The U.S., for the first time, uses the MOAB bomb....So what?

[danielpalos]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

I don't really understand all this hype over it.

Some on the alt-left are trying to make a case, that foreign policy with our exorbitantly expensive superpower, is not very Commercial.

 

[danielpalos]

I wasn't too impressed by the bomb. I saw a video of it being tested and it was a big explosion, but nothing crazy.

I also read it was only 1/1000th of the Hiroshima bomb, which makes it the FOAB (fetus of all bombs).

But the radius is pretty similar in size, there is no radiation though.

The scope of the detonation was not strategic or of military importance. Supposedly only 36 militants were killed, according to the U.S. military, plus a teacher and his young son, according to locals. The amount of casualties seems very small, and the same results could have been achieved using much cheaper and less sophisticated weapons.

The scope was to scare other people/nations. If he is crazy enough to detonate such a device, Drumpf wants to show the whole world he is not scared to used such weapons in more populated areas, or even use nuclear weapons, which would be the next step.

Using the MOAB didn't "show" the world he would use such weapons in more populated areas or that he would escalate to nukes. There is nothing indicating that but the whispers in your own mind.
How many critics of the President have focused on the "mountain top" and the 36 fighters killed and completely ignored the actual strategic target, which was the CAVE SYSTEM which has been used as an ISIS/terrorist base of operations. They have tried before getting in there in more conventional ways and failed. I'm glad they got rid of what is the equivalent of a military base for ISIS. No one can hide there anymore.

Are there no drugs involved?

 

[danielpalos]

The plan to use a MOAB at this location was being planned months ago during Obama's administration.

I looked but did not find your source or link.

Please provide is with your source and link so that we may see that petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama authorized the plan to use the MOAB. Thank you so much!

"The officials said the planning to use the bomb had been under way for months during the Obama administration and that the bomb had been in Afghanistan for months."

That's from the linked story.

Should we "audit" progress on that instead of the Fed?

 

[danielpalos]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

I don't really understand all this hype over it.

Because the POTUS, via his press secretary, made a point of telling us they dropped the MOAB. You see, like it or not, when the POTUS thinks something is worth mentioning or discussing, that thing becomes a point of discussion. It becomes "hype" or "hyped" because the "leader of the free world" made it something worth talking about and sharing.

Had the WH merely noted that the U.S. military conducted a successful operation against ISIS faction in A-stan, that'd have been just fine in my book. Let the MOAB use come out organically via Pentagon spokespeople as part of the follow-on discussion about it. That way, it doesn't look like the WH wants to make a point of using the MOAB and is instead focused on announcing results. Better still, let the whole story be delivered via the Pentagon, which from square one doesn't have the same degree of politicization as does the inherently political and "image conscious" WH, especially the Trump WH. Hell, the event, insofar as it's not a final event in the combat there or in the fight against ISIS, is really just a tactical story/event, and thus is rightly the Pentagon's to deliver.

Edit/Note:

Just because a POTUS doesn't mention something doesn't make it not worth discussing. It's merely that the things the POTUS does mention are worth discussing.​

Is our Merchant in Commerce in Chief, a quick study in the martial arts?

Where is dropping any form of Bombs, in the Art of the Deal?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

Air campaigns don't work. Vietnam proved it.

To a certain extent thats true.
One thing to remember is Vietnam was covered in jungle making it difficult to pinpoint the enemy.
And our weapons are far more advanced as well.

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

 

[usmbguest5318]

To a certain extent thats true.

It is true in a certain context. I didn't respond to that comment because the context in which it is a point where nothing isn't germane to the topic here. The member's remark was one that calls to mine this:

Billy: Well, Humpty Dumpty did fall off of a wall. That much is true.
Mark: Yes, he did, but why the "F" are you talking about Humpty Dumpty?​

Was I responding to you?

Yes. Do you see "OP" in red next to my name? That means I'm the thread creator and that makes anything someone posts in this thread be a response to me because I led the discussion by starting the thread.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Some on the alt-left are trying to make a case, that foreign policy with our exorbitantly expensive superpower, is not very Commercial.

???? Hugh?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

To a certain extent thats true.

