But even if they're replacing the old ones, its still the same deal, isn't it. Money for tanks to go where and why. Why do we have tanks (or soldiers) in Germany - can't they freaking defend themselves (and against who, anyway)?
Reminds me of an old, time-honoured saying: "It'll be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and the military needs to hold a bake sale to buy a jet".
One huge difference . . . and I mean HUGE . . . it IS the government's constitutional duty to provide for our defense. It is NOT the government's constitutional duty to educate children. :)
That's the lamest cop-out I've ever heard. If it's not the government's job to educate children, then what's behind the "No Child Left Behind" debacle?
A cop out? Really? I don't know what to say because that doesn't even make any sense. I was simply stating facts. While I'm sure the intentions were sincerely good, "No Child Left Behind" is no answer to the woes of government schools. The whole system is irreversibly corrupt. Education needs to be put back in the hands of parents and whatever cooperation they come up with on a local level. Of course, it will never happen. But that is the only answer for the disaster that our education system has become. And, no . . . it is not the government's job to educate children.
It is EVERYONE'S job to educate our children. They are the future - theirs, ours and everyone else's. How do you expect any nation to maintain a competitive edge if they're raising a generation of semi-educated dolts? It's no wonder we're being eaten alive by the Chinese: they still firmly believe in education, and it is a central tenet of their culture.
That's fine . . . let's have EVERYONE involved . . . just not through the government. Why, oh why, have we come to this state of mind that only the government can really do things correctly? Of COURSE, education must be a central tenet of our culture. It certainly was in my family when I was a child, and it is now for my 6-year old. But that does NOT equal government education. The U.S. FAR outspends any other nation on education both in total dollars and per pupil. And yet we are down at 9th and 10th in Science and Math respectively. The amount of money spent has almost NOTHING to do with the quality of education. If it did, the U.S. would be leaving the rest of the world behind. The U.S. Department of Education should be abolished and education placed back in the hands of parents and the local communities. It should be a private enterprise accountable to the parents. It will never happen, but if it did you would see the quality of education absolutely skyrocket. "Everyone" could be involved and it could be a "central tenet" of the culture. Our "competitive edge" would be unmatched. We are "raising a generation of semi-educated dolts" and "being eaten alive by the Chinese" precisely because our government has decided that it knows what is best for our children. (And, also, because our parents have largely abdicated their responsibilities to train their children) Yes, I am aware that other nations have government-controlled education. They are, generally speaking, not nations that have the culture of freedom that has defined America. Government-controlled education becomes a breeding ground for propaganda and loss of freedom, and it is certainly heading that way in the U.S. Social experimentation has become far more important than learning the facts. The unions are far more interested in the teachers and in control than in the students. And the students suffer. (By the way, I don't blame the teachers. I know many of them and believe that most government school teachers are very competent and committed to their students.) Bottom line . . . getting the government back out of education would be the best thing that ever happened to the young people of America. :)
With Regard to Anonymous Jan. 24th at 8:25am. What a bizarre "old-honoured quote." A majority of our taxes are spent on our broken education system. The whining and crying from these "professionals" is cringe-worthy. Their medical and dental benefits, great pension and retirement packages, not to mention the paid summers off never seem to be enough. Perhaps our educators would rather operate one of these tanks in a strange foreign country, far away from family and loved ones, 24 hours a day, defending our country, live in constant danger in the middle of a war. In a nutshell your "old-honoured quote" is insensitive and kind of offending.
Perhaps if you could read carefully and accurately, you'd realize that the quote is referring to SCHOOLS, not teachers. Big difference. Schools don't have a powerful union to advocate for them - teachers do. Have you ever considered that just maybe a better education for everyone would mean less of poking our noses into places they don't belong? ie. maybe we could have interventions based on actual need instead of trumped-up, jingoistic fervor?
Well, these don't necessarily are going to be used for US troops....they could have been sold to some other country. Not that it doesn't make that less scary.
We recently sold tons to Greece, who while being harassed by Western countries to tighten their belt, is at the same time being told by the same countries to buy stuff from them. At least we know they'll be prepared if their citizens get fed up like Egyptians, who we also have been selling military gear too.......
"Compared to war all other human endeavors pale to insignificance" George C. Scott as General George S. Patton I don't know if he really said it, but I like to think he did.
