This isn’t an issue of a “poor nation” looking for American resolution. It is the story of a political/ideological force that has displaced millions upon millions of individuals in the last year. The ideological force that thrives in Afghanistan finds huge support amongst the Shia Syrian population. The Shia population that is intent on eradicating the former ruling Sunni population that was responsible for decimating them. To solve this “problem” you have to address the devastating violence that has occurred in these regions (not sure how you do that, but you need to create an environment where the populace can find peace with its horrific past: whether it was at the hands of Russians, Americans, Shi’ites, Sunni, etc.). You need to come to peace with the past. But unfortunately the ISIS/Islamic ideology has very little cache in the way of addressing past grievances peacefully. You need to disarm the ideological mandate for fighting violence with further violence. You need to disarm the divine mandate to avenge yourself. Historically, mass movements against Islamic state or guerilla oppression often comes at the hands of its former supporters (think Arab spring, or the peace and widespread rejection of Islam in Indonesia after the purges, or the general malaise of Shia Muslim following the Iranian revolution). Unfortunately the only real change will probably come when the local population discovers the paucity of Islam as an ideology (and its violent ideological arsenal). Or so history would suggest. In the meantime, ISIS needs to be put in check (perhaps more so in Syria than Afghanistan) not because, “us versus them” - but because they have ravaged the lives of about 4 million displaced Syrians and honestly the issue is one of international security: if not for Syria than for its neighbouring countries (should a nation be allowed to exterminate its own citizens is another issue, but there are international consequences that require a global response).
Yeah, the problem seems to be that groups like IS exist because of the warfare and instability of the region. Defeating them with more warfare will just make new groups stand up. Especially as long as you have groups that will actively fund terrorist organizations.
And using bombs like this one has the added problem that they destroy a lot and indiscriminately. And even though the generals will say they’ll do everthing possible to prevent civilian casualties, they will happen with large scale attacks like these.
Dropped a cinder block on the situation, the mother of all cinder blocks.
I try to live mostly offline these days, but checked the news today. As usual, SNAclusterbombfucked.
Then, I came here to see if anybody realised why the sitting President might appeal to a generation who grew up playing iterations of Duke Nukem.
“Afghanistan? Piece of (chocolate) cake.”
Guess what? There is no cake.
Remember the good ole days when we thought that Defense Secretary McMaster was the voice of reason and restraint against Bannon’s insane deconstruct the government? Yeah, good times. At least Bannon only wanted to destroy the US government.
That’s what concerns me. After the praise he got from the first missile orgasm simulation, is he going to get a similar reaction for this one? After all, isn’t blowing up shit presidential? (As long as you’re a white Republican, of course.) If Occupant Trump does get praise over this idiocy … well, what’s next?
Are you trying for euphemism of the year award?
Weapons kill people. Many of them destroy infrastructure like water supplies and so kill other people. I am interested in military history (why are we such an ingeniously destructive species?) but I don’t pretend that war is other than evil. “reach out and touch” is a dirty, disgusting euphemism that tells lies about reality and encourages the mindset that the destination of those weapons doesn’t count in any way.
You’ve managed to make me actually feel a bit sick, the first time this has ever happened with a BB post.
Edit - perhaps I overreacted. But the desensitisation of people to war by the use of euphemism has a long and dishonourable history.
Obviously the taking of human lives has far bigger implications than the monetary cost, but it occurs to me that we just spent at least $16 million for a single bomb (not including the cost of carrying out the mission itself) to take out approximately 35 ISIS fighters (assuming early reports on numbers/victims are accurate). So somewhere around half a million bucks per dead guy.
I wonder how that compares to what we normally spend on taking out targets? Were these guys especially high up the food chain?
Do you want to see your loved ones killed by ISIS?
Check here for yes [ ]
Check here for no [ ]
Totally. But that certainly wasn’t the case in Syria, and it’s not clear that it’s the case here. Trump dropped a big bomb. Did it do anything asude from make the loyal sychophants in the American media gush about his big bombs for a few days? Did it accomplish our Nation’s goals, or did it just stroke Trump’s fragile ego?
I am sorry to have upset you. That is common military phrasing. I have heard it, and used it for so long that I was unaware that it might have such an effect on people. Would you prefer that I edited it out of the post?
I apologize for posting this particular n00z site but:
“We have given [the military] total authorization,” Trump told reporters. “Frankly, that’s why they’ve been so successful lately.”
They held a well fortified position, from which they were able to launch repeated attacks on coalition forces and the local population. Then they could retreat back into the complex, where they could not easily be attacked, and where they held large supplies of weapons.
From a Military standpoint, there were limited options:
- We could pull all coalition forces from that area, and leave it as an enemy strongpoint.
- We could continue conventional attacks against the people using those fortifications, which would have little effect, but come at great cost to us through attrition and lost lives.
- We could launch a sustained attack with dozens or hundreds of smaller BLU-133 based weapons, from multiple aircraft over the course of many missions.
- MOAB
Why atomic bomb?
After the USSR collapsed, a lot of things does not make sense. The atomic bomb emerged as a prevention against Nazi Germany. Then because of the arms race that was a measure of power between US and USSR thousands of bombs were produced. And now? All atomic bombs in the world should be turned off. Supervisor from neutral countries like Sweden etc. should be sent to the countries that have the atomic bomb to verify their deactivation. Why atomic bomb?
source: thethinkingabout.blogspot.com
No, it’s OK. Let it stand.
But be aware that not everybody in the world supports the “desensitisation” of US military phrasing. And as John Le Carré observed, the US lost the Vietnam war from air conditioned rooms.
[edit - that isn’t to diminish what the troops on the ground went through, and I understand well why serving military personnel use euphemisms. But it was the generals and the politicians who tried to represent it as in some way a clean, bloodless war with bombs exploding in pretty patterns, and use words that denied the reality of burning children to death.]
Morally bankrupt bullies on the world stage, wreaking havoc in the lives of millions if not billions? Yes, that’s who we are (where we = USA).
USA USA
I just had a good chuckle working on a business plan to present to the higher-ups. I gave a due date of Q4 for a few deliverables and realized that maybe there won’t even be a Q4.
#laughingtokeepfromcrying
#wwiii
I grew up hearing about that conflict from people who did not have air conditioned rooms. People who were educated enough to understand the subject in depth and with nuance. Robert McNamara was pretty unpopular in my house.