It is true in a certain context. I didn't respond to that comment because the context in which it is a point where nothing isn't germane to the topic here. The member's remark was one that calls to mine this:

Billy: Well, Humpty Dumpty did fall off of a wall. That much is true.
Mark: Yes, he did, but why the "F" are you talking about Humpty Dumpty?​

Was I responding to you?

Yes. Do you see "OP" in red next to my name? That means I'm the thread creator and that makes anything someone posts in this thread be a response to me because I led the discussion by starting the thread.

Nope. I was responding to DANIELPALOS.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

I don't really understand all this hype over it.

Because the POTUS, via his press secretary, made a point of telling us they dropped the MOAB. You see, like it or not, when the POTUS thinks something is worth mentioning or discussing, that thing becomes a point of discussion. It becomes "hype" or "hyped" because the "leader of the free world" made it something worth talking about and sharing.

Had the WH merely noted that the U.S. military conducted a successful operation against ISIS faction in A-stan, that'd have been just fine in my book. Let the MOAB use come out organically via Pentagon spokespeople as part of the follow-on discussion about it. That way, it doesn't look like the WH wants to make a point of using the MOAB and is instead focused on announcing results. Better still, let the whole story be delivered via the Pentagon, which from square one doesn't have the same degree of politicization as does the inherently political and "image conscious" WH, especially the Trump WH. Hell, the event, insofar as it's not a final event in the combat there or in the fight against ISIS, is really just a tactical story/event, and thus is rightly the Pentagon's to deliver.

Edit/Note:

Just because a POTUS doesn't mention something doesn't make it not worth discussing. It's merely that the things the POTUS does mention are worth discussing.​

Is our Merchant in Commerce in Chief, a quick study in the martial arts?

Where is dropping any form of Bombs, in the Art of the Deal?

Is our Merchant in Commerce in Chief, a quick study in the martial arts?

I don't know.

Where is dropping any form of Bombs, in the Art of the Deal?

I haven't read that book, but I would guess dropping bombs is an act that corresponds to some act of the negotiating process as Trump depicts it in his book. You'll need to read the book to figure that out. I have no desire to read that book and will not.

 

[usmbguest5318]

To a certain extent thats true.

It is true in a certain context. I didn't respond to that comment because the context in which it is a point where nothing isn't germane to the topic here. The member's remark was one that calls to mine this:

Billy: Well, Humpty Dumpty did fall off of a wall. That much is true.
Mark: Yes, he did, but why the "F" are you talking about Humpty Dumpty?​

Was I responding to you?

Yes. Do you see "OP" in red next to my name? That means I'm the thread creator and that makes anything someone posts in this thread be a response to me because I led the discussion by starting the thread.

Nope. I was responding to DANIELPALOS.

I know that's to whom you thought you responded.

I suspect that my remark was too subtle for you. That is not so for other member, it seems; thus my remark appears to have had the desired impact.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

To a certain extent thats true.

It is true in a certain context. I didn't respond to that comment because the context in which it is a point where nothing isn't germane to the topic here. The member's remark was one that calls to mine this:

Billy: Well, Humpty Dumpty did fall off of a wall. That much is true.
Mark: Yes, he did, but why the "F" are you talking about Humpty Dumpty?​

Was I responding to you?

Yes. Do you see "OP" in red next to my name? That means I'm the thread creator and that makes anything someone posts in this thread be a response to me because I led the discussion by starting the thread.

Nope. I was responding to DANIELPALOS.

I know that's to whom you thought you responded.

I suspect that my remark was too subtle for you. That is not so for other member, it seems; thus my remark would appear to have had the desired impact.

It was quite obvious who I was responding to.
And if I wanted your opinion I would have asked you.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It is true in a certain context. I didn't respond to that comment because the context in which it is a point where nothing isn't germane to the topic here. The member's remark was one that calls to mine this:

Billy: Well, Humpty Dumpty did fall off of a wall. That much is true.
Mark: Yes, he did, but why the "F" are you talking about Humpty Dumpty?​

Was I responding to you?

Yes. Do you see "OP" in red next to my name? That means I'm the thread creator and that makes anything someone posts in this thread be a response to me because I led the discussion by starting the thread.

