MOAB

[wdmso]

nothing but a operational field test of a weapon and another PR stunt



not sure if they did this but I would of had troops on the ground 5 mins after it was dropped conducting mop up operations and intel gathering and battle damage assessments if this didn't happen what a waste of money and time just a dog and pony show



The Pentagon gave no casualty totals for the bombing

36 Isis militants killed in US 'mother of all bombs' attack, Afghan ministry says


One MOAB Costs $16 Million

That means 16,000,000 divided by 36 = $444,444 per dead ..

[Sea Dangles]

👍🏿
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Just a bigger version of the Daisy Cutter, which was used in AFG.

Much sizzle, little steak (well, not little perhaps)

[wdmso]

update Afghan Official Says 94 ISIS Fighters Killed

And i just saw this

Fox News's morning show on Friday aired the video of the bombing to the sounds of Toby Keith's “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue.” The country song, written in 2002 amid calls for military action after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks

Host Ainsley Earhardt referenced the song's lyrics, saying that even though the video is in black and white, “that’s what freedom looks like, that’s the red, white and blue."
Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera noted his joy at being able to see the video of the bomb.

"One of my favorite things in the 16 years I've been here at Fox News is watching bombs drop on bad guys," he said.

I am disgusted by this Nationalistic chest pounding Patriotic BS by those who who have no skin in the game .. I have said it before and will say it again its all cool until they start shooting back

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am disgusted by this Nationalistic chest pounding Patriotic BS by those who who have no skin in the game .. I have said it before and will say it again its all cool until they start shooting back

start shooting back?
what are you talking about? Am I wrong here or did they start with cutting off heads and shooting innocent people?

I am disgusted by UnAmerican whiners, don't like it, don't watch it.

[Nebe]

The more we bomb, the more "terrorists" we create.
There will never be peace until people figure that one out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Hey . . . what's the fuss? Didn't this thread start out by saying this was "nothing but a operational field test of a weapon and another PR stunt"?

[Raven]

swaying the NK's to stand down
or get moab'ed

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The more we bomb, the more "terrorists" we create.
There will never be peace until people figure that one out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well,after 8 years of doing nothing I am shocked there are any terrorists to drop bombs on. Why can't we just give these countries money like Obama did?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Oh, wait . . . just heard on the news that the general who ordered the MOAB to be dropped said he did not need Trump's command to do it. He already had the standing authority to do so. And he has had it before Trump got elected.

So what does that mean to the narrative?

Will those who hate Trump and supported Obama, and said Trump did something dastardly or stupid for dropping the bomb now say that it was a good thing, all credit to Obama, and Trump would have been too stupid to drop it?

Or will those who hate Obama, but were queasy about the bomb and opposed Trump's bombing it, now feel relieved and shower Obama with all sorts of trash talk?

Or will those who were ecstatic about Trump using the bomb but hated Obama now say what a horrible thing it was to drop it?

Or will those who were for it and happy, not care who was responsible?

Or will those who were against it, will not care who was responsible, and still call it a horrible thing?

What say you, wdmso?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The more we bomb, the more "terrorists" we create.
There will never be peace until people figure that one out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's brilliant. So why have they attacked France, who are they bombing, exactly? They hate everyone who isn't a militant Muslim, whether you bomb them or not. That is some thoughtless bumper sticker logic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh, wait . . . just heard on the news that the general who ordered the MOAB to be dropped said he did not need Trump's command to do it. He already had the standing authority to do so. And he has had it before Trump got elected.

So what does that mean to the narrative?

Will those who hate Trump and supported Obama, and said Trump did something dastardly or stupid for dropping the bomb now say that it was a good thing, all credit to Obama, and Trump would have been too stupid to drop it?

Or will those who hate Obama, but were queasy about the bomb and opposed Trump's bombing it, now feel relieved and shower Obama with all sorts of trash talk?

Or will those who were ecstatic about Trump using the bomb but hated Obama now say what a horrible thing it was to drop it?

Or will those who were for it and happy, not care who was responsible?

Or will those who were against it, will not care who was responsible, and still call it a horrible thing?

What say you, wdmso?

"The narrative" just checked into rehab.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

start shooting back?
what are you talking about? Am I wrong here or did they start with cutting off heads and shooting innocent people?

Take the flag away from your eyes and unplug your ears I have no issue kill terrorist i have issue with people you are one of those is seems who thinks flying a flag and think dropping a big bomb and singing lee greenwood songs “that’s what freedom looks like, that’s the red, white and blue.

I am disgusted by UnAmerican whiners, don't like it, don't watch it.

that sums it up its just a television show just change the channel

killing people should not be framed as this is what freedom looks like

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh, wait . . . just heard on the news that the general who ordered the MOAB to be dropped said he did not need Trump's command to do it. He already had the standing authority to do so. And he has had it before Trump got elected.


