Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

MILITARY: Plan for tanks is a waste

May 3, 2013

No nation on earth has an armored vehicle capable of standing up to the U.S. Abrams tank. On conventional battlefields, it is virtually unbeatable....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




May-03-13 12:28 AM

I know this must be Bushes and the GOP's fault. At least that is what the other side will claim.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 7:07 AM

The Observer is correct as to the capability of the Abrams but the Israel Merkava is a worthy rival. Anyway I agree we have enough when Obama is giving them away to our "friends" in Egypt.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 7:13 AM

The GOP routinely fights any effort to cut anything from it's vast black hole. Joew, I have seen you do this many times when Military cuts are discussed. Obama is guilty of many things, but this isn't one of them.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 7:26 AM

When it comes to military appropriations and waste, it's one of the few things that have strong bipartisan efforts in congress. If these tanks were produced in Dunkirk, you can bet your life Tom Reid and Chuck Schumer would be in bed together on getting this funding.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 8:03 AM

The world must be ending...the great and powerful Oz...I mean Observer has sided against the Republican fools in congress. What will happen next? The trolls will be nice? HA HA HA!!!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 8:20 AM

I see fault on both sides of the aisle on this one, but find it pathetic how many, such as demmom, wish to blame this, and all the evils of the world, on Republicans.

It's sort of like how if talk to those on hte left Bush is responsibly for 9/11, which happened eight months into his first term, yet Obama isn't responsible for anything bad that happens evan a few months into his second term.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 8:33 AM

As for these tank upgrades, which is what this is about, upgrading old tanks not building all new ones, I understand the reasoning behind it but don't support it.

The logic behind this is simple, this is the only place, and people, in the US that builds tanks and if it closes it will be more expensive, and there will be far more problems, when production on the Abram's replacement begins in 2017.

As an alternative, if the Army does not need anymore modernized tanks I think the solution would be to sell off the excess stock of unmoderized tanks to allies, at a good price, but require the buyer pay for the moderization process.

This would get rid of our excess tanks and keep the manufacturing plant in business until the M1's replacement is ready to be to be put into production.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 8:42 AM

I applaud the OBSERVER board on this one, in particular -- the usual church lady gaggle must have been at Bob Evans for the senior early bird special & let the SUNY interns run the place...

I have brought up this M1 Abrams tank waste a number of times when responding to govt spending ; so I'm glad to see it addressed.

Buuuut...despite listing OH senators, notably absent was the mention of the strongest-GOP 4th district (Lima) Congressman, who is ultimately responsible for this particular spending: Jim Jordan (R), sits on both the Budget and the Darrell Issa's Oversight (on waste) Committee. (Gee, how surprising that the M1 tank still survives???)

And, are we surprised that this critically important fact was omitted...?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 9:06 AM

It amazes me how many of the posters see the clear government waste here, yet continue to support keeping the Chautauqua County Home government owned.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 10:30 AM


Well firstly most commenters on this site have no problem with government waste, as long as it's in programs they support.

Steiner, oops I mean Dcronlg once again your making yourself look like a partisan idiot that has an ax to grind since even when you agree with the paper you need to get some digs in. I have to wonder if you and Steiner are two sides of the same coin or actually the same troll?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 12:47 PM

Darkstar, that’s because people like demmom don’t have a clue what is behind military spending and believe only what their particular party tells them to believe. You want to see military spending at its best? Visit Whiteman AFB in Missouri and see what Congressman Ike Skelton (D) built. They even built a 3 million dollar dog kennel there...three million dollars to house dogs. Some of the best facilities and housing in the DOD can be found there and it’s a credit to Rep Skelton what he got done there.

