+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    554

    Congress wasting even more money

    When will the crap end???

    One third or our wonderful government is going to spend the next week or two debateing a bill that their counterpart has stated they will not even bring up. Why spend our tax dollars debateing punishing China for cheating on trade if it has zero chance to become law? How much does this process cost, one or two weeks of debate in congress? I'll bet my life it would pay off my mortgage!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,767

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    i don't see anything wrong with this. often things that have no chance of passing get passed anyway, in a compromise. i hate your and you hate mine, so we both hold our nose and vote for both. it's how things get done.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,414

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    Quote Originally Posted by mumbles View Post
    i don't see anything wrong with this. often things that have no chance of passing get passed anyway, in a compromise. i hate your and you hate mine, so we both hold our nose and vote for both. it's how things get done.
    Like the Obama health care bill ya mean?
    Yeah, but hey, we're white!
    Romney/Ryan Campaign 2012

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,081

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    Can't resist the temptation.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    94

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Crab of PAIN!!! View Post
    Can't resist the temptation.
    Rofl.. What is this supposed to be? You suggesting that our country shouldn't spend money on defending itself? What are we supposed to do when the Arab tools drive up in their tanks, wave at them and hope they don't rape our hot c***** and take us over?

    1) The Diesel has far slower acceleration than the gas engine. In combat, that means everything if you're going from a stop to full speed and trying to avoid incoming tank rounds or rockets or missiles. In tank war, speed is king. If you can keep moving and shoot the other guy then you're good. If you can't keep moving, you will die. You're crying about a little fuel efficiency in battle? The Abrams has basically won us the last two Gulf Wars.

    2) The turbine engine you're crying about actually runs on Diesel when it's not in combat, driving between bases or what not:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

    3) The turbine engine is far quieter than modern diesels which is another main part of its advantages, stealth in battles along with speed is a sweet combination.

    4) You're crying about a $85 billion overhaul? That's a drop in the bucket. Our GDP is 15 trillion per year, so spending 85 billion to help protect our country is no prob. Would you rather spend 85 billion to update our tanks or get ed in the ass by some pissed off Arabs?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,414

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultrabeast View Post
    Rofl.. What is this supposed to be? You suggesting that our country shouldn't spend money on defending itself?
    Are we going to undertake this anytime soon?

    Just where in the world are we defending ourselves?

    According to official sources there were 737 military bases world widein 2005. You can start by explaining how all those are defending us here at home.

    Then we can move toward all the others built since. The US is wobbling financially because the "democracy" has spawned a world wide empire. Fuck a tank.
    Yeah, but hey, we're white!
    Romney/Ryan Campaign 2012

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    94

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    Quote Originally Posted by willyjoe View Post
    Are we going to undertake this anytime soon?

    Just where in the world are we defending ourselves?

    According to official sources there were 737 military bases world widein 2005. You can start by explaining how all those are defending us here at home.

    Then we can move toward all the others built since. The US is wobbling financially because the "democracy" has spawned a world wide empire. Fuck a tank.
    That's simple. Have you ever played chess? If you have any pieces in the front row, and they are blocking your queen and king in the back row, that forces your opponent to take out your front pieces first or go around them, both of which slow their progress toward your king and queen.
    It's the same concept. The reason why we have so many military bases around the world is to offer them as targets, as bait.
    Would you rather be fighting Arabs in Iraq or in the parking lots at Walmart? You would change your tune once some stray IED took out a bus load of american little kids in the warzone. Then you would be crying, "Why are we fighting this war on our own territory instead of our old military bases across the ocean?"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,767

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    i don't think we should go overseas looking for trouble. we should wait until the world trade center is burning. we should wait until all our airlines have to be grounded, in fear. we should wait until we are so scared we need to search grandma's panties for bombs.

    yes, no reason to go bother people that ain't bothering us.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

    The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass murder of an estimated 800,000 people in the small East African nation of Rwanda. Over the course of approximately 100 days (from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira on April 6) through mid-July, over 500,000 people were killed, according to a Human Rights Watch estimate.[1] Estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000,[2] or as much as 20% of the country's total population. It was the culmination of longstanding ethnic competition and tensions between the minority Tutsi, who had controlled power for centuries, and the majority Hutu peoples, who had come to power in the rebellion of 1959–62 and overthrown the Tutsi monarchy.[3]
    monica advised bill to stay out of that one, but bill did get in another one -

    The civil war disrupted agriculture and food distribution in southern Somalia. The basis of most of the conflicts was clan allegiances and competition for resources between the warring clans. James Bishop, the United States last ambassador to Somalia, explained that there is "competition for water, pasturage, and... cattle. It is a competition that used to be fought out with arrows and sabers... Now it is fought out with AK-47s."[82] The resulting famine (about 300,000 dead) caused the United Nations Security Council in 1992 to authorise the limited peacekeeping operation United Nations Operation in Somalia I (UNOSOM I).[83] UNOSOM's use of force was limited to self-defense and, although originally welcomed by both sides,[84] it was soon disregarded by the warring factions.
    oh, it's okay, it wasn't 300,000 real people, like you, it was just poor, black children, dime a dozen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War



    so, you want to stay out of conflicts or you want to send our volunteers in with old rifles?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