So what does that mean to the narrative?

Will those who hate Trump and supported Obama, and said Trump did something dastardly or stupid for dropping the bomb now say that it was a good thing, all credit to Obama, and Trump would have been too stupid to drop it?

Or will those who hate Obama, but were queasy about the bomb and opposed Trump's bombing it, now feel relieved and shower Obama with all sorts of trash talk?

Or will those who were ecstatic about Trump using the bomb but hated Obama now say what a horrible thing it was to drop it?

Or will those who were for it and happy, not care who was responsible?

Or will those who were against it, will not care who was responsible, and still call it a horrible thing?

What say you, wdmso?

doesn't change a thing

If you think that he did not ask for permission before dropping that thing your gullible.

when Trump was asked during a meeting with I-85 First Responders if he had authorized the strike.

“We have given them total authorization Trump can grant the
authority but its still Trumps responsibility



Pentagon officials say the generals have had the authority to launch whatever ordnance they had in theatre against ISIS since January last year, but President Donald Trump's comfort level with delegating new decision-making on counterterrorism strikes surely played into their thinking. General John “Mick” Nicholson ordered the weapon during the Obama Administration to use during Afghan’s fierce spring and summer “fighting season”, but it was only delivered in January this year, Salvin said.
While he may have had the authority to drop the bomb, it’s likely he notified commanders above him that he was about to use the munition, but it’s not clear how high that went. “Appropriate notifications were made,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Col. John Thomas emailed

Not sure how any justifies a 16mil dollar weapon to kill 100 and think it was done solely in the name defending America As for the general he say it was tactical not political ... but giving him the green light was political and strategic for the white house home and abroad

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I have said it before and will say it again its all cool until they start shooting back

*WHO* will be shooting back?

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I am disgusted by UnAmerican whiners, don't like it, don't watch it.

I sometimes disagree with WDMSO but he wore the fancy suit and went over and did his duty, so agreeing on particular subjects or not, he has beyond earned his right to speak them

Originally Posted by wdmso

doesn't change a thing

If you think that he did not ask for permission before dropping that thing your gullible.

when Trump was asked during a meeting with I-85 First Responders if he had authorized the strike.

“We have given them total authorization Trump can grant the
authority but its still Trumps responsibility



Pentagon officials say the generals have had the authority to launch whatever ordnance they had in theatre against ISIS since January last year, but President Donald Trump's comfort level with delegating new decision-making on counterterrorism strikes surely played into their thinking. General John “Mick” Nicholson ordered the weapon during the Obama Administration to use during Afghan’s fierce spring and summer “fighting season”, but it was only delivered in January this year, Salvin said.
While he may have had the authority to drop the bomb, it’s likely he notified commanders above him that he was about to use the munition, but it’s not clear how high that went. “Appropriate notifications were made,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Col. John Thomas emailed

Not sure how any justifies a 16mil dollar weapon to kill 100 and think it was done solely in the name defending America As for the general he say it was tactical not political ... but giving him the green light was political and strategic for the white house home and abroad

So help out here - are you saying that Trump is bad because he is not micromanaging the war (like Obama & Johnson did) and delegating those decisions to the generals and theater commanders? Or that he created the atmosphere that allows commanders to take more risk?

As for MOAB, yes that is a proper munition for caves and tunnels, no? The daisy cutter was used several times in similar situations before it was retired and replaced with this one.

[Nebe]

I'd like to understand what our military budget is for the year and divide it by every person on this earth that we have killed last year. I bet it's over $100,000,000.00 per human being.


Think on that for a while
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I'd like to understand what our military budget is for the year and divide it by every person on this earth that we have killed last year. I bet it's over $100,000,000.00 per human being.


Think on that for a while
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We are lucky for the past 70 years not to have a global nuclear war and relative peace. Or the think line of people that stopped the Russians from flooding ter Fulda Gap and free Europe (scary sight btw) .

That required a strong military and overall decent leadership (yes - some rough patches including the one we are in and the one we just left).

Maybe if the US abdicates leadership (again) and Russia and China fill that void things will be SO MUCH BETTER


Think on that for a while

[Nebe]

I have. But to say that publicly would label me as a commie pinko.

Happy Easter John
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

doesn't change a thing

It changes how we view what happened. For those who want to see it as a strictly political move, "nothing but a operational field test of a weapon and another PR stunt" as you put it, concocted purely by Trump, and not a tactical move by the military which was authorized well before Trump, it puts a different light on the strictly Trump did it narrative.

If you think that he did not ask for permission before dropping that thing your gullible.

I didn't put any thought into that. I assumed that Trump was OK with it. My assumption re Trump is that he says get the job done (whatever that job may be), and lets those who he appoints to do it do so in whatever way, in their expert opinion, it takes to get it done.

when Trump was asked during a meeting with I-85 First Responders if he had authorized the strike.

“We have given them total authorization Trump can grant the
authority but its still Trumps responsibility

So if the military thought the best way to get the job done was to use MOAB, which they were already authorized by a previous administration to do, I can see Trump saying OK--go for it. I'm just guessing, but I don't think Trump spends any time figuring out what tactics the military should use. Sounds like his mission strictly, in this regard, is to get rid of ISIS. From how he has operated his businesses in the past, he leaves the details of how best to do it to the experts he hires to do the job.

Pentagon officials say the generals have had the authority to launch whatever ordnance they had in theatre against ISIS since January last year, but President Donald Trump's comfort level with delegating new decision-making on counterterrorism strikes surely played into their thinking. General John “Mick” Nicholson ordered the weapon during the Obama Administration to use during Afghan’s fierce spring and summer “fighting season”, but it was only delivered in January this year, Salvin said.
While he may have had the authority to drop the bomb, it’s likely he notified commanders above him that he was about to use the munition, but it’s not clear how high that went. “Appropriate notifications were made,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Col. John Thomas emailed

That all sounds about like what I just said. And that they were given authorization by the Obama administration "to launch whatever ordnance they had in theatre against ISIS".

It's not all just about Trump making a political move. It sounds like a military decision of what and how and when.

Not sure how any justifies a 16mil dollar weapon to kill 100 and think it was done solely in the name defending America As for the general he say it was tactical not political ... but giving him the green light was political and strategic for the white house home and abroad

What do you do with a 16 million dollar weapon if you don't use it? Your the military expert, how do you destroy a cave system deep in the Afghan mountains used by ISIS to hide and plan attacks, and is being inhabited by important ISIS commanders and plotters? And would it have been political if Trump had said, naw don't use the bomb, send troops into the caves instead?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

*WHO* will be shooting back?



I sometimes disagree with WDMSO but he wore the fancy suit and went over and did his duty, so agreeing on particular subjects or not, he has beyond earned his right to speak them



So help out here - are you saying that Trump is bad because he is not micromanaging the war (like Obama & Johnson did) and delegating those decisions to the generals and theater commanders? Or that he created the atmosphere that allows commanders to take more risk?

What i am saying is this general say's it was tactical not political ... but giving him the green light was political and strategic for the white house home and abroad .. the military doesn't set policy they carry it out .. and keeping a tight leash on your generals is not micromanaging nor is giving them a blank check a responsible choice.. Trumps Commanders intent is clear.. I feel he see's delegating authority removes him from responsibility and his administration has no plan for the next move .

As for MOAB, yes that is a proper munition for caves and tunnels, no? yes. however if you look at the target as one target one attack with no bigger plan...I questions its use .. The daisy cutter was used several times in similar situations before it was retired and replaced with this one.

I just dont agree with fox and friends dropping big bombs is not what freedom looks like

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What do you do with a 16 million dollar weapon if you don't use it? Your the military expert, how do you destroy a cave system deep in the Afghan mountains used by ISIS to hide and plan attacks, and is being inhabited by important ISIS commanders and plotters? And would it have been political if Trump had said, naw don't use the bomb, send troops into the caves instead?

Actually yes you send it troops who says they need to be ours .. send in the afgans like the Iraqis it their country .. but thats the Problem and thats my issue with how fox and friends framed the attack it cool and bad ass and patriotic to watch it on TV just as long as the blood isn't our own.. thats not how it war works .. its risk VS reward the military is always running risk assessment I just dont see the White house doing the same thing

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What i am saying is this general say's it was tactical not political ... but giving him the green light was political and strategic for the white house home and abroad ..

You are admitting that the green light for the White House (whatever the green light was) WAS strategic (which includes tactics). Which runs counter to what you have been saying (e.g. "nothing but a operational field test of a weapon and another PR stunt").

Then you throw in that it was also political. Of course. All decisions by politicians are political. And they certainly will be painted that way by the opposition if it's to their advantage to do so. Which is a damn good reason for politicians to consider the politics when they make decisions.

the military doesn't set policy they carry it out ..