@Minnesotastan - If this comment nests under your comment then nesting is possible, just not enabled (you have to edit the live form's parentID input value to reference the comment you'd like to nest under); otherwise no, it is not possible (yet).
Looks great to me! Since our government insists on doing so many things that are NOT in our Constitution, I'm glad to see that they are doing something that IS in our Constitution - "provide for the common Defence". I don't wish for war, but it does come. When it does, I want our equipment to be bigger, better, and greater in number.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where we can just build a wall around our country and hope everybody leaves us alone. Sometimes a good offense it the best defense.
@Thimothy U.S military is deployed around the world not for common defense, but as means to guarantee control over markets and resources. It has nothing to do with security, on the contrary: it puts the american people at great danger, since it is the reason why there are so much hatred towards the U.S. around the globe, and is this kind of hatred that generates terrorist attempts on american soil. Your argument is invalid.
@anonymous - It's unfortunate that your interpretation of my statement is that we should slaughter the rest of the world's population. One reason that I like this blog is that the debate seems to be on a higher level than that (although, I just don't have time to get involved very often). @Paulo - Several thoughts - There is no honest or logical way that you can just dismiss my argument out of hand, and neither do I dismiss yours out of hand. I believe there probably is some truth to what you are saying; however, I believe it is far outweighed by other facts. America far outspends any other nation on foreign aid; America is usually the first at disaster scenes offering help; American's are very generous to causes around the world. If your statement was true to a great degree, then these same nations that hate us would have a truly intense hatred for some of the other nations of the world that have subjugated them at times and treated them in horrific ways. Of course, this subject is a complex subject which is far beyond the few sentences that you and I are putting out as comments on a blog. Also, while our forces around the world may be used partially as stabilizing interests in markets and resources, they are also used to deter military aggression against America. I have this strong feeling that many nations are much happier to have us around than they would ever admit. They certainly are happy to rely on us when they are in trouble. Again, this is a complex world and a complex subject, but complaining about America is not the answer. I certainly don't envy ANY president as he makes these decisions. This issue definitely deserves more than, "My argument is valid and your is not." :)
I don't think you know what's allowed, or not allowed in our Constitution to be frank.
I want our equipment to be bigger, better, and greater in number.
You've already had your wish and then some. We spend more than the 10 next biggest spending country's combined. So unless you think that those 10 countries are going to unite for some reason to invade the United States, then your position is unnecessary and wildly fiscally irresponsible.
Since you have no idea what I do or don't know, your comment is completely ignorant . . . to be frank. You just didn't like what I said, so you decided to insult me under an anonymous name. "You've already had your wish and then some." Good! If there is going to be a fight, I don't even want it to be close. I'm sure there is waste in the military, and it should be rooted out wherever possible. However, the defense of our nation should be a top priority. And yet, looking at the U.S. spending for fiscal year 2011 I see 18% on healthcare (definitely NOT in the Constitution), 15% on education (definitely NOT in the Constitution), and 12% on welfare (definitely NOT in the Constitution). Welfare is barely below spending on the military, education is even, and healthcare is higher. There is your wild fiscal irresponsibility. Nearly 50% of our spending is on items nowhere in the Constitution. The only small hope you would have to justify these items by the Constitution is the "general welfare" clause. That debate is too long to get into here. Suffice it to say that members of both major parties have been governing outside of the Constitution for quite some time. Much more could be said, but I'll finish by repeating what I said before. I'm really glad that our government is spending money on our national defense. That is what they are SUPPOSED to do. Using 15% of last year's spending on one of our government's top priorities and constitutional obligations is NOT "wildly fiscally irresponsible" no matter how much you disagree with it.
Hey Timothy, If the founders were alive, they'd say screw the constitution, and probably take their flint weapons, put them to their heads, and fire, if they were to see how anti-intellectual, how unenlightened, and fanatical so many know-nothing Americans have become.
Anyway, it's typical. Hypocritical, and totally fiscally irresponsible. You love big wasteful, needless government, as longs as it's wasting amazing fortunes on needless defense spending.