    The war came at a great cost in lives and economic damage—half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers as well as civilians are believed to have died in the war with many more injured—but it brought neither reparations nor change in borders. The conflict is often compared to World War I,[17] in that the tactics used closely mirrored those of that conflict, including large scale trench warfare, manned machine-gun posts, bayonet charges, use of barbed wire across trenches, human wave attacks across no-man's land, and extensive use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas by the Iraqi government against Iranian troops and civilians as well as Iraqi Kurds. At the time, the UN Security Council issued statements that "chemical weapons had been used in the war." However, in these UN statements it was never made clear that it was only Iraq that was using chemical weapons, so it has been said that "the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian as well as Iraqi Kurds" and it is believed[18][19][20] that the "United States prevented the UN from condemning Iraq".[18]
    Last edited by mumbles; 10-04-2011 at 12:26 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,414

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultrabeast View Post
    That's simple. Have you ever played chess? If you have any pieces in the front row, and they are blocking your queen and king in the back row, that forces your opponent to take out your front pieces first or go around them, both of which slow their progress toward your king and queen.
    It's the same concept. The reason why we have so many military bases around the world is to offer them as targets, as bait.
    Would you rather be fighting Arabs in Iraq or in the parking lots at Walmart? You would change your tune once some stray IED took out a bus load of american little kids in the warzone. Then you would be crying, "Why are we fighting this war on our own territory instead of our old military bases across the ocean?"
    Basically I think your argument is bogus. We're not defending shit, we're intervening. And it's pretty clear you don't know where all those military installations are and where all the money is going.

    But regardless, we can't afford the empire.
    Yeah, but hey, we're white!
    Romney/Ryan Campaign 2012

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    94

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    Quote Originally Posted by willyjoe View Post
    Basically I think your argument is bogus. We're not defending shit, we're intervening. And it's pretty clear you don't know where all those military installations are and where all the money is going.

    But regardless, we can't afford the empire.
    Oh really? Yeah it's not like it's common knowledge or anything.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ations_in_Iraq

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

    Components ******* Change, 2009 to 2010
    Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
    Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
    Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
    Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
    Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
    Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
    Total Spending $685.1 billion +3.0%


    So when you scroll down you see the total defense spending is only 1.1 trillion, which includes all FBI and CIA agencies, etc. That is nothing really, comprared to our GDP of 15 trillion.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,081

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultrabeast View Post
    Rofl.. What is this supposed to be? You suggesting that our country shouldn't spend money on defending itself? What are we supposed to do when the Arab tools drive up in their tanks, wave at them and hope they don't rape our hot c***** and take us over?
    All known Arab tanks in existence are knock-offs of the T-72M. Please notice the M. The T-72M and T-72 were completely different machines. The M1 Abrams only ever confronted the T-72M and its knockoffs in Operation Desert Storm. They never confronted actual T-72's.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_model
    Also notice in said article that Monkey Model machines have half of the effective firepower as the standard models.

    Where was I? Anyway, the 105mm rifled gun on the M60A3 Patton was and still is more than adequate than anything Iraq ever built, and anything Iran/Pakistan/etc will ever build. The Arjun tank in India is an abysmal failure that we can completely ignore. I guess the Chinese Type 99 and Russian T-90 is something... maybe. Still probably cannot withstand a 105mm Sabot. A.K.A. there's absolutely no point in spending BILLIONS of dollars in building and maintaining M1 Abrams for the kinds of conflicts that we will ever see in the near future.

    Also, the M1 Abrams weighs more than a King Tiger and the Jagdtiger, which literally crushed the road beneath it [most 3rd world bridges won't support an Abrams, cannot travel on soft ground, took a full year to deploy 2000 of them to the Middle East] and is completely shit-worthless in counter-insurgency operations [which is ALL we're doing these days]. Currently it cannot fire a standard HE round of any sort, only HEAT and "Obstacle Clearing"... which is a re-labeled HEAT. They both have a kill radius comparable to a hand grenade. Other than a canister round [meh] the M1 ONLY fires rounds designed to defeat enemy armor. Junk like that is worthless in counter insurgency missions. I mean, I guess it does have its [very good] machine guns, but you can load those onto a truck.

    My point is, there's no reason for us to be spending tens of billions of dollars for a tank designed around blunting a Soviet invasion through Eastern Europe.

    1) The Diesel has far slower acceleration than the gas engine. In combat, that means everything if you're going from a stop to full speed and trying to avoid incoming tank rounds or rockets or missiles. In tank war, speed is king. If you can keep moving and shoot the other guy then you're good. If you can't keep moving, you will die. You're crying about a little fuel efficiency in battle? The Abrams has basically won us the last two Gulf Wars.
    The Abrams actually had a LOT of problems in the first Gulf War. Granted, it completely raped all of the enemy tanks it encountered (but so did the Challenger 2, M60A3, and the [gasp] FRENCH AMX-30). The Abrams suffered from a logistics dead weight that actually cost us a huge victory in Desert Storm. It took VII Corps 89 hours to move 170 miles because of the Abrams problems with maintenance, reliability, and fuel consumption. Its average tactical speed winded up being 2mph as a result.
    Also, Acceleration is solely [or mostly] dependent on HP/ton. The Leopard 2 and Abrams both have 1500hp engines, but the Leopard 2 uses diesel and weighs less. Even assuming that the M1 can accelerate better, it cannot escape the fact that it goes through fuel WAY too fast and is completely dependent on a huge convoy of extremely vulnerable fuel trucks to keep it going. Not to say that any other kind of tank is some sort of environmentalists' best friend, but its nowhere near as serious of a tactical liability.


    2) The turbine engine you're crying about actually runs on Diesel when it's not in combat, driving between bases or what not:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
    The GT engine can run on diesel, but it is most efficient on jet fuel [which isn't efficient]. Apparently the practice of actually using gasoline or diesel is rarely done.

    3) The turbine engine is far quieter than modern diesels which is another main part of its advantages, stealth in battles along with speed is a sweet combination.
    That may be true, but the M1 is also the biggest tank currently in service anywhere [until the Arjun comes out... maybe, if it ever does], and the heaviest, and has easily the highest IR signature of any tank ever built. Also, since it is extremely heavy and is effectively road-bound in most areas, and might crash through bridges, it really puts a limit on how much you can really surprise an enemy when there are only a few points from which you can actually attack.

    4) You're crying about a $85 billion overhaul? That's a drop in the bucket. Our GDP is 15 trillion per year, so spending 85 billion to help protect our country is no prob. Would you rather spend 85 billion to update our tanks or get ed in the ass by some pissed off Arabs?
    I'd rather spend a LOT less money on a tank that makes more sense for our current situation. A tank specifically designed to fight other tanks is almost worthless to us. When was the last tine an enemy tank was seen in Afghanistan? And something that a Patton or... hell, even a Sherman couldn't take on? It costs over $10 billion in maintenance for ~250 Abrams tanks. The Swiss have ~250 Leo II's. Their TOTAL military budget, tanks, airforce, infantry, etc included, is $3 billion.
    I'm not saying that we should have a military like the Swiss, but I think that before cutting [some] other programs from the budget we can first stop squandering money on a tank that completely fails to meet the needs of our current situation. The new Abrams with the "TUSK" kit weighs 85 tons and still cannot fire an HE shell. We'd probably be better off if we dusted off an old Easy Eight, gave it the TUSK kit, and then shipped it over to Iraq.

    I've been going on a tangent. We're wasting money on junk that we don't actually need, and is overrated and extremely cost ineffective even if we did need it.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,767

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    just ring up the white house and tell barry you are ready to serve your country by sorting out what is and isn't needed by the pentagon. be sure to have your bags packed in case he tells you to get you ass on a plane and be there tomorrow.

    just look who he's got doing the job now:




    they really haven't got time to read the bills they pay - got to get dressed for the gay seviceman's ball.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    East Coast, USA
    Posts
    1,783

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    Quote Originally Posted by mumbles View Post
    just ring up the white house and tell barry you are ready to serve your country by sorting out what is and isn't needed by the pentagon. be sure to have your bags packed in case he tells you to get you ass on a plane and be there tomorrow.

    just look who he's got doing the job now:




    they really haven't got time to read the bills they pay - got to get dressed for the gay seviceman's ball.
    A moderator trying to derail the thread? Say it ain't so!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    94

    Re: Congress wasting even more money

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Crab of PAIN!!! View Post
    All known Arab tanks in existence are knock-offs of the T-I guess the Chinese Type 99 and Russian T-90 is something
    That's all you have to say. What would you do if some shit went down with a naval accident or whatever, and we had a thousand T-90's or 99's rolling down eastern europe towards our bases?
    Are we just supposed to have our infantry line up out front next to BFV's and get slaughtered with a few old Pattons behind them? Doesn't matter how many hellfires we throw down from the air, you can't rule the ground from the air if just a few heavy tanks get by.
    Russians have always had superior tanks to us in ww2 and since then, and the Chinese are not far behind now. That my friend is the reason for the M1. Even if things seem fine now, at any time things can get crazy with any country in the world, even Switzerland for all we know. So would you rather spend a little extra for that insurance of knowing that IF the diplomacy goes tits up, we have the Abrams out front instead of getting slaughtered in the first few battles until our production kicks in and we start building them again?

Similar Threads

  1. Barack Obama Wasting Taxpayers Money
    By SCAMS in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-07-2014, 08:25 AM
  2. Conservative Scare Machine Wasting Time and Money
    By naturefreak2101 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-30-2012, 04:23 PM
  3. Red State Retards Get To Work Wasting Time & Money
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 11:16 AM
  4. This Just in From Congress
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-23-2006, 01:07 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-06-2005, 07:07 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •