2:06 am, May 26, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 3

  • "Out of a fleet of nearly 2,400 tanks..."?
    FERS Fed
    Wikipedia reports that the US has more than three times that number of Abrams tanks. "United States – United States Army and United States Marine Corps have received approximately 8,725 tanks of the M1, M1A1 and M1A2 variants combined" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams. ????
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I Agree With Congress
    Radar Tech
    After WWI, the Infantry continued to be in charge of the Army. As a result, tank development was at a standstill in the inter-war years and the US entered WWII with out dated technology that cost a lot of lives and prolonged the war. After WWII, again, the Infantry was in charge and cut the tank force to negligible levels. When the Korean war began in June 1950, the four American infantry divisions on occupation duty in Japan had no medium tanks at all. In Vietnam, the Infantry didn't think armor could be used in the jungles (they forgot all the lessons learned in WWII in the Pacific theater). Once again, the Infantry generals are telling congress that they don't need tanks. Stupidity seems to be repeating itself. If the Army Rangers had had tanks in Mogadishu, it wouldn't have ended as it did. The Rangers failed to coordinate with the 10th Mountain Division and the 19th Pakistani Lancers and ended up with a terrible tragedy. The Army needs tanks...heavy tanks...to be an effective fighting force.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Not quite right
    The Army has loads of tanks already. Exactly how many MORE than the 8K do you think we need and why? The Rangers didn't need tanks in Mogadishu, they needed APCs, and we have loads of those. It all comes down to scarce resourses. It might be great to have 20 aircraft carriers but we can't afford it. You choose a reasonable amount of tools you can afford AND think you'll need in the future. The Pentagon has said they have plenty and Congress, not wanting to impact their district, has said "no, you're getting more." Defense welfare, anyone?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }