Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Lawmakers: You really want these tanks, huh? Army: No, not really. Lawmakers: Come on... you know you want 'em. Army: Goddammit we said "No"   ( security.blogs.cnn.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Odierno, Yoshiaki Iwasaki, General Dynamics, Drew Griffin, Sierra Nevada  
•       •       •

6487 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2012 at 8:24 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-10-10 08:40:33 AM  
4 votes:
Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.
2012-10-10 10:01:00 AM  
3 votes:

Epoch_Zero: Meanwhile...
[www.onedigitallife.com image 500x326]


slightly off topic but I had to take a good hard look at that to figure out whether it was an actual photo of a collapsed bridge or a screenshot from apple maps.
2012-10-10 09:05:35 AM  
2 votes:

serial_crusher: I guess it depends on whether that costs more upfront than what we're doing now.


Yes, and with all the "green" technology, we'll have the M1A4 Abrams Battle Prius.

/Yes, I know, but "Abrams Battle Volt" doesn't roll off the tongue as well.
2012-10-10 08:40:55 AM  
2 votes:
dittybopper:
Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.


Yeah, isn't it annoying when people attempt to hilariously shoehorn past events into a projection of the future when they're not at all comparable?


dittybopper: Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century, and we still ended up getting dragged into a couple of world wars, and we were unprepared for both.
2012-10-10 08:30:19 AM  
2 votes:

dletter: James F. Campbell: BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

Figure out the minimum production level needed to keep it running and order that number. Keep the skills of the workers current so that we don't have to worry as much about expensive war machines being built solely by inexperienced workers who just happened to be standing in line at the temp agency when the call for workers came in.

Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.

Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.


This is why we need to invade someone NOW. Haven't these people ever played Civilization? If your army starts costing too much money, you don't just disband units. You throw them at someone else.
I recommend Mexico. Mexico City has a good sized population. We could build a library there, and make all those Mexicans useful.
2012-10-10 12:18:39 PM  
1 vote:

imontheinternet: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.

Saying that the PM of Israel wants to start a war with Iran, when he has repeatedly and emphatically confirmed that fact publicly, is not the same as hating all of Israel or being anti-semitic.

Americans need to learn to talk like grownups when we discuss the Middle East in general and Israel in particular.


Name calling is far more easier than discussing. Putz.

/I mean that in the nicest way possible.
2012-10-10 12:12:57 PM  
1 vote:

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.

You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion.


How much would it cost the world to just move Israel to Arizona? I bet it would be cheaper in the long run, enable Israel's society to flourish, let the middle-east eat itself without a common enemy, and make life a lot simpler for their residents.

They could be completely autonomous and protected by America super-easily.

/They need to get over the whole "sacred land" thing. That goes for the Islamians and Christians, too.
2012-10-10 11:07:06 AM  
1 vote:

GoldSpider: Alphax: Congress isn't too trustworthy at the moment, but I'll take them over your average school board.

No Child Left Behind


No military manufacturer left behind will be the next initiative.
2012-10-10 10:37:55 AM  
1 vote:

bbfreak: Also, we can afford 3 billion a year to keep building tanks but not 3 million a year to keep the Aquarius undersea Lab running. Nice math idiots. Jobs are more important than science though eh?


i24.photobucket.com
"They're cutting our funding to build tanks? That's it! I'm declaring Martian law!"

2012-10-10 10:10:22 AM  
1 vote:

qorkfiend: Epoch_Zero: GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: Exactly - by pupil. Not by school. There are a few extremely rich schools where they get what they need and the rest, well, they have to get bootstrappy.

Would you support consolidating school districts to the county level (in states where it's not already so) and change the funding mechanism from local property taxes to a county income tax?

No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.

I'm not sure if I want Congress setting national education standards.


Sure you do. Who wouldn't want their kids learning about Jesus riding dinosaurs from Bethlehem to Jerusalem?
2012-10-10 10:05:29 AM  
1 vote:

ox45tallboy: This is the problem with producing too many weapons - someone sees them sitting around, and before you know it, someone thinks its a good idea to sell them. Then, next thing you know, the purchaser uses them, and so the military has to order a new round of weapons to go kill someone else that is using the weapons we sold them in the first place.


