News

**Blitzkreig**

The Pentagon wants to save $3 billion by freezing refurbishing work on its M1Abrams tanks, but the tank’s manufacturers are donating to Congressional campaigns to bribe members of Congress to lobby for their continued funding.

While the M1 tank has survived the Cold War, two conflicts in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, its value has declined in US efforts abroad. Aside from being vulnerable to improvised bombs, the tanks don’t serve much of a purpose while warfare is limited.

Their primary purpose is to destroy other tanks, according to Paul D. Eaton, a retired army general. Their usefulness is therefore limited in modern counterinsurgency warfare. The US Army already has more than 2,300 M1’s deployed and about 3,000 more being stored at a military base in California.

Instead of continuing to pay for the M1’s, which each weigh as much as nine elephants, the Pentagon, facing smaller budgets, wants to instead use its funds to redesign the vehicle.

If the Pentagon is required to continue funding the tanks, it will refurbish “280 tanks that we simply do not need,” said Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno in a February hearing.

But the Center for Public Integrity has found that General Dynamics, the tank’s manufacturer, has been donating to Congressional campaigns of members who are likely to influence the decision regarding the defense budget. In a two-week period last year, the company sent lawmakers checks for their campaigns that totaled nearly $50,000, coinciding with the defense bill’s final passage last year.

rest at http://rt.com/usa/news/congress-pentagon...neral-521/

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 105435 08-01-2012 01:26 AM

What's new?

**Mr Gormsby**

**Blitzkreig**

Spank The Monkey Wrote:

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 84193 08-01-2012 02:02 AM

1. Ask any republitard if they want to increase military spending.

2. Ask them what the military needs.

3. Ask why.

It is funny every time. chuckle

**It's Hot Here**

LoP Guest Wrote:

1. Ask any republitard if they want to increase military spending.

2. Ask them what the military needs.

3. Ask why.

It is funny every time.

Ask any libtard why they haven't decreased military spending

Ask them what the military doesn't need

No need to ask why, there's never a salient answer.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is chaired by Levin (D)

for every R there's a D on the other side of the aisle so nice try AC.

Majority Minority

Carl Levin, Michigan, Chairman
Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut[2]
Jack Reed, Rhode Island
Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Jim Webb, Virginia
Claire McCaskill, Missouri
Mark Udall, Colorado
Kay Hagan, North Carolina
Mark Begich, Alaska
Joe Manchin, West Virginia
Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

John McCain, Arizona, Ranking Member
James Inhofe, Oklahoma
Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
Roger Wicker, Mississippi
Scott Brown, Massachusetts
Rob Portman, Ohio
Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire
Susan Collins, Maine
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
John Cornyn, Texas
David Vitter, Louisiana

**Mike In SATX**

LoP Guest Wrote:

1. Ask any republitard if they want to increase military spending.

2. Ask them what the military needs.

3. Ask why.

It is funny every time.

There are still nation-states like China, North Korea, Iran, Russia and Cuba who would LOVE to watch the US stop spending on its military programs.

There are also asymmetric threats like Al Qaeda, Hamas, the drug cartels and other non-nation state "actors" who seek to do the United States harm.

Is military spending a necessity? Absolutely. In fact, it's a constitutional obligation. Can the military spend smarter and waste less? Absolutely.

**Foodnipple** · **Foodnipple** ♋ User ID: 111193 08-01-2012 02:36 AM **Posts: 4,846**

Mike In SATX Wrote:

LoP Guest Wrote:
1. Ask any republitard if they want to increase military spending.

2. Ask them what the military needs.

3. Ask why.

It is funny every time.

There are still nation-states like China, North Korea, Iran, Russia and Cuba who would LOVE to watch the US stop spending on its military programs.

There are also asymmetric threats like Al Qaeda, Hamas, the drug cartels and other non-nation state "actors" who seek to do the United States harm.

Is military spending a necessity? Absolutely. In fact, it's a constitutional obligation. Can the military spend smarter and waste less? Absolutely.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 111366 08-01-2012 03:05 AM

It puzzling why people insist the tank isn't an asset in asymmetrical warfare. The Abrams was extremely valuable in city fighting in Iraq and last I heard there were numerous tanks in armies around the world. China and Russia certainly believe in the value of the tank as do the Israelis.

Blitzkreig Wrote:

The Pentagon wants to save $3 billion by freezing refurbishing work on its M1Abrams tanks, but the tank’s manufacturers are donating to Congressional campaigns to bribe members of Congress to lobby for their continued funding.

While the M1 tank has survived the Cold War, two conflicts in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, its value has declined in US efforts abroad. Aside from being vulnerable to improvised bombs, the tanks don’t serve much of a purpose while warfare is limited.

Their primary purpose is to destroy other tanks, according to Paul D. Eaton, a retired army general. Their usefulness is therefore limited in modern counterinsurgency warfare. The US Army already has more than 2,300 M1’s deployed and about 3,000 more being stored at a military base in California.

Instead of continuing to pay for the M1’s, which each weigh as much as nine elephants, the Pentagon, facing smaller budgets, wants to instead use its funds to redesign the vehicle.

If the Pentagon is required to continue funding the tanks, it will refurbish “280 tanks that we simply do not need,” said Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno in a February hearing.

But the Center for Public Integrity has found that General Dynamics, the tank’s manufacturer, has been donating to Congressional campaigns of members who are likely to influence the decision regarding the defense budget. In a two-week period last year, the company sent lawmakers checks for their campaigns that totaled nearly $50,000, coinciding with the defense bill’s final passage last year.

rest at http://rt.com/usa/news/congress-pentagon...neral-521/

**Mike In SATX** · (This post was last modified: 08-01-2012 03:21 AM by Mike In SATX.)

Obama would rather spend billions of taxpayer money on handing two of the big three automakers over to the unions at the expense of the former stockholders, or on failed "green" companies like Solyndra. Because that makes so much more sense...

S977

**geminigirl**

I was talking to someone about this yesterday. They contributed to their campaign & then insisted they buy them even after the pentagon said they don't need them. I hope this ends with exposure of the profits from the war & the entire war corporation machine being outed.