Nope. I was responding to DANIELPALOS.

I know that's to whom you thought you responded.

I suspect that my remark was too subtle for you. That is not so for other member, it seems; thus my remark would appear to have had the desired impact.

It was quite obvious who I was responding to.
And if I wanted your opinion I would have asked you.

As I said, it's my thread. I'll respond to whomever I want to. I'm insouciantly indifferent about for what you might ask as goes my thoughts in this thread.

 

[danielpalos]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

Air campaigns don't work. Vietnam proved it.

To a certain extent thats true.
One thing to remember is Vietnam was covered in jungle making it difficult to pinpoint the enemy.
And our weapons are far more advanced as well.

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshal to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

 

[danielpalos]

Some on the alt-left are trying to make a case, that foreign policy with our exorbitantly expensive superpower, is not very Commercial.

???? Hugh?

We have a Commerce Clause not a common offense clause nor general defense clause.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's coming over the news that the U.S. forces for the first time, so we're told, dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on one (several?) ISIS positions in Afghanistan. So what? Why does anyone need to know that? The whole world knows that the U.S. is actively fighting ISIS in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not come as a surprise that the U.S. drops bombs there, big ones, little ones, and in-between ones.

Do you really give a damn what specific munitions the U.S. uses? Do you just care that U.S. forces have and use the appropriate munition for the situation they face? The latter is all I care about. I don't care what type of conventional weapons U.S. forces use in combat.

I'm wondering why the hell we'd advertise that we've dropped the most destructive/powerful bomb in our inventory. If there were any doubt in our opponents' mind about the force limit of our bombs, well, now they need no longer wonder. The problem with that is that now that we've told everyone that we used the MOAB, anyone to whom it matters knows what they must do to protect themselves from it. Better, IMO, to have just dropped the thing and discussed the results it achieved. There's no need to disclose that we dropped the "biggest, baddest" bomb we have.

Air campaigns don't work. Vietnam proved it.

To a certain extent thats true.
One thing to remember is Vietnam was covered in jungle making it difficult to pinpoint the enemy.
And our weapons are far more advanced as well.

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

 

[danielpalos]

Air campaigns don't work. Vietnam proved it.

To a certain extent thats true.
One thing to remember is Vietnam was covered in jungle making it difficult to pinpoint the enemy.
And our weapons are far more advanced as well.

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Why were we there? Regulars should have said, it cannot be won the way you want to go about it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

To a certain extent thats true.
One thing to remember is Vietnam was covered in jungle making it difficult to pinpoint the enemy.
And our weapons are far more advanced as well.

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Why were we there? Regulars should have said, it cannot be won the way you want to go about it.

We were there supposedly to stop the spread of communism.
The brass were pissed as hell at the ROE's that were foisted on them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Some on the alt-left are trying to make a case, that foreign policy with our exorbitantly expensive superpower, is not very Commercial.

???? Hugh?

We have a Commerce Clause not a common offense clause nor general defense clause.

Already been in the courts

Nothing to stop you from suing over it again

 

[danielpalos]

In other words, the "wrong" strategy was used in Vietnam, by regulars.

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Why were we there? Regulars should have said, it cannot be won the way you want to go about it.

We were there supposedly to stop the spread of communism.
The brass were pissed as hell at the ROE's that were foisted on them.

An example of political leadership's failure to have Faith in Capitalism and compete with other forms of government? Should we get Boss or Ding involved.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I would say the wrong strategy was used by politicians.

Do we need a Field Marshall to, "take the blame" for wrong policies by politicians?

No need for the military to take the blame for Vietnam since we all know the military was hamstrung by politicians.

Why were we there? Regulars should have said, it cannot be won the way you want to go about it.

We were there supposedly to stop the spread of communism.
The brass were pissed as hell at the ROE's that were foisted on them.

An example of political leadership's failure to have Faith in Capitalism and compete with other forms of government? Should we get Boss or Ding involved.

I dont know how you could even claim that when the politicians were the one's who hamstrung the military.
If they truly wanted to stop the spread of communism they would have let the Generals decide on the best course of action.

On the plus side S. Korea still stands.