They see
They see me rolling…. They be hating… But, hey, I’m in a tank, what can they do?
What’s going on in this picture? Tell us in the Comments
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: Jerad_Ekei
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous AND EVERY TUESDAY | Epic Pwn Next »
» 92 comments
-
Recent Comments
oษนษนษษฅษ on IF YOU READ THE HEALTHCARE… uber on This episode of Doctor Wh… oษนษนษษฅษ on ….and then I said Just Stop Typing on ….and then I said oษนษนษษฅษ on How to Reinforce One’s I… oษนษนษษฅษ on How to Reinforce One’s I… oษนษนษษฅษ on How to Reinforce One’s I… Just Stop Typing on ….and then I said Silverfox on This episode of Doctor Wh… AZfederalist on How to Reinforce One’s I… 
Cheezburger Network Blog
lame.. a similar one exist already..
oh, come on. that was brilliant.
and at least its not another politician rant that goes on for half a page and has nothing to do with the picture.
Agreed.
Oh it will, don’t worry.
But give it a day or so
go abrahms tank!
Urahhh for the M1A2
That’s an MA1.
Keep honking, Im reloading.
Win.
i lol’d
What I wouldn’t give to drive one!!
What, there’s no enlistment agent in your neighborhood?
Ah, I went a different route in my military journey. Now I’m just a bit over the hill.. hehe
T.H. Lawrence (of Arabia) reenlisted in the British RAF boot camp at the age of 45 under an assumed name because he wanted to continue to serve without all the fanfare.
Just sayin’.
Heck, I’m 41 now, and they’d accept me. However, since they didn’t accept me the first four times I tried (“Flat feet, son. And what’s with that knee injury?”) I’m not real motivated to try again.
Unless the country *really* needs me there.
I’m a wee bit past 41, 45, hell even 50! Now they offer me a commision, I’m on it!
Even if I hadn’t take the whole oath of nonviolence, degenerative arthritis at 17 made me less than desirable.
…And yet we have prisons full of people that are apparently quite proficient at killing…
Well, really, the first job of a soldier isn’t to be a killer, I think. If death was all you needed, you could do it with a few warheads. A soldier’s job is to exert controlled force. Killing is just something that’s occasionally necessary. MOst soldiers, even today, never fire a weapon in battle. For those who do, It’s not usually an everyday activity, (at least not at the moment, that might change
).
I love how they grant waivers for some felonies, but reject anyone with a history of counciling or anti-depresants. The people that take care of the problem and gain the tools to overcome, despite proving no dependence on medication, are turned down while those who have already proven they can’t handle it are even sought out. Ah, well…
That’s because if you need medication to function normally, you’re no good in a war zone where they most likely cannot get your medication to you.
Also, seeking psychiatric treatment should only exclude you from a few MOSs (Military Occupational Specialties; I don’t know what they are called outside the Marines), such as Military Police (for the obvious reason of you don’t want people with history of psychiatric issues in charge of prisoners after seeing what apparently normal people have done).
That, and most of the felonies waivered are committed by teens. Most adult felonies will not be waivered. Really, in the end, the military can refuse any potential recruit for just about any reason. It’s a volunteer force these days, so there’s less forgiving of legal indiscretions.
“…despite proving no dependence on medication…” Of course they can’t put you in if you’re still on the meds. They shouldn’t put someone in if they are currently having issues, that’s common sense. But, why should it be so hard for someone medicated as a teen (off and functioning as a normal adult after five years) be considered such a liability. No suicidal or psychotic tendencies, no history of violence…depression and lack of motivation happen in highschool. Some parents freak out and hand their kid a pill. But, ‘history of psychological treatment’ carries with it the smell of disability. I’m just saying there is a nasty stigma.
I joined at 17… Now I’m paying for all the rough and tumble. But I wouldn’t trade the experience.
I couldn’t for the life of me give you any real details about it, but I heard there is a place in TX where you can go and, for a healthy pile o’ cash (don’t remember precisely how much) not only drive a tank, but engage in a mock tank battle (Think armored laser tag) with other people who coughed up the aforementioned pile o’ cash. Google it I’m sure you can find something.
From the war in Iraq that’s ‘over’?
i know, realli. but hey, new pres’ll fix it… i hope, lol
I get this sudden urge to try a holiday in Sweden this year…
Be sure to see the loveli moose…
Oh come on! It is essentially over, there is still an insurgency which is mostly vanquished thanks to the US military surge. Violence and deaths are way down. Why else would the Iraqi government call for a timeline for withdrawal if they didn’t feel safe without us there…
But I thought having a timeline for withdrawal was a mark of the Surrendercrats’ cut-and-run policy?
It would be if there was still a violent insurgency threatening to topple the new government, but since the Iraqi’s themselves want the timeline, not so much…
The fact that they want the US out doesn’t mean there isn’t a war anymore. They just want to handle the crap themselfs. Fact is is that there are still about 140.000 US troups in Iraq, and there is still a crapload of money going there. The war is over for the US when they’re out. Also keep in mind that the war has changed. It started as a regular army vs army invasion, but it transformed into a guerilla war. It may not look like a war, but I doubt the people who live there would agree.
Yes, I know we need to start pulling troops out and believe we will soon. But there is not much of a guerilla war going on anymore or they would not want us to leave. Nothing their own military and police cannot handle at this point form what I have read. I wouldn’t exactly call it a war, although I do still think there is a “war” on terror if that is the right word to use…
I have got to hand it to you Ema, you really do believe in whatever this Administration tells you. Not that I disagree, well, kinda. We have turned the tide, and thanks to the surge it looks as if the occupation of Iraq may, and it is a big may, succeed. But, if you really want to be objective ask yourself why this administration denied the obvious for so long, why they went in to begin with, and for heaven’s sake why they didn’t do it right in the first place. By the way, the Abrams is an awesome piece of machinery, there is nothing like sleeping on the ground and having one of those babbies rumble by a few yards away, in the dark…my goodness, you will certainly be awake!
I would really like to know why they didn’t do it right in the first place myself, in my opinion if we had done the surge earlier we may have saved lives…
Now on that we can agree.
Personally, I always thought that Bush Sr. should have kept right on rolling into Baghdad. If memory serves me correctly, it was Powell who convinced Bush to stop as it couldn’t be justified. CF, do recall if that was so?
Actually it was the international agreement that allowed the entire operation to take place to begin with that caused the coalition military forces to stop short of Baghdad. Once Saddam said Ok you guys, just kidding, the conditionas that allowed the use of military force no longer existed, so we had to stop.
Well, that and the fact that everyone knew it’d be a mistake.
Hell, even Cheney said it would be, to quote, a “quagmire.”
Oops.
Except it isn’t. The Coalition won the war while you weren’t looking.
Oh, so that’s why all the troops have returned home and are now with their families?
Just a matter of time now.
I can only think of the times when, due to budget cutbacks, dozens of people were released from the state asylum because overnight they’d been cured.
Call me hesitant to trust these sudden “wins”.
Didn’t you see? They showed it on family guy. Democracy broke out in Iraq, and now they have lesbian car washes and all sorts of cool stuff.
it’s not “be hating” it’s “hatin’”
how about the “conditions” that “justified” this occupaion? where are they? I mean the one that weren’t “mishandled by the intelligence community?”
You could try watching the History Chanel – they did a special on what life was like under Sadam. Men being thrown in jail for no reason, then the guards would bring the jailed mens’ wives in and gang-rape the wife in front of the husband. One man also had to watch as his 2 month old son’s brains were bashed against the wall.
Sarrin gas used on people Sadam didn’t deem fit to live. Torture that makes Gitanimo(sp?) Bay look like a trip to Disneyland.
Sadam taking his own sons when they were preteens into the prisons, putting a gun in their hands, and telling them, “Kill a prisoner or I’ll kill you.”
