Quantcast

Comments about ‘Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 28 2013 8:55 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
worf
Mcallen, TX

We just gave two hundred new tanks to Egypt, and who knows who else.

If we can afford giving it away, --why not supply our army with more?

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

Typical politics of selfishness.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@worf 12:02 p.m. April 28, 2013

We just gave two hundred new tanks to Egypt, and who knows who else.

If we can afford giving it away, --why not supply our army with more?

------------------------

Maybe because the Army doesn't want or need them.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

We need to give Egypt those tanks so we can have Armageddon in the future with the opposing side using tanks against us. That makes it easier for the other side to use our armaments that we are using as they are already trained and know how to use them, whether aircraft, personnel carriers, tanks, and other weapons. We need to make sure that each and every country surrounding Israel has just as many devices as Israel does so it is 8 to 1 close range and 16 to 1 longer range.

It would be interesting to see if that was the Army military or the President stating we don't need any more tanks. Poland still remembers the German tanks and since we have cut back on the missile protection system in that part of Europe, we don't need tanks either.

The Army and DoD as a whole goes through this process every year when there is a budget. So does that mean that the Congress and President may have a budget someplace in the system? They just keep on getting the green light, for the greenbacks that flow off those that work and are productive in our country.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments