
- Time
- Post link
I’ve been to MOAB.
[crickets]
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
I’ve been to MOAB.
[crickets]
Holy crap! They dropped a M.O.A.B.
wait, what? i was working streaming celebration doing stuff all day and haven’t seen any news.
Basically it’s a non-nuclear nuke, about 1/1000 of the Hiroshima bomb, which is to say still effing huge. The biggest conventional bomb ever developed, created during the Gulf War but never used (specifically because of the high risk of civilian casualities). Bigger than the Daisycutter by a lot.
It’s taking advantage of that fact that people in general are more accepting of weapons that simply cannot be used in a way that safeguards civilians, if they’re not nuclear/biological/chemical. People generally agree Hiroshima was bad, but nobody even knows what happened in Dresden, that sort of thing. It’s like getting people to notice cluster bombs and landmines really hurt civilians more than combatants and getting more than a shrug.
But it’s a very big boom. Like all WMDs, it compensates for other policy inadequacies. It terrifies the locals. And it sends a message: we don’t give a damn about any of you people, and we don’t care to find out if you’re against us or not. We’ll kill you first and call you a terrorist later. And the dead are harder to find/identify afterward than after, say, a sarin attack, so it’s better PR, as WMD attacks go.
Than god we didn’t put that warmongering Hillary in the White House. Also her emails.
My God.
Than god we didn’t put that warmongering Hillary in the White House. Also her emails.
Hillary is more pro war than Trump. She was literally quoting Dick Cheney propaganda on the campaign trail.
I guess that doesn’t fit your narrative though.
Than god we didn’t put that warmongering Hillary in the White House. Also her emails.
Hillary is more pro war than Trump. She was literally quoting Dick Cheney propaganda on the campaign trail.
I guess that doesn’t fit your narrative though.
I guess you missed the point.
Doesn’t actually address the immediate crisis at all, but the headline sure indicates otherwise.
I think the problem is with the word “moves.”
I dislike saying this but God has nothing to do with what’s going on in the world.
http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/05/bombs-dropped-in-2016/
How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop in 2016?
In President Obama’s last year in office, the United States dropped 26,172 bombs in seven countries. This estimate is undoubtedly low, considering reliable data is only available for airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and a single “strike,” according to the Pentagon’s definition, can involve multiple bombs or munitions. In 2016, the United States dropped 3,028 more bombs—and in one more country, Libya—than in 2015.
Most (24,287) were dropped in Iraq and Syria. This number is based on the percentage of total coalition airstrikes carried out in 2016 by the United States in Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), the counter-Islamic State campaign. The Pentagon publishes a running count of bombs dropped by the United States and its partners, and we found data for 2016 using OIR public strike releases and this handy tool.* Using this data, we found that in 2016, the United States conducted about 79 percent (5,904) of the coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, which together total 7,473. Of the total 30,743 bombs that the coalition dropped, then, the United States dropped 24,287 (79 percent of 30,743).
To determine how many U.S. bombs were dropped on each Iraq and Syria, we looked at the percentage of total U.S. OIR airstrikes conducted in each country. They were nearly evenly split, with 49.8 percent (or 2,941 airstrikes) carried out in Iraq, and 50.2 percent (or 2,963 airstrikes) in Syria. Therefore, the number of bombs dropped were also nearly the same in the two countries (12,095 in Iraq; 12,192 in Syria). Last year, the United States conducted approximately 67 percent of airstrikes in Iraq in 2016, and 96 percent of those in Syria.
Another group of serial liars for people to admire.
http://constitution.com/shock-news-obama-admin-knew-syria-still-chemical-weapons-still-lied-america/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/5/susan-rice-lies-will-haunt-liberals/
Big bombs vs. little bombs is more than just a difference in quantity. There’s a quality difference as well. Little bombs need to be targeted or they’re useless-to-counterproductive. Big bombs, just hit the general area and run for cover. Huge bombs and there’s no such thing as targeting. You absolutely will hit unintended targets, and you just shrug and say oh well.
Now I’d agree with the criticism of our modern-day fascination with so-called smart bombs. Your bombs that drop down air ducts in a building and pop out over the targeted toilet. The problem with smart bombs isn’t the tech itself, which works well enough, so much as the application. It used to be nobody would use ordinance like that in a city environment, because it’s crazy to do that. You have to send in ground troops, there’s just no other way. But now to avoid casualties on our end, they throw “smart” ordinance into a totally inappropriate urban setting, civilians are killed, but we claim innocence because we used the “smart” pixie dust to justify a really bad decision that absolutely did not seek to minimize civilian casualties.
The morality of it all, assuming you’re okay with the morality of war in general, really all boils down to civilians. You absolutely never target them. You minimize collateral damage through careful targeting. And you minimize war in general by using other means to resolve conflicts. And sometimes that’s still not enough, and war happens, and civilians die. We’ve been doing pretty badly on all fronts for a while, but I guess there’s something particularly awful about not even pretending to try.
Than god we didn’t put that warmongering Hillary in the White House. Also her emails.