You say that like it's a problem.

/General Dynamics
2012-10-10 10:01:33 AM  
1 vote:

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: Reform to the civil legal system to a looser pays system.


Yes, the payments are rather tight, aren't they?
2012-10-10 10:01:10 AM  
1 vote:

Graffito: GoldSpider: Satanic_Hamster: We hear all the time from the Republicans, right wing shrill pundits, and troll accounts that government spending doesn't create jobs. But cutting military spending causes people to lose jobs. It's almost as if they're full of shiat.

That knife cuts both ways. The other side argues that all government spending creates jobs, except military spending, which should be cut to the bone.

Nobody NOBODY has said that military spending should be cut to the bone. Asshole.


I have
2012-10-10 10:01:02 AM  
1 vote:

Philip Francis Queeg: MyRandomName: keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.

The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.

The United States spends more on it's military than the rest of the world COMBINED.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 270x250]


Well yeah but its in USD so we get a better rate. You need to UNSKEWE that
2012-10-10 09:43:21 AM  
1 vote:

TheGogmagog: [24.media.tumblr.com image 850x668]


Man, I'll bet the guy driving that thing has a really big dick. Just ask him.
2012-10-10 09:40:36 AM  
1 vote:

MyRandomName: Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, not the illegal restructured bankruptcy Obama pushed for to reward unions. Ask gm how easy it is to get private loans now that their original creditors were pushed behind unions in bankruptcy.


If it was illegal why isn't Romney suing?

And I like how in one sentence you say they "went bankrupt" just like Romney said they should, and in the next you say it was "illegal restructured bankruptcy"

Get it together man.
2012-10-10 09:25:42 AM  
1 vote:
WAIT, I just got a brilliant idea
hugereviews.com
2012-10-10 09:15:16 AM  
1 vote:

Dusk-You-n-Me: We have shown the overall employment effects - including direct, indirect, and induced job creation - of spending on the military in contrast with four alternative domestic spending categories: clean energy, health care, education, and increasing household consumption through tax cuts. Specifically, we have shown that spending on all of these alternatives to military spending create substantially more jobs per $1 billion in expenditures relative to military spending. Link, .pdf


Yes, but weekend warriors and armchair Rambos can't furiously stroke their flacid cawks to a Military Channel feature on building clean energy. Let's keep our eye on what's important here.
2012-10-10 09:11:26 AM  
1 vote:
i30.tinypic.com

"did i farking stutter?"
2012-10-10 09:01:45 AM  
1 vote:

indylaw: We can't spend $10 billion on necessary bridge repairs because it's a bad economy, but we NEED to spend $100 billion on tanks and bombers right now.

This is why I don't trust the Republican Party.


Think of how much cheaper it will be to simply blow up these failing bridges with tanks and bombers.
2012-10-10 08:57:26 AM  
1 vote:
cdn6.teapartytribune.com

This building is full of Job Creators!

/hotlinked from a tea party website for the lols.
2012-10-10 08:41:34 AM  
1 vote:

Lee Jackson Beauregard: /Seriously, where the fark is the Tea Party when wasteful Pentagon boondoggles are at issue?


Watching Red Dawn for the 97th time.
2012-10-10 08:38:06 AM  
1 vote:
If they're worried about the 16,000 jobs that would be at stake if they stop production of the tanks, wouldn't be far more efficient to just take that 3 billion and give it to those 16,000 people? That's what, like 200,000 per person? That should sustain them while they find other jobs.
2012-10-10 08:26:47 AM  
1 vote:

GAT_00: But Red Storm Rising is just as likely to be the next war as 50 year long trench warfare stalemates are going to happen like everyone thought after WW1.


Well, not everyone. I like this guy's take on it:

content8.flixster.com
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will
be fought with sticks and stones."

2012-10-10 08:11:01 AM  
1 vote:

"Tanks, but no tanks."

 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report