they just loudly proclaim to be budget conscious without having to actually be budget conscious
1
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:39 pm to Mizzoufan26
quote:
But it's still 120 mil, and could be better used in a time where troops are suffering due to "budget constraints"
Ding ding ding.
The folks on the ground know what they need, and it will ultimately be up to them to justify this waste.
Should not be left up to some Congressman to make a decision that will help him win the next election. The problem is that it took more than just him to make this happen. It's an epidemic of I scratch your constituency's back and you scratch mine.
I would like to see the justification for this purchase when the time comes.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:40 pm to Mizzoufan26
quote:
How in this day and age do we still allow these frickers to get away with this shite?
the people in the district getting the money are his voters
there is no way to stop it, its buying votes with other peoples money
Posted on 12/18/14 at 5:48 pm to biglego
Both sides do it, although I notice Reps dole contracts, and Dems service there bank buddies.
If anyone has read Gen. Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket", it has been going on since the beginning of industrial age.
If anyone has read Gen. Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket", it has been going on since the beginning of industrial age.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 6:37 pm to BlackleafBaller
quote:
Idk these tanks look pretty sweet to me:
They are sweet ... OP is scrooster obsessed. Anti military because I'm military, although we had very few tanks at Bragg and I rarely saw the Sheridans. If it couldn't be thrown out of a plane, (not talking lapsing) then we had little use for them.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 8:32 pm to scrooster
Huh?
I was also stationed at Bragg, not as a bitch though as I am Air Force, and actually meaningful to the entire process.
I was also stationed at Bragg, not as a bitch though as I am Air Force, and actually meaningful to the entire process.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 9:20 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Pretty sure this happened recently with an airplace, too. The Air Force said they don't need it, and Congress funded it anyway.
Yeah, this is the A-10, the AF wants to get rid of it, but its proven itself way too vital in close air support in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 9:24 pm to Mizzoufan26
That is the only tank plant in the country. If we aren't buying we lose the knowledge and experience of the workers in the plant...
Posted on 12/18/14 at 9:26 pm to Mizzoufan26
when we get invaded we will be thankful
Posted on 12/19/14 at 7:44 am to brass2mouth
quote:
Yeah, this is the A-10, the AF wants to get rid of it, but its proven itself way too vital in close air support in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yep, but when the AF budget gets slashed, tough choices have to be made. Congress won't let it happen though.
It'd be like being at the grocery store and trying to check out without enough money. Well, I can put back the milk...and someone says, "no you can't." I can put back the chicken, "nope."
It's hard to be in charge of the $, when you're really not in charge of the $.
ETA- I'm a fan of the A-10.
This post was edited on 12/19/14 at 7:46 am
Posted on 12/19/14 at 8:07 am to slacker130
quote:
Yep, but when the AF budget gets slashed, tough choices have to be made. Congress won't let it happen though.
It'd be like being at the grocery store and trying to check out without enough money. Well, I can put back the milk...and someone says, "no you can't." I can put back the chicken, "nope."
It's hard to be in charge of the $, when you're really not in charge of the $.
Oh yeah, but IMO the AF is just trying to save face with the failure that is the JSF. The "tough decision" needs to be just chalking it up as a loss and stop dumping more and more money into a plane that lauded itself as being cheaper than the F22 but with the same or similar capabilities. That same plane now gets an upset stomach if the fuel isn't the right temperature so the AF is spending millions repainting fuel truck tanks white to reflect the heat more. Not like that makes them more of a target or anything.
Its the blind leading the blind when it gets to that level. Generals and Admirals are getting just as much if not more in kickbacks just like the politicians.
This post was edited on 12/19/14 at 8:08 am
Posted on 12/19/14 at 8:07 am to Mizzoufan26
My hometown 
Posted on 12/19/14 at 8:31 am to brass2mouth
quote:
Generals and Admirals are getting just as much if not more in kickbacks just like the politicians.
You've seen too many movies.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 8:49 am to Mizzoufan26
Politicians need them kick backs 
This post was edited on 12/19/14 at 8:50 am
Posted on 12/19/14 at 8:54 am to scrooster
quote:
You've seen too many movies.
No, just not naive to believe it doesn't happen.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 9:26 am to Mizzoufan26
I'm very confident in our military against any other nation or threat.
But it seems foolish to get rid of tanks. Tanks would be essential in a fight against other formal militaries right?
Sure tanks might be useless against some mountain crawling rats like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but say Russia does start something In twenty years and we are low on tanks.
Disclaimer: I don't know how many tanks we currently have so don't start lecturing me that we alreay have enough.
But it seems foolish to get rid of tanks. Tanks would be essential in a fight against other formal militaries right?
Sure tanks might be useless against some mountain crawling rats like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but say Russia does start something In twenty years and we are low on tanks.
Disclaimer: I don't know how many tanks we currently have so don't start lecturing me that we alreay have enough.
This post was edited on 12/19/14 at 9:27 am
Posted on 12/19/14 at 9:30 am to scrooster
quote:
You've seen too many movies.
that's how they pave the way for their cushy "consultant" gigs for when they retire
This post was edited on 12/19/14 at 9:31 am
Posted on 12/19/14 at 10:04 am to Mizzoufan26
T'anks, but no t'anks.
Posted on 12/19/14 at 10:21 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
This is effing ridiculous. We haven't had any use for tanks since the initial invasion in Iraq. And they're totally useless in Afghanistan. This congressman is so full of shite.
This is what happens when you require generals to be buddies with Congress to get promoted. You get a bunch of generals who are scared to speak out about this stuff
This is what happens when you require generals to be buddies with Congress to get promoted. You get a bunch of generals who are scared to speak out about this stuff
Posted on 12/19/14 at 10:45 am to prince of fools
The Lima plant is the only tank plant we have, IMO it would be foolish to shut it down and lose the workers.
The A 10 is tailor made for the kinds of conflict we are in today, nothing can touch it in the close air support role.
The A 10 is tailor made for the kinds of conflict we are in today, nothing can touch it in the close air support role.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News