Then there’s all the things History didn’t cover but we know is true – Sadam getting his jollies off by having six year old children thrown into woodchippers. His sons hoarding supplies meant to feed their people. And let’s not forget Sadam’s own ex-wife saw him talking with Bin Laden.
And people think this war is “unjust”? It’s not. We should’ve gotten rid of him the first time around. That monster could’ve been another Adolf Hitler.
I simply don’t believe you. What the History Channel said is quite probably right, but there is no reason for Saddam to talk with Bin Laden. The people Saddam most oppressed are of the same subsection of Islam as Bin Laden.
All that he cited, and you’re worried about whether or not Saddam actually talked with Bin Laden??? WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU??? Let me guess, no problem watching kids thrown in wood chippers, or with gang raping a man’s wife in front of him. Do you by any chance have one of those sexual offender signs on your lawn????
So why haven’t we invaded and occupied half of the countries in Africa?
There’s no oil there.
WIN
But that was never the original reason for going into Iraq. First it was WMDs, then it was Iraq’s ties to 9/11, and only when the first two reasons turned out to be lies did they go with the “Saddam’s a big meanie” reason. If that’s such a great reason for going to war how come the US hasn’t overthrown Kim Jong Il or any of the horrid dictators in Africa?
No.
There were several reasons, and none of them were “Iraq’s ties to 9/11″.
Google the Congressional Resolution authorising the invasion of Iraq if you want to know the stated reasons.
You libs are so ignorant.
The resolution only has the original reason. Not the slew of reasons they came up with later on when the early ones lost credibility.
You’re wrong.
Read the resolution.
So, you deny that Bush, Cheney, Powelll, and Rice went on an intensive media campaign to convince us that Iraq was tied to 9/11? Please don’t try to avoid admitting your guys lied to us. It’s beneath you.
EP believes only what he chooses to believe.
Had Bush from the start said “Look, Saddam’s an infected boil on the taint of all things decent. I just want to get rid of him,” I wouldn’t have supported him, but I would at honor his honesty.
But if he had come right out and said we have to eliminate Hussein for being an infected taint boil, then he’d be a hypocrite for not retiring, since Bush too, is an infected taint boil.
Graceless and unimaginitive, Kurt. Herb is funny. You are a mudslinger with no real substance.
Agreed on both your points. And as much as I despise GWB, he is no Sadam Hussein.
I’m just saying they’re both assholes. Doesn’t mean they both possess the same level of assholery.
I agree that Hussein was a ruthless tyrant akin to Hitler. I would have been happier though if Bush had stated his reasons for going in with troops as needing to free an oppressed people and preemptive strike on someone who could have started a Mid-east wide war.
He’d never use the oppressed people card, regardless of how incompetent he seems at times. Otherwise you’d have quagmires in North Korea, Burma, possibly in South America and Chechnya… the list goes on and on. Imagine oil prices then!
But those countries don’t have relevant supplies of oil to increase prices. The US could invade any one of those countries and the price would barely budge in response.
That’s what Bush did state. Read the resolution of Congress that authorized the invasion.
Sweet! I’m glad that it was included. Thanks EP!
Its a good thing that we put that pesky little war in Afghanistan on the back burner so that we could invade Iraq. Think of where we’d be right now if we had actually captured Bin Laden.
I believe the first paragraph, but from paragraph four on you’re on thin ice.
Plus, how do you feel about suspending someone from his wrists for 48 hours, and beating their thighs every 2 hours until the flesh of the legs is nothing but pulp. Eventually, the blood clots formed in the injured tissue make their way to the heart and kill your victim?
The thing is, we need to treat these people like common criminals. Violating our own morals to punish them just tells the rest of the world they actually *are* important, and draws more idiots to their cause. Lock them up in a maximum security prison in Alabama. I bet you’ll find some justice meted out then!
Or perhaps meated out.
Punchline fail. >_<
This lol would have been much lolier if it didn’t have that last line.
