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

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"