I'll tell you what's "typical" . . . more insults when that's the best you've got. I have not insulted you. I have stated facts. You have none (at least, that you are willing to share). You seem to imply that I am an anti-intellectual, unenlightened, fanatical, know-nothing American, and yet you know absolutely nothing about me. If I'm so wrong, give some hard facts in rebuttal. If not, then why don't you quit being so rude. On top of that, you are putting words in my mouth. I despise big, wasteful government in any area of the budget. The fraud and waste in healthcare, education, and welfare is staggering. It is all the more galling in that those expenses are not authorized in the Constitution. If you think they are, then please show me where. I will gladly submit to the Constitution, and I am willing to admit I am wrong if you can give me some quotes from that document. While admitting that there is certainly waste and inefficiency in the military, I can at least point to the places in the Constitution where those expenditures are authorized. In fact, they are more than authorized. It is an obligation placed upon our government. Are you able to respond to this with facts? Or just more insults?
A lot of these will wind up with your local police force to fight the "war on drugs" even though there is, and never has been, any chance at all of ever even coming close to winning said "war".
According to the more or less sane minority comments of the original video, these are not new vehicles, and definitely not tanks, only Bradleys, probably shipped from one base to another. Nothing special.
Actually, they are relocating to the new Maneuver Center of Excellence at Ft. Benning, GA (from Knox to Benning). They don't deploy tanks to go downrange. Most of the stuff in Afghanistan is TPE (theater provided equipment). Moving the tank training from Knox to Benning was part of BRAC, which is designed to save money by closing down bases. So, yeah, that really *is* your tax dollars at work.
It just keeps going and going, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping those are to replace the ones that have been damaged and destroyed in the war. I notice they aren't sand brown camo though!
ReplyDeleteBut even if they're replacing the old ones, its still the same deal, isn't it. Money for tanks to go where and why. Why do we have tanks (or soldiers) in Germany - can't they freaking defend themselves (and against who, anyway)?
DeleteHmm, time for a civilian-piloted drone to follow and find out where they are headed.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of an old, time-honoured saying: "It'll be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and the military needs to hold a bake sale to buy a jet".
ReplyDeleteOne huge difference . . . and I mean HUGE . . . it IS the government's constitutional duty to provide for our defense. It is NOT the government's constitutional duty to educate children. :)
DeleteThat's the lamest cop-out I've ever heard. If it's not the government's job to educate children, then what's behind the "No Child Left Behind" debacle?
DeleteA cop out? Really? I don't know what to say because that doesn't even make any sense. I was simply stating facts. While I'm sure the intentions were sincerely good, "No Child Left Behind" is no answer to the woes of government schools. The whole system is irreversibly corrupt. Education needs to be put back in the hands of parents and whatever cooperation they come up with on a local level. Of course, it will never happen. But that is the only answer for the disaster that our education system has become. And, no . . . it is not the government's job to educate children.
DeleteIt is EVERYONE'S job to educate our children. They are the future - theirs, ours and everyone else's. How do you expect any nation to maintain a competitive edge if they're raising a generation of semi-educated dolts? It's no wonder we're being eaten alive by the Chinese: they still firmly believe in education, and it is a central tenet of their culture.
DeleteThat's fine . . . let's have EVERYONE involved . . . just not through the government. Why, oh why, have we come to this state of mind that only the government can really do things correctly? Of COURSE, education must be a central tenet of our culture. It certainly was in my family when I was a child, and it is now for my 6-year old. But that does NOT equal government education. The U.S. FAR outspends any other nation on education both in total dollars and per pupil. And yet we are down at 9th and 10th in Science and Math respectively. The amount of money spent has almost NOTHING to do with the quality of education. If it did, the U.S. would be leaving the rest of the world behind. The U.S. Department of Education should be abolished and education placed back in the hands of parents and the local communities. It should be a private enterprise accountable to the parents. It will never happen, but if it did you would see the quality of education absolutely skyrocket. "Everyone" could be involved and it could be a "central tenet" of the culture. Our "competitive edge" would be unmatched. We are "raising a generation of semi-educated dolts" and "being eaten alive by the Chinese" precisely because our government has decided that it knows what is best for our children. (And, also, because our parents have largely abdicated their responsibilities to train their children) Yes, I am aware that other nations have government-controlled education. They are, generally speaking, not nations that have the culture of freedom that has defined America. Government-controlled education becomes a breeding ground for propaganda and loss of freedom, and it is certainly heading that way in the U.S. Social experimentation has become far more important than learning the facts. The unions are far more interested in the teachers and in control than in the students. And the students suffer. (By the way, I don't blame the teachers. I know many of them and believe that most government school teachers are very competent and committed to their students.) Bottom line . . . getting the government back out of education would be the best thing that ever happened to the young people of America. :)
DeleteWith Regard to Anonymous Jan. 24th at 8:25am. What a bizarre "old-honoured quote." A majority of our taxes are spent on our broken education system. The whining and crying from these "professionals" is cringe-worthy. Their medical and dental benefits, great pension and retirement packages, not to mention the paid summers off never seem to be enough. Perhaps our educators would rather operate one of these tanks in a strange foreign country, far away from family and loved ones, 24 hours a day, defending our country, live in constant danger in the middle of a war. In a nutshell your "old-honoured quote" is insensitive and kind of offending.