I agree. There’s quite a bit that can be done.
Apparently the author has never heard of IED’s.
Probably never served.
And isn’t very funny.
Never has been an indefeatable protective barrier, even in the movie Independance Day.
It’s an amusing development of the ‘rollin / hatin’ meme. It doesn’t have anything to do with politics, or with the actual invincibility (or otherwise) of tanks.
That’s how I read it, anyway.
What can “they” do? Dig a pit and hide it. The arrogant moron has yet to defeat the shovel.
pwned by a hole.
Wonder where I left that M1A2……. O yeah, Iraq.
There are a lot of intangibles that exist on the battlefield. There are many differences between the two wars that are too numerous to go into here. Bottom line, bare bones recap, the Iraqi army invaded another country, and the soldiers knew that they were wrong. In DS/DS, the US employed overwhelming force, a lesson learned from Vietnam and pushed by the military leadership in the Army/Marines. In OIF, current President Bush, advised by a SECDEF who believed in the wrong lessons from Vietnam, therfore US mismanagement led to a situation that caused more casualties than had they done it right from the begining, but back then, the Bush Administration only wanted to listen to the generals that agreed with them. But of course the US Military would gain control of the situation, once they were given adequate resources for that mission, too bad it took so long and is given at the expense of the primary mission and the force as a whole.
On a more general level, our military totally pwns when we’re on the attack. Our combination of speed, communication, intelligence, integration of forces and intelligent use of initiative is unbeatable.
Once we occupy an area, though, we’re just sitting ducks.
I feel like we should use our military to move in, accomplish one quick objective (depose the dictator, smash an army, whatever) then go the hell home. Leave a big pillar in the central square of the capital city saying “USA Was Here. We can always come back if you piss us off again.”
Some credit also has to go to Iraq as an adaptable and inteligent adversary. In the Gulf War most IEDs were set in bunkers for the US to find. These days they found it much more effective to line the streets with them. This way, military personel of every variety (not just those on the front lines) have equal exposure, as do any local US supporters who are left uninformed of the devices location. IEDs have taken nearly 2/3 of the US lives lost in Iraq, and the insurgents that use them don’t even have to be there for them to work (though some are suicide). Also, the different objectives of the two wars required them to be fought on different terms. The Gulf War was fought mostly from the air, while this one has been forced to keep mainly on the ground. And, finally, this one has gone on substantially longer. Lotsa reasons.
Might as well save time and drop a nuke and make the entire country a parking lot, yeah?
I actually wanted to reject your seemingly heartless post. I really did. I tried to compose an argument against it. I wanted to say, “No, that would leave a vacuum for someone nastier to step in…” but then I remembered that America has this aweful habit of training, funding, and arming a$$holes. The only examples I wanted to site happened to be SOBs we supported or/and placed in power (including bin Laden and Saddam). My soul rebels against the whole slash and leave mentality though. I can’t support that either. God help me…I think I turning into herb.
you sir win the internet.
I guess my hope is we counterbalance this by offering trading rights only to countries that support our policies regarding human rights, environmental regulations, labor laws etc. and offer substantial aid to those who support giving their people an “american way of life”. Eventually, only free, representative democracies would be able operate in the world.
That’s my fantasy, anyway.
“God help meโฆI think I turning into herb.”
Ouch. You say that like a bad thing.
well, it’s one of your fantasys…
Well I’d admit to the one about Anne Coulter, a wading pool full of jello, thigh high leather boots an a riding crop, but really, it even makes *me* embarassed…
Wait, who’s wearing the thigh high leather boots….wait, second though, nevermind, I don’t want to know.
Ha! I knew it! You want her…
Oh come now. Everyone knows Coulter is a man.
You gotta know I love you, but I really am practically your polar opposite. I respect your opinions, and the way you present them. I am just a little shocked every time I actually share one. In this particular instance , however, I think I remain on the fence. If it makes you feel better, you can think of it as my denial phase preceding great personal growth