Skip to main content

Senior army officials say no thanks to $436 million Abrams tanks

I've recently written and updated a blog with regard to the U.S.'s ridiculous amount of military spending, which was estimated to be greater than the next 14 biggest spending countries combined as of 2010. Coincidentally enough, I just read an article which showcases that we as a nation spend way too much on defense.

As the article cites, there is bipartisan support behind spending $436 million on the Army's Abrams tanks. 

What are the reactions of senior Army officials? Basically, "Thanks, but no thanks."

General Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, said the following in an interview on the matter with the Associated Press - "If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way."

Sean Kennedy, director of research for the nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste, said, "When an institution as risk averse as the Defense Department says they have enough tanks, we can probably believe them."

Precisely... If the army really needed more tanks, why in the world would they say otherwise? How about we take that money and spend it on improving this country's roads and bridges instead? Why spend this money on unnecessary tanks in an attempt to further the fear of war and destruction in certain foreign leaders' minds when we could work on and improve our own country while maintaining that same level of fear as held previously?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/abrams-tank-congress-army_n_3173717.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...