DeletePerhaps if you could read carefully and accurately, you'd realize that the quote is referring to SCHOOLS, not teachers. Big difference. Schools don't have a powerful union to advocate for them - teachers do. Have you ever considered that just maybe a better education for everyone would mean less of poking our noses into places they don't belong? ie. maybe we could have interventions based on actual need instead of trumped-up, jingoistic fervor?
DeleteWell, these don't necessarily are going to be used for US troops....they could have been sold to some other country. Not that it doesn't make that less scary.
ReplyDeleteWe recently sold tons to Greece, who while being harassed by Western countries to tighten their belt, is at the same time being told by the same countries to buy stuff from them. At least we know they'll be prepared if their citizens get fed up like Egyptians, who we also have been selling military gear too.......
Delete"Tons" of tanks, would be, like, one?
Delete:.) (Just teasing you about your choice of words; I agree with your sentiment and the implications).
Freedom isn't free. Or my personal favorite, "The tree of democracy must, from time to time, be fertilized with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
ReplyDeleteCS1152823183 - the number doesn't mean anything, I just need to keep it .
"Compared to war all other human endeavors pale to insignificance" George C. Scott as General George S. Patton
ReplyDeleteI don't know if he really said it, but I like to think he did.
@ Minnesotastan,
ReplyDeleteHa, no that was a good call. Poor word choice on my part.
I wonder what 400 M1A1 Abrams Tanks weigh?
67 short tons each -
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A1_Abrams_tank
Minnesotastan... you missed a perfect opportunity for lmgtfy!
Deletehttp://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=m1a1+abrams+tank
That's true, but it sometimes seems a little bit insulting to do that.
Delete@Minnesotastan - If this comment nests under your comment then nesting is possible, just not enabled (you have to edit the live form's parentID input value to reference the comment you'd like to nest under); otherwise no, it is not possible (yet).
DeleteTanks a lot for posting this.
ReplyDelete(sorry...)
Maybe this is a sneak peak at the 2012 fall line up of peace officer cruisers?
ReplyDeleteLooks great to me! Since our government insists on doing so many things that are NOT in our Constitution, I'm glad to see that they are doing something that IS in our Constitution - "provide for the common Defence". I don't wish for war, but it does come. When it does, I want our equipment to be bigger, better, and greater in number.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't seem to me that most of our military dollars are being spent on what can described as "defense".
DeleteUnfortunately, we do not live in a world where we can just build a wall around our country and hope everybody leaves us alone. Sometimes a good offense it the best defense.
Delete"Sometimes a good offense it the best defense."
DeleteIn that case, let's get USAMRID to cook up some hemorrhagic fever with a seven year incubation period - surely that's the best defense...
@Thimothy
DeleteU.S military is deployed around the world not for common defense, but as means to guarantee control over markets and resources. It has nothing to do with security, on the contrary: it puts the american people at great danger, since it is the reason why there are so much hatred towards the U.S. around the globe, and is this kind of hatred that generates terrorist attempts on american soil. Your argument is invalid.
@anonymous - It's unfortunate that your interpretation of my statement is that we should slaughter the rest of the world's population. One reason that I like this blog is that the debate seems to be on a higher level than that (although, I just don't have time to get involved very often).
Delete@Paulo - Several thoughts - There is no honest or logical way that you can just dismiss my argument out of hand, and neither do I dismiss yours out of hand. I believe there probably is some truth to what you are saying; however, I believe it is far outweighed by other facts. America far outspends any other nation on foreign aid; America is usually the first at disaster scenes offering help; American's are very generous to causes around the world. If your statement was true to a great degree, then these same nations that hate us would have a truly intense hatred for some of the other nations of the world that have subjugated them at times and treated them in horrific ways. Of course, this subject is a complex subject which is far beyond the few sentences that you and I are putting out as comments on a blog. Also, while our forces around the world may be used partially as stabilizing interests in markets and resources, they are also used to deter military aggression against America. I have this strong feeling that many nations are much happier to have us around than they would ever admit. They certainly are happy to rely on us when they are in trouble. Again, this is a complex world and a complex subject, but complaining about America is not the answer. I certainly don't envy ANY president as he makes these decisions. This issue definitely deserves more than, "My argument is valid and your is not." :)
I don't think you know what's allowed, or not allowed in our Constitution to be frank.
