Special forces killed 19 in one raid without a single bomb fired..under Obama of course. Congrats, 36 with a 500 million bomb...woo hoo!
Little penis syndrome. Him and his supporters. They love the MOAB...reminds them of what they're missing.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Little penis syndrome. Him and his supporters. They love the MOAB...reminds them of what they're missing.
it looks like we'll be taking aim at shooting down whatever NK launches this weekend
it was only a matter of time -- I thought maybe the Japanese would eventually do it
Either way -- Lockheed is VERY happy I'm sure
If they're not going to Threatcon Charlie in Osan (etc) right NOW -- then i'd be surprised
MOPP gear at the ready
We were at Threatcon Bravo when I was at Davis-Monthan 2 weeks ago - not a drill
I think we're about to find out if NK is truly ready to back their words up with action --
Hope to God the exchange is limited if this goes down
it was only a matter of time -- I thought maybe the Japanese would eventually do it
Either way -- Lockheed is VERY happy I'm sure
If they're not going to Threatcon Charlie in Osan (etc) right NOW -- then i'd be surprised
MOPP gear at the ready
We were at Threatcon Bravo when I was at Davis-Monthan 2 weeks ago - not a drill
I think we're about to find out if NK is truly ready to back their words up with action --
Hope to God the exchange is limited if this goes down
Considering Drumpf takes credit for everything he didn't do that looks nice...this is all his. Like the glorious stock market rise that you guys didn't notice the last 8 years.
You mean the stock rise attributed to Bush since everything else that happened worthy of blame you guys gave to Bush? OK.
Hahahaha.. that article is talking about Department Store sales..
If you're using Department store figures as some means to prove a political/economic point, you're not doing it right. Sears and K-mart won't exist for much longer. Macy's is closing stores.
Down 4.5% over the year, despite a 0.2% increase in March and we haven't even scratched the surface of ecommerce. You'd be amazed at just how little it's even a factor right now but it's growing every single year.
You do realize the US commander in Afghanistan who ordered the MOAB didn't need Trumps approval, right? Maybe highly ranking military officials feel more free to use this kind of force under Trump, IDK, but this didn't need a Presidential stamp attached to it and could've happened under Obama as well. (people celebrating or condemning the MOAB bc the POTUS is silly)
Also, mass casualty isn't why they dropped the bomb - so using kill counts is stupid.
You must have missed the bigger picture of the message sent. No problem though, you guys are notorious for missing key elements in any argument. Selective points only being the order of the day.
Department stores are, largely speaking, on their way out, whether we have Hillary or Trump. There's nothing either political party can do to stop it.
have you ever typed a number that remotely accurate?
1. Approaches to the area are heavily mined.
2. The targeted complex is, or was, located underground.
Not worth the lives of US troops.
The only reason the commanders had that authority is because Trump has taken the handcuffs off, and delegated the authority and power they were meant to have back to them.
Not entirely true. This likely couldn't have happened on the commanders call under Obama. Obama had stripped them of that power. Everything had to be litigated by dozens of lawyers, then given approval by the UN.
This should be celebrated for the simple fact that not only has Trump chosen two of the greatest military minds of our time, Mattis and McMasters, but he has also given them back the power to win wars, the power they were meant to have before Obama politicized our military.
I agree with given Trump credit for putting great people in charge - but that is also my point as well - these are military calls, people blasting Trump getting scared etc need to know these are competent military leaders leading the charge,
On your other points, I can only go with what I read. (I do understand there is a confidence factor and other things could be at play)
Pentagon officials said Friday that the U.S. commander in Afghanistan who ordered the use of the MOAD didn't need Trump's approval.
Officials said Gen. John Nicholson has standing authority to use the largest non-nuclear bomb ever dropped in combat. He had that authority before Trump took office.
"As [ISIS'] losses have mounted, they are using IEDs, bunkers, and tunnels to thicken their defense," Nicholson said in a statement on Thursday. "This is the right munition to reduce these obstacles and maintain the momentum of our offensive against [ISIS]."
Yeah, big deal. It was just their main way of smuggling weapons, slaves, contraband, etc... into Afghanistan from terrorists friendly Pakistan. This was one of their main routes of secret transportation. This tunnel/cave system also doubled as one of ISIS' largest compounds and weapons stashes.
Btw, this system was very complex, wasn't built in a day and has been around for at least a decade+. It been around so long it was used by AL Qaeda in the Afghanistan war. It's the same exact tunnel system that Bin Laden used to escape US capture on two separate occasions. Americans have lost their lives because of this tunnel system. It should have been leveled years ago.
Let me try this one more time...
We do spy on the Russians. They spy on us. If you or anyone is contacting the same Russian agents we deem of interest, your ass is going to be caught up in the surveillance. The fact that it is "incidental" means that Trump walked into an open trap set for the Russians. Not that the trap was set for him. But just like a fishing net that is set to catch shrimp, other fish that feed on shrimp get caught as well.
The fact that you don't have the slightest clue about why Trump and/or his people are contacting those agents would be unmasked it baffling. If ANYONE in our government or a candidate to be in government is contacting Russian agents, I want them all exposed. I couldn't care less if they are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Communist, Socialist or whatever. If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
Now Trump denies that he was talking to the Russians...yet the British, other European intelligence services as well as our own says he was. If he wasn't, there would be nothing to "unmask". Why does he continue to lie? The fact that our own intelligence services and those of our allies don't trust the SOB SHOULD tell you something. But the fact that your head is so far up Trump's ass you could inspect in tonsils simply means you're "all in" and going to toe the Trump line regardless what comes to light.
LOL at John and Fuzz just jackin each other off with likes on all their shitty posts
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
So, basically, according to you, Muslims half way across the world, who have never stepped foot in America should be protected by the Constitution, but Americans shouldn't.What you suggested is against the law. You can't unmasked an American just because they spoke to someone from Russia. You're advocating for the violation of the American rights and a third world, police state government.
There are very strict protections put into place to protect Americans from being spied on by our government, and very strict rules and laws to actually unmask an American. The only way the American can be unmasked is if there's a national security threat. Simply speaking to a Russian doesn't cut it.
Bottom line, there's zero proof of Trump/Russian collusion, and tons of proof that Trump and his team were spied on. Oh, and you're a Russiaphobe.
heh. "not exceptional as self-labeled" - did make me chuckle.
So, saw this earlier today, old news, but interesting to me. In 1984 Ted Kennedy made overtures to Andropov, wanting Russia to intervene in the election that year to help defeat Reagan. There would be pay-off. You can read it below. Interesting, as much as anything, in that it exposes the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the left (unless I'm forgetting all the 'collusion-with-Russia' outrage from the left when this came out). The most interesting part to me is the concluding sentence: Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism. Wonder why he was so sure he could get ABC/CBS/NBC to do what he wanted? Curious...
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/10...e-soviets-to-intervene-in-the-1984-elections/
Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”
Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.
So, saw this earlier today, old news, but interesting to me. In 1984 Ted Kennedy made overtures to Andropov, wanting Russia to intervene in the election that year to help defeat Reagan. There would be pay-off. You can read it below. Interesting, as much as anything, in that it exposes the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the left (unless I'm forgetting all the 'collusion-with-Russia' outrage from the left when this came out). The most interesting part to me is the concluding sentence: Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism. Wonder why he was so sure he could get ABC/CBS/NBC to do what he wanted? Curious...
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/10...e-soviets-to-intervene-in-the-1984-elections/
Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”
Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.
Trump’s MOAB Drop Triggered a Tweet You Need to Read
Excessive American caution has cost American lives and American limbs, and it has left families and friends of the victims with deep psychological wounds. Those wounds would be grievous enough in the best circumstances, but they’re compounded by the fact that many of the decisions not to shoot, not to use artillery, or not to drop bombs were based on a combination of rules of engagement and military misjudgments that were transparently foolish at the time.
To understand what our men in the field faced, you have to understand just a bit about the legal and command superstructure. First, the law of war defines the limits of military force in any context. They’re designed to place outer boundaries on the conduct of any force in the field, not just America and its allies. In practice, however, only America and its allies comply with the law of war.
Second, rules of engagement place an additional restriction on the use of force. The rules can’t be broader than the laws of war, only narrower. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the rules of engagement have defined not just when force is authorized (for example, in the face of a “hostile act” or “hostile intent”) but also which level of commander can authorize the use of any given weapon system.
Finally, there still exists commanders’ discretion. This discretion can only run in one direction, however. Commanders can’t order the use of force in conflict with the laws of war or rules of engagement, but they can choose not to use force even when legally authorized. In other words, even if they have the legal power to bomb a target, they may choose to hold fire. This happened a number of times in my deployment, and this decision can be among the most agonizing a commander makes.
Thus, this concept of of commander’s discretion grants a commander (and a commander-in-chief) the ability to make important changes in the conduct of the war even without changing the formal rules of engagement. With my own eyes I’ve seen commanders apply the same rules of engagement and use dramatically different degrees of force. The rules were the same, but the mindset was different. And the mindset often comes straight from the top.
The Trump administration seems to have changed the mindset, and that could well not only make a concrete difference in conditions on the ground but also in the minds and hearts of our own troops. Soldiers tend not to respect timidity, and they generally have little patience for commanders who seem to place public or political perceptions over their lives and limbs. Watch this Trump statement carefully:
He doesn’t say he authorized the use of the bomb itself. He says he authorizes the military. This is a key, wise, statement — one that hopefully empowers the military to act from a proper position of legal, moral, and political strength. Obama was notorious for not only implementing strict rules of engagement but for vacuuming an enormous amount of military decision-making authority straight to the White House. It’s hard to think of a more disempowering practice. It’s hard to think of a practice better calculated to lead to timidity in the field. Trump seems to be bringing a change, and it’s a change that’s long overdue.
Excessive American caution has cost American lives and American limbs, and it has left families and friends of the victims with deep psychological wounds. Those wounds would be grievous enough in the best circumstances, but they’re compounded by the fact that many of the decisions not to shoot, not to use artillery, or not to drop bombs were based on a combination of rules of engagement and military misjudgments that were transparently foolish at the time.
To understand what our men in the field faced, you have to understand just a bit about the legal and command superstructure. First, the law of war defines the limits of military force in any context. They’re designed to place outer boundaries on the conduct of any force in the field, not just America and its allies. In practice, however, only America and its allies comply with the law of war.
Second, rules of engagement place an additional restriction on the use of force. The rules can’t be broader than the laws of war, only narrower. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the rules of engagement have defined not just when force is authorized (for example, in the face of a “hostile act” or “hostile intent”) but also which level of commander can authorize the use of any given weapon system.
Finally, there still exists commanders’ discretion. This discretion can only run in one direction, however. Commanders can’t order the use of force in conflict with the laws of war or rules of engagement, but they can choose not to use force even when legally authorized. In other words, even if they have the legal power to bomb a target, they may choose to hold fire. This happened a number of times in my deployment, and this decision can be among the most agonizing a commander makes.
Thus, this concept of of commander’s discretion grants a commander (and a commander-in-chief) the ability to make important changes in the conduct of the war even without changing the formal rules of engagement. With my own eyes I’ve seen commanders apply the same rules of engagement and use dramatically different degrees of force. The rules were the same, but the mindset was different. And the mindset often comes straight from the top.
The Trump administration seems to have changed the mindset, and that could well not only make a concrete difference in conditions on the ground but also in the minds and hearts of our own troops. Soldiers tend not to respect timidity, and they generally have little patience for commanders who seem to place public or political perceptions over their lives and limbs. Watch this Trump statement carefully:
He doesn’t say he authorized the use of the bomb itself. He says he authorizes the military. This is a key, wise, statement — one that hopefully empowers the military to act from a proper position of legal, moral, and political strength. Obama was notorious for not only implementing strict rules of engagement but for vacuuming an enormous amount of military decision-making authority straight to the White House. It’s hard to think of a more disempowering practice. It’s hard to think of a practice better calculated to lead to timidity in the field. Trump seems to be bringing a change, and it’s a change that’s long overdue.
Always cracks me up seeing liberals talk up wall street, when its your side that constantly bashes wall street.
I guess wall street is only good when a dem is in office.
If the transition team had done anything wrong they would have said so before the inauguration so this should be a non story anyway.
All that anger, protesting and support for Obamacare at the latest Republican Town Hall in Arizona? More fake news.
There are now reports that a DNC email has surfaced, urging Democrats supporters to go, pose as Republicans, and "get in Jeff Flake grill".
There are now reports that a DNC email has surfaced, urging Democrats supporters to go, pose as Republicans, and "get in Jeff Flake grill".
WOW. Yes let's see how it would work if we sent two soilders in that area. Dumb@$$
Of course they didn't do anything wrong, nor illegal, or threaten national security. Their names should have never been unmasked, and were done so illegally.
You know how I know? Because if they did, the leakers would have also leaked the transcripts of the communications to the press, and not just their names because that would have been way more damaging, and possibly led to Trump's impeachment. A real impeachment, not a Pelosi pipe dream impeachment.
But since there is zero evidence of wrongdoing and/or collusion, leaking the transcripts of said communications only hurts the narrative by proving there wasn't collusion, and also proves that the Obama administration didn't have sufficient cause/evidence to unmask their names, but did so anyways, illegally.
Also, by only leaking their names, knowing there's zero evidence of collusion, it allows the liberal MSM and Democrats to drum up the Russian collusion conspiracy, reporting/saying pretty much whatever they want about it, knowing that no one privy to the real facts can comment on the investigation and correct the record.
These fools -- Obama, Kerry, Rice and Earnest -- were on national TV for three straight days patting themselves on the back.
Although friends and foes alike faulted him for not following through on his threat to retaliate when Syria gassed its own people in 2013, Mr. Obama would counter that he had actually achieved a better result through an agreement with President Bashar al-Assad to surrender all of his chemical weapons.
Former top Obama official admits: ‘We always knew’ Syria still had chemical weapons, lied anyway
We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration,” Tony Blinken, former deputy secretary of state and deputy national security adviser, said recently.
Although friends and foes alike faulted him for not following through on his threat to retaliate when Syria gassed its own people in 2013, Mr. Obama would counter that he had actually achieved a better result through an agreement with President Bashar al-Assad to surrender all of his chemical weapons.
Former top Obama official admits: ‘We always knew’ Syria still had chemical weapons, lied anyway
We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration,” Tony Blinken, former deputy secretary of state and deputy national security adviser, said recently.
Obama hiding out in a country that gives him immunity.
obama killed more black men in chicago in in 8 yrs than all of the black men killed in Vietnam
obama killed more black men in chicago in in 8 yrs than all of the black men killed in Vietnam
It's pretty funny listening to dumb fux like @fuzz77 @JohnKBA @cardkilla discussing the death count of this bombing. Have no earthly idea that the Moab blows up in the air to create pressure that collapses underground tunnels.
It will kill anyone in sight, but it was used to destroy underground compounds. These effing morons wouldn't know a damn thing about anything to do with military.
It will kill anyone in sight, but it was used to destroy underground compounds. These effing morons wouldn't know a damn thing about anything to do with military.
Only for the white people he killed. Like Seth Rich.
Trillions of dollars wasted on the destruction of innocent lives in the ME over the last 8 years and now we are suppose to be upset over the price of the greatest US fireworks show to blow up bin laden/cia created caves/tunnels?
Hey Fat Boy with the butt cut try and drop something like the MOAB and we will release the rest of them on your weekend celebration. Happy Easter
Hey Fat Boy with the butt cut try and drop something like the MOAB and we will release the rest of them on your weekend celebration. Happy Easter
I wonder who wouldn't like to see this crop make a comeback.
I wonder who wouldn't like to see this crop make a comeback.
Why? Shit doesn't get ya high.
It has other applications as shown. Don't worry, I'm in favor of legalizing it's cousin as well.