Hillary is more pro war than Trump. She was literally quoting Dick Cheney propaganda on the campaign trail.
I guess that doesn’t fit your narrative though.
I guess you missed the point.
You may well have missed his point as well. If Clinton would be in office this would have escalated far sooner and possibly at an even higher price. She’s a warmonger, no getting around it, because war makes money. Money and power have always been the basis of her rhetoric.
Money and power have always been the basis of her rhetoric.
I think we’re all clear on what you think of Clinton. There is a little wonderment, though, about what noises you may hear when Trump moves his lips.
Silly CatBus, don’t you know that Trump doesn’t like money?
‘British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia’:-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
&
GCHQ ‘told US security services about meetings between Donald Trump’s team and Russia’:-
&
‘Ex-MI6 chief says Donald Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to keep his empire afloat’:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-mi6-chief-says-donald-10217616
A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…
Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
‘How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com - includes info on how to ask for a fan project and how to search for projects and threads on OT•com.
A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)
Take your time to look around this site before posting… Do NOT just lazily make yet another ‘link request’ post - or a new thread asking for projects.
Money and power have always been the basis of her rhetoric.
I think we’re all clear on what you think of Trump. There is a little wonderment, though, about what noises you may hear when Clinton moves her lips.
^Same could be said for you and the others.
Money and power have always been the basis of her rhetoric.
I think we’re all clear on what you think of Trump. There is a little wonderment, though, about what noises you may hear when Clinton moves her lips.
^Same could be said for you and the others.
At least in this case, I heard more or less the same thing coming from Clinton as you. It’s the thought that Trump is less of a warmonger hell-bent on money and power causing the head-scratching around here.
‘British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia’:-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
&
GCHQ ‘told US security services about meetings between Donald Trump’s team and Russia’:-
&
‘Ex-MI6 chief says Donald Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to keep his empire afloat’:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-mi6-chief-says-donald-10217616
Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?
Money and power have always been the basis of her rhetoric.
I think we’re all clear on what you think of Trump. There is a little wonderment, though, about what noises you may hear when Clinton moves her lips.
^Same could be said for you and the others.
At least in this case, I heard more or less the same thing coming from Clinton as you. It’s the thought that Trump is less of a warmonger hell-bent on money and power causing the head-scratching around here.
I don’t believe him to be as much of a warmonger but I never said he couldn’t or wouldn’t become more of one.
‘British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia’:-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
&
GCHQ ‘told US security services about meetings between Donald Trump’s team and Russia’:-
&
‘Ex-MI6 chief says Donald Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to keep his empire afloat’:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-mi6-chief-says-donald-10217616
Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?
It’s a general practice when dealing with classified information not to provide any information that could confirm or deny the existence of that classified information until that’s been cleared by higher-ups or lawyers, even when the press somehow got ahold of it to ask the question in the first place.
Frankly I think the common deny-first-and-then-discuss-when-cleared mentality seems very Soviet-ish, and can lead to the sort of dust-up we see around Rice, etc. The more appropriate method would be the “I can neither confirm nor deny” response, which, yes, sounds like Reaganite Plausible Deniability Newspeak, but at least it’s technically true. Neither method breeds confidence, but then that’s secrecy for you.
Money and power have always been the basis of her rhetoric.
I think we’re all clear on what you think of Trump. There is a little wonderment, though, about what noises you may hear when Clinton moves her lips.
^Same could be said for you and the others.
At least in this case, I heard more or less the same thing coming from Clinton as you. It’s the thought that Trump is less of a warmonger hell-bent on money and power causing the head-scratching around here.
Trump has often contradicted himself on this. He has said we should stay out of other countries, but he’s also said we should bomb people and take their natural resources.
When people contradict themselves, it shows they just don’t give a damn. Hillary famously had her “public and private” positions, depending on who she was speaking to. Trump changes his mind depending on which advisor has been kissing his ass more and flattering him lately.
They are both terrible, terrible people.
‘British spies were first to spot Trump team’s links with Russia’:-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia
&
GCHQ ‘told US security services about meetings between Donald Trump’s team and Russia’:-
&
‘Ex-MI6 chief says Donald Trump may have borrowed money from Russia to keep his empire afloat’:-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ex-mi6-chief-says-donald-10217616
Why did they deny it vehemently when the story first broke but now they own up to it?
Sorry mate - could you be a little more specific on what they denied - and what they are now ‘owning up to’?
A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…
Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
‘How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com - includes info on how to ask for a fan project and how to search for projects and threads on OT•com.
A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)
Take your time to look around this site before posting… Do NOT just lazily make yet another ‘link request’ post - or a new thread asking for projects.
Both Clinton and Trump went through entertaining contortions to seem like they were against the Iraq invasion. Clinton claimed “she voted for leverage, not war”, while Trump said his real position wasn’t the pro-war one he said in public on tape, but was a secret private anti-war position he shared only with Bill O’Reilly. I think they were equally plausible stories (as in: not remotely), but I think a lot of Trump voters actually bought his line and thought he wouldn’t fight pointless wars.