When it comes to bringing home the DOD dollars, political party has no play in the matter. The only ones who fight against it are those whose district has nothing to gain.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 2:05 PM

Christopher-did you not read my comment that said "I agree we have enough"?Who in he** is giving them away,the Pope? Perhaps you need to go back to MI 101!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 2:12 PM

Dcronig-notably absent from your comments was Sen Sherrod Brown. Are we surprised you failed to mention him? Nah just an oversight I'm sure.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 6:19 PM

Yes, Joew, you did admit that we had enough tanks, but only because President Obama is being blamed. Otherwise, you and I have had many discussions about Military waste and you clearly supported every weapons program there is, from boats to panes to missile systems. And I don't need MI 101 to say that either. But you might want to keep track of all of your positions on things so you can keep them straight.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 8:07 PM

Jo-eeeewwww: If you bothered to read, and comprehend my comment, I said, "omitted", as in, the editorial listed Sherrod Brown as well as Portmand, so why should I bother to repeat it.

Unless, your Pavlovian response to comprehension requires a Fox News parrotting, ad naseum, of already said and established points.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 8:19 PM

Darkstar -- your very dim attempt with rapier putdown wit suffices to verify what has been previously established: you are not a bright spot in the nighttime sky, although you should be commended for the self-awareness shown with your sign-in pseudonym. It takes a certain amount of courage to proudly label oneself by what so many people already know.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 8:34 PM

Christopher-I did not blame Obama so enough with the twists,I said we have enough when Obama is giving them away. How is that putting blame on him?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 8:41 PM

Dcronig-the only people mentioned by name were members of the GOP in your blurb. Your intentions to make is seem all GOP were/are crystal clear.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 8:57 PM

The problem with the DOD is when they go to reduce spending; they take it out of people programs. They’ll go after military retirees and increase their TRICARE costs or active duty GI’s by reducing their tuition assistance. Stuff like this doesn’t bother congress because it doesn’t take money out of their districts. No nation on earth has anything that will come close to the F-15, F-16, and F-18 but we’re spending billions on developing and building the F-22 and F-35 anyways. But, it leads to thousands of jobs. I guess you can look at it this way. The government can give out 20 billion in welfare to people who sit around and do nothing all day or give that same 20 billion to DOD development projects and employ those same people in something worthwhile who will also give some of that money back to the government in the form of taxes.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 10:02 PM

"Christopher-I did not blame Obama so enough with the twists,I said we have enough when Obama is giving them away. How is that putting blame on him?" If President Obama wasn't the one giving them away, if it were president Bush, you wouldn't say a word. By the way, I'm sure Bush gave away much Military equipment, and sold more, as the US is the largest arms producer and supplier in the world.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 10:03 PM

How is it we can build all the arms in the world here, but nothing else, at a profit? Maybe, just MAYBE, it has to do with government policy in regard to taxes and such?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-04-13 9:49 AM

Christopher-you can bet I'd be all over anyone who calls Jewish people "descendants of apes and pigs",said the holocaust never happened,just a US hoax, and imprisoned a mother and her children simply because they wanted to be Catholics.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-05-13 1:21 PM

Joew, as usual, obfuscation when their is no explanation. By the way, are you aware, speaking of Military spending, that we have more Admirals than we do boats? That in WW II we had approximately 1 Admiral for every 30 boats? How about that for a cost savings? The Army is just as bad or worse with Generals. Admirals and Generals are like royalty, or dictators. They spend money we don't have and feel entitled to it.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-05-13 2:18 PM

Christopher you have dodged when I answered your accusation and gone off on some ridiculous tangent about Admirals! Just a bit of education for you MR MI,the Navy has both ships and boats. Ships can carry boats but boats can not carry ships. See learn something every day! How about that for changing the subject?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-05-13 4:19 PM

WSell, let's see, once more we seem to be dealing with more of your obfuscation. We went from Military spending, which you always support, but not this time since President Obama is being blamed, not the Congressman from Ohio where the tanks are built, to some rant about holocaust deniers, and now a lecture of ships and boats which of course doesn't change a thing, does it, relative to Military spending. I also know Military personnel refer to their rifles as WEAPONS and GUNS are Artillery, but I never "correct" people who use the terms interchangeably in an attempt to sound clever. Again, you avoid the issue of Military spending relative to your normal support of all things Military.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 26 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web