Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Congress (again) buys Tanks the Military does NOT want...



http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014 ... -want.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chizzang wrote:Congress (again) buys Tanks Obama does NOT want...



http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014 ... -want.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FIFY

If North Korea can hack into Sony and U2 can upload their latest album into my phone without my consent, you'd think we'd be able to hack some quality porn and Lady Gaga videos onto Iran's interwebs. Perhaps air drop some booze all over the Middle East.

These are things we should be spending money on.

Chizzang wrote:Congress (again) buys Tanks the Military does NOT want...



http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014 ... -want.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did this make Coburn's waste book

Ridiculous. The army says its 2-year-old tanks are still perfectly good. Waste and pork.

travelinman67 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Congress (again) buys Tanks Obama does NOT want...



http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014 ... -want.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FIFY

Your reading comprehension is terrifyingly low....

travelinman67 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Congress (again) buys Tanks Obama does NOT want...



http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014 ... -want.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FIFY

. The pentagon hasn't wanted to buy tanks for years. It isn't Obama, it's congressmen with tank manufacturers in their states and districts.

Chizzang wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
FIFY

Your reading comprehension is terrifyingly low....

Exactly. This isn't new at all. This bullshit is tiresome. It's the same reason we still have the penny.

travelinman67 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Congress (again) buys Tanks Obama does NOT want...



http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014 ... -want.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FIFY

Wrong. Which is pretty funny because on the FOX News FB post about this I had an interesting argument with people who say this is an example of wasteful spending by Obama.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
FIFY

Wrong. Which is pretty funny because on the FOX News FB post about this I had an interesting argument with people who say this is an example of wasteful spending by Obama.

Of course. Heaven forbid they read up on the subject. This has been in the news everything there's a defense budget discussion.

I can understand the worry that if assembly lines shutter the costs to start them up again in a time of need can be higher. But in this case even the Army says foreign demand is enough to keep the factory running. I think just selling to Taipei, Prague and Warsaw alone would be sufficient.

CID1990 wrote:I can understand the worry that if assembly lines shutter the costs to start them up again in a time of need can be higher. But in this case even the Army says foreign demand is enough to keep the factory running. I think just selling to Taipei, Prague and Warsaw alone would be sufficient.

What about Africa? You could do some serious shit there with a couple of tanks.

CID1990 wrote:I can understand the worry that if assembly lines shutter the costs to start them up again in a time of need can be higher. But in this case even the Army says foreign demand is enough to keep the factory running. I think just selling to Taipei, Prague and Warsaw alone would be sufficient.

Yeah...
God forbid
They should have to manage any of the issues a legitimate manufacturer would have to deal with



Thank goodness we can shield them from that horrible management reality
Nobody should have to worry about such things while tax payers can just SOLVE that for them

You're a Military Industrial communist CID...

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I can understand the worry that if assembly lines shutter the costs to start them up again in a time of need can be higher. But in this case even the Army says foreign demand is enough to keep the factory running. I think just selling to Taipei, Prague and Warsaw alone would be sufficient.

Yeah...
God forbid
They should have to manage any of the issues a legitimate manufacturer would have to deal with



Thank goodness we can shield them from that horrible management reality
Nobody should have to worry about such things while tax payers can just SOLVE that for them

You're a Military Industrial communist CID...

Boom!

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I can understand the worry that if assembly lines shutter the costs to start them up again in a time of need can be higher. But in this case even the Army says foreign demand is enough to keep the factory running. I think just selling to Taipei, Prague and Warsaw alone would be sufficient.

Yeah...
God forbid
They should have to manage any of the issues a legitimate manufacturer would have to deal with



Thank goodness we can shield them from that horrible management reality
Nobody should have to worry about such things while tax payers can just SOLVE that for them

You're a Military Industrial communist CID...

I dont think I said what you think I said Mr Harvard.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Yeah...
God forbid
They should have to manage any of the issues a legitimate manufacturer would have to deal with



Thank goodness we can shield them from that horrible management reality
Nobody should have to worry about such things while tax payers can just SOLVE that for them

You're a Military Industrial communist CID...

I dont think I said what you think I said Mr Harvard.

So the Pentagon was speaking code..?

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I dont think I said what you think I said Mr Harvard.

So the Pentagon was speaking code..?

No, I don't think so.

The Pentagon said they don't need the tanks, and it was mentioned that if the concern is that the M1 plant might shutter it should not be an issue since foreign sales would keep them operating. Is that about right?

Most defense industries stay afloat through foreign sales anyway- I'm not sure what the big deal is here except that the Army actually said they don't want the extra toys.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:


So the Pentagon was speaking code..?

No, I don't think so.

The Pentagon said they don't need the tanks, and it was mentioned that if the concern is that the M1 plant might shutter it should not be an issue since foreign sales would keep them operating. Is that about right?

Most defense industries stay afloat through foreign sales anyway- I'm not sure what the big deal is here except that the Army actually said they don't want the extra toys.

I thought the big deal was unnecessary spending?

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:


So the Pentagon was speaking code..?

No, I don't think so.

The Pentagon said they don't need the tanks, and it was mentioned that if the concern is that the M1 plant might shutter it should not be an issue since foreign sales would keep them operating. Is that about right?

Most defense industries stay afloat through foreign sales anyway- I'm not sure what the big deal is here except that the Army actually said they don't want the extra toys.

I missed the part where these were FMS. I have never heard that any time that this is brought up.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
No, I don't think so.

The Pentagon said they don't need the tanks, and it was mentioned that if the concern is that the M1 plant might shutter it should not be an issue since foreign sales would keep them operating. Is that about right?

Most defense industries stay afloat through foreign sales anyway- I'm not sure what the big deal is here except that the Army actually said they don't want the extra toys.

I thought the big deal was unnecessary spending?

Nobody said it wasnt.

You're trying so hard to be relevant and involved- its kind of endearing.

Well maybe not

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
I thought the big deal was unnecessary spending?

Nobody said it wasnt.

You're trying so hard to be relevant and involved- its kind of endearing.

Well maybe not

Nice dodge.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Nobody said it wasnt.

You're trying so hard to be relevant and involved- its kind of endearing.

Well maybe not

Nice dodge.

You meant to say "stop ignoring me"

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Nice dodge.

You meant to say "stop ignoring me"

A new stalking tactic!

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:


So the Pentagon was speaking code..?

No, I don't think so.

The Pentagon said they don't need the tanks, and it was mentioned that if the concern is that the M1 plant might shutter it should not be an issue since foreign sales would keep them operating. Is that about right?

Most defense industries stay afloat through foreign sales anyway- I'm not sure what the big deal is here except that the Army actually said they don't want the extra toys.

So we agree that Military Industrial Communism is a far more acceptable form of communism than the kinds the Republicans warn us about from the Left



Apparently we're all crazy socialist fanatics just a mere 6 degrees from full blown communism
It just comes down to what flavor of communism you like

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
No, I don't think so.

The Pentagon said they don't need the tanks, and it was mentioned that if the concern is that the M1 plant might shutter it should not be an issue since foreign sales would keep them operating. Is that about right?

Most defense industries stay afloat through foreign sales anyway- I'm not sure what the big deal is here except that the Army actually said they don't want the extra toys.

So we agree that Military Industrial Communism is a far more acceptable form of communism than the kinds the Republicans warn us about from the Left



Apparently we're all crazy socialist fanatics just a mere 6 degrees from full blown communism
It just comes down to what flavor of communism you like

I really am not sure what the hell you are on about.

Personally I think that military production when it comes to proprietary technology fits into a different category altogether when it comes to industry. The sheer level of technology that has evolved over the years to produce things like Chobham armor would never have come about if not for military spending, and nobody other than the military is going to buy M1 tanks. At least I'm not in the market for one.

SO there is no good answer. It is tempting to say that at least some military producers should be state owned, but that opens up a whole different can of worms.

I don't think that we are in danger of losing the ability to produce tanks or aircraft if we shut down the programs (like the F-22), but if the time comes where we need them again, the cost of restarting production could well be greater than if we had simply continued to produce at a rate that kept production profitable. It is just an observation, I really don't care one way or the other anymore. We have pretty much crapped the bed in terms of our own sovereignty and national identity anyway. Its just a matter of time before more homogenous societies like China relegate us to the status of a Finland or a Moldova. So having lots of guns and bombs would just prolong our agony.

In fact, we should probably just annex into China now, while they aren't inclined to shove us all into the ovens and be rid of us.