ReplyDeleteI want our equipment to be bigger, better, and greater in number.
You've already had your wish and then some. We spend more than the 10 next biggest spending country's combined. So unless you think that those 10 countries are going to unite for some reason to invade the United States, then your position is unnecessary and wildly fiscally irresponsible.
Since you have no idea what I do or don't know, your comment is completely ignorant . . . to be frank. You just didn't like what I said, so you decided to insult me under an anonymous name.
Delete"You've already had your wish and then some." Good! If there is going to be a fight, I don't even want it to be close. I'm sure there is waste in the military, and it should be rooted out wherever possible. However, the defense of our nation should be a top priority. And yet, looking at the U.S. spending for fiscal year 2011 I see 18% on healthcare (definitely NOT in the Constitution), 15% on education (definitely NOT in the Constitution), and 12% on welfare (definitely NOT in the Constitution). Welfare is barely below spending on the military, education is even, and healthcare is higher. There is your wild fiscal irresponsibility. Nearly 50% of our spending is on items nowhere in the Constitution. The only small hope you would have to justify these items by the Constitution is the "general welfare" clause. That debate is too long to get into here. Suffice it to say that members of both major parties have been governing outside of the Constitution for quite some time. Much more could be said, but I'll finish by repeating what I said before. I'm really glad that our government is spending money on our national defense. That is what they are SUPPOSED to do. Using 15% of last year's spending on one of our government's top priorities and constitutional obligations is NOT "wildly fiscally irresponsible" no matter how much you disagree with it.
Hey Timothy,
DeleteIf the founders were alive, they'd say screw the constitution, and probably take their flint weapons, put them to their heads, and fire, if they were to see how anti-intellectual, how unenlightened, and fanatical so many know-nothing Americans have become.
Anyway, it's typical. Hypocritical, and totally fiscally irresponsible. You love big wasteful, needless government, as longs as it's wasting amazing fortunes on needless defense spending.
I'll tell you what's "typical" . . . more insults when that's the best you've got. I have not insulted you. I have stated facts. You have none (at least, that you are willing to share). You seem to imply that I am an anti-intellectual, unenlightened, fanatical, know-nothing American, and yet you know absolutely nothing about me. If I'm so wrong, give some hard facts in rebuttal. If not, then why don't you quit being so rude. On top of that, you are putting words in my mouth. I despise big, wasteful government in any area of the budget. The fraud and waste in healthcare, education, and welfare is staggering. It is all the more galling in that those expenses are not authorized in the Constitution. If you think they are, then please show me where. I will gladly submit to the Constitution, and I am willing to admit I am wrong if you can give me some quotes from that document. While admitting that there is certainly waste and inefficiency in the military, I can at least point to the places in the Constitution where those expenditures are authorized. In fact, they are more than authorized. It is an obligation placed upon our government. Are you able to respond to this with facts? Or just more insults?
DeleteA lot of these will wind up with your local police force to fight the "war on drugs" even though there is, and never has been, any chance at all of ever even coming close to winning said "war".
ReplyDeleteAccording to the more or less sane minority comments of the original video, these are not new vehicles, and definitely not tanks, only Bradleys, probably shipped from one base to another. Nothing special.
ReplyDelete("defense".. LoL, what a BS.)
That's what I was thinking. They all seem to be the troop transports and support vehicles. It also looked like there were no barrels on the turrets.
DeleteI wonder if these are returning from Germany, where deployments have been reduced.
ReplyDeleteActually, they are relocating to the new Maneuver Center of Excellence at Ft. Benning, GA (from Knox to Benning). They don't deploy tanks to go downrange. Most of the stuff in Afghanistan is TPE (theater provided equipment). Moving the tank training from Knox to Benning was part of BRAC, which is designed to save money by closing down bases. So, yeah, that really *is* your tax dollars at work.
ReplyDelete