That is precisely what I said about this in the previous posts. But setting policy usually does not cover all the details of carrying it out. The President doesn't micromanage war. He directs overall policy for the war, the details must be carried out by military experts, not politicians. This would be especially true of Trump's style. He has his overall vision (the elimination of ISIS) and he depends on his military experts to carry out that policy. If the generals occasionally ask him about using a specific weapon, how the hell is he supposed to know better than them whether to use it or not. MOAB is not nuclear or chemical, so is not against international treaties. It was not directed at civilians. There was a difficult to destroy cave system to be demolished (for which MOAB was eminently designed to do). And it was inhabited by several key ISIS leaders and planners. Sending in troops would have unnecessarily resulted in the death or injury of some or many of our troops. There would be little political fallout (except from folks like you who seem to know better what to do than the generals). The cave system would be more difficult to permanently destroy without the bomb. The blanket use of the weapon was already granted by a previous administration.

So why would he not, or should he not, say OK?


and keeping a tight leash on your generals is not micromanaging nor is giving them a blank check a responsible choice.. Trumps Commanders intent is clear.. I feel he see's delegating authority removes him from responsibility and his administration has no plan for the next move .

This statement just seems to be opinion based on feeling. I can't make any sense of it.

Actually yes you send it troops who says they need to be ours .. send in the afgans like the Iraqis it their country ..

Does Trump have the authority to send in Afghan troops? Wouldn't the Afghan government/military have to do that? And why would they? Going into the caves puts the entrenched and ready ISIS fighters at an advantage. Heavy losses would be incurred attacking the enemy on its advantageous ground.

but thats the Problem and thats my issue with how fox and friends framed the attack it cool and bad ass and patriotic to watch it on TV just as long as the blood isn't our own.. thats not how it war works .. its risk VS reward the military is always running risk assessment I just dont see the White house doing the same thing

Usually, I don't watch Fox, nor the other channels. So how they portrayed it is of no interest to me. I am more interested in your comments, which are not at all persuasive.

I don't know how war is supposed to "work." It seems that war "works" if you win it. Especially if you have total victory in which the opposition is completely destroyed. Even better, if it is completely eradicated. You may well know better than the current generals how to work the current war. But saying "dropping big bombs is not what freedom looks like" looks, to me, like a non-sequitur. It sounds more like talking about something other than war. Something like an aftermath to war, or a reason for war.

If dropping big bombs leads to freedom as an aftermath, or if seeking freedom is aided by dropping big bombs, what it "looks" like is that the big bombs were well used.

But your commenting on what freedom doesn't look like reminds me, once again, that your admiration for judges who do not rule on law, but rather do so on personal whim, does not look like freedom. And your agreement with centralized unlimited government aided by those judges and by unelected regulatory agencies which have plenary power to rule and regulate the citizens doesn't look like freedom either.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The more we bomb, the more "terrorists" we create.
There will never be peace until people figure that one out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

France was attacked again yesterday, and they aren't bombing anyone, are they?

The jihadists want to murder everyone who isn't exactly like them. That includes, obviously, other, moderate Muslims.

They won't stop trying to kill us until we make our women dress like ninjas and mutilate their genitalia and until we execute homosexuals.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

France was attacked again yesterday, and they aren't bombing anyone, are they?

The jihadists want to murder everyone who isn't exactly like them. That includes, obviously, other, moderate Muslims.

They won't stop trying to kill us until we make our women dress like ninjas and mutilate their genitalia and until we execute homosexuals.

This is the issues Making a threat bigger than it really is.. talk about playing into the hands of Terrorism

France was not attacked again 1 person killed a police officer

guy shoots 70 year old man on face book live if he said he supported ISIS would that constitute America attacked again

this is not new for the french german or Europe : Organisation armée secrète 1961 28 killed in France there is a long list

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by wdmso

nothing but a operational field test of a weapon and another PR stunt



not sure if they did this but I would of had troops on the ground 5 mins after it was dropped conducting mop up operations and intel gathering and battle damage assessments if this didn't happen what a waste of money and time just a dog and pony show



The Pentagon gave no casualty totals for the bombing

36 Isis militants killed in US 'mother of all bombs' attack, Afghan ministry says


One MOAB Costs $16 Million

That means 16,000,000 divided by 36 = $444,444 per dead ..

Where did you get one MOAB costs $16 Million? is that real or fake news?

http://www.businessinsider.com/real-...170-000-2017-4

"The US's Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb does not cost $314 million, or $16 million, but $170,000 a unit, the US Air Force told Business Insider on Friday.

The weapon, whose acronym inspired the nickname "Mother of All Bombs," was produced by the Air Force, not by a third party like Lockheed or Boeing, "so we don't have a standard procurement cost associated with them," an Air Force official said.

The $170,000 figure makes sense considering a general-purpose 1,000-pound MK-83 costs about $12,000. The MOAB simply features more high explosives and larger fins to direct the GPS-guided munition.

Many outlets, including The New York Times and Business Insider, inaccurately stated the cost of the MOAB as being in the millions. Business Insider's article has since been corrected to reflect this information."