"mother of all bombs" dropped on Taliban tunnel complex -Afghanistan

USFREEDOM911 said:
Can you imagine if they would have had these, during the Vietnam war.
It would have made it unnecessary to have the tunnel rats and would have lessened the American losses taking a hill, giving it back, and then being ordered to retake it.
Just drop a bomb on a known opening and watch the rest of the openings pop open.
Click to expand...

We are not equipped to do that. More than winning a war the American public wants to win a war nobly. They want to be the heroes. In ww2if we used the same tactics as the Germans, Russians, or Japanese the American public would have revolted and cast down the leadership.

As Ser Jorah said "Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died."
 
tsuke said:
We are not equipped to do that. More than winning a war the American public wants to win a war nobly. They want to be the heroes. In ww2if we used the same tactics as the Germans, Russians, or Japanese the American public would have revolted and cast down the leadership.

As Ser Jorah said "Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died."
Click to expand...

How is saving American lives, not noble?
 
Darth Omar said:
I don't think there's much question the Bomb was intended to do more than disrupt ISIS.

In fact, the Tomahawks that hit Assad's and Vladie's assets were intended to do more than destroy a portion their air capability in Syria. NK is reportedly going to test fire a nuke this weekend. I think both events were at least partly intended for their consumption. Today's bomb was a tunnel buster: the little NK dictator keeps a lot of his stuff underneath the ground.

And right now Trump is in his head since Trump is acting unpredictably but decisively. Does the little twerp pull the trigger on Saturday or not?

IF Trump were to take out NK's nuke capability, it will be the biggest geopolitical development since the fall of the Berlin Wall. And I wouldn't put it past him to try.
Click to expand...

You think the US will bomb the shit out of North Korea with a standing army of a million of cult followers on the border for a test? We'd better draw a line in the sand before risking reigniting that Korean war. I haven't heard Trump has done that. If we fire missiles into North Korea the odds of North Korea launching a ground invasion against South Korea is 100%. Is there a higher percentage? If there is I pick that. That place is David Koresh ranch writ large.
 
tsuke said:
because the public doesnt view it like that. You have to save the lives in a nice way.

Look at the nukes. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives and people condemn truman for it to this day.
Click to expand...

The only one who gives a rats ass about how the public views it, are liberals who think that if we GO IN IT, TO WIN IT, we're wrong.
Fuck public opinion, when it comes to saving the lives of American troops and denying them the opportunity to complete their objective(s).

The object of war, is not to die for your country; but to make the other side die for theirs.

db9eba480cae7b8b001a99b55478ccf9.jpg


 
tsuke said:
because the public doesnt view it like that. You have to save the lives in a nice way.

Look at the nukes. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives and people condemn truman for it to this day.
Click to expand...

Well it IS ethically debatable. Could well be that killing 99% of the population of the globe and selecting 1% of the healthiest, most intelligent humans to repopulate increases human survival too. But is that OK? So Truman intentionally bombed hundreds of thousands of civilians to arguably end a war that could have in an unknown universe cost more soldiers. I don't know the answer to this and 20 other conundrums I could conjure up, but it IS debatable. And you can bet your ass they debated it. I'm sure some condemned it then.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But these were not affective in clearing tunnels or the VC troops in them.
Click to expand...
I've been down the Chu Chi Tunnels, very claustrophobic and bloody hot. They must have been a nightmare to spend any time in, as they were infested with rats, scorpions, ants, poisonous centipedes and spiders.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Micawber said:
Well it IS ethically debatable. Could well be that killing 99% of the population of the globe and selecting 1% of the healthiest, most intelligent humans to repopulate increases human survival too. But is that OK? So Truman intentionally bombed hundreds of thousands of civilians to arguably end a war that could have in an unknown universe cost more soldiers. I don't know the answer to this and 20 other conundrums I could conjure up, but it IS debatable. And you can bet your ass they debated it. I'm sure some condemned it then.
Click to expand...

Except that saving American lives automatically makes it a preferable decision. If you're standard is building the master race, then the genocide of the 99% starts to become acceptable (to you).
 
tsuke said:
We are not equipped to do that. More than winning a war the American public wants to win a war nobly. They want to be the heroes. In ww2if we used the same tactics as the Germans, Russians, or Japanese the American public would have revolted and cast down the leadership.

As Ser Jorah said "Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died."
Click to expand...

Thats why we incinerated Nipponese cities then dropp two nukes over there right retard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top