U.S. Drops Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb in Afghanistan targeting ISIS

CM189191

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".

Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?

I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.

No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.

I'm glad we don't.

Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!

The MOAB was designed in 2002 and produced in 2003. So the MOAB was 14 years old. What if the expiration time was 15 years and we were just trying to use them up before they go bad?

Do Tomahawks have a shelf life? Maybe this is our way of rotating stock?

mcgruff10

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".

Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?

I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.

No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.

That was a joke, eh?

Geez, dude, you've gotta work on your delivery

all good bud. the internet sucks for sarcasm lol.

CM189191

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".

Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?

I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.

No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.

That was a joke, eh?

Geez, dude, you've gotta work on your delivery

all good bud. the internet sucks for sarcasm lol.

you need to use the SarcMark
Interrobang also would have been acceptable

oftenreading

Didn't we have the sarcasm talk just a day or two ago? Some posters were opposed. I can't imagine why.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".

Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?

I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.

No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.

I'm glad we don't.

Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!

The MOAB was designed in 2002 and produced in 2003. So the MOAB was 14 years old. What if the expiration time was 15 years and we were just trying to use them up before they go bad?

Do Tomahawks have a shelf life? Maybe this is our way of rotating stock?

My wife and I do this all the time. We say, "Hey. We gotta use this chicken today or tomorrow." Then we cook the chicken.

Sooo... you're probably right:

General 1: "Guys. We got a freaking set of missiles we gotta use."
General 2: "Okay. Anyone got a target? Doesn't have to be anything great. Just something we can blow up."

CM189191

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".

Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?

I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.

No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.

I'm glad we don't.

Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!

The MOAB was designed in 2002 and produced in 2003. So the MOAB was 14 years old. What if the expiration time was 15 years and we were just trying to use them up before they go bad?

Do Tomahawks have a shelf life? Maybe this is our way of rotating stock?

My wife and I do this all the time. We say, "Hey. We gotta use this chicken today or tomorrow." Then we cook the chicken.

Sooo... you're probably right:

General 1: "Guys. We got a freaking set of missiles we gotta use."
General 2: "Okay. Anyone got a target? Doesn't have to be anything great. Just something we can blow up."

Just a theory I've been working on. Now it has a name, thank you. Going forward, this will be referred to as the "Chicken Tonight Theory". I have already written the jingle:
https://youtu.be/_GdiNk3-IPE

oftenreading

..... no chicken tonight in my coffee, no chicken tonight in my tea....

tbergs

oftenreading said:

..... no chicken tonight in my coffee, no chicken tonight in my tea....

dut, dut-it, da, dada, dut, da....

tbergs

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".

Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?

I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.

No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.

I'm glad we don't.

Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!

The MOAB was designed in 2002 and produced in 2003. So the MOAB was 14 years old. What if the expiration time was 15 years and we were just trying to use them up before they go bad?

Do Tomahawks have a shelf life? Maybe this is our way of rotating stock?

My wife and I do this all the time. We say, "Hey. We gotta use this chicken today or tomorrow." Then we cook the chicken.

Sooo... you're probably right:

General 1: "Guys. We got a freaking set of missiles we gotta use."
General 2: "Okay. Anyone got a target? Doesn't have to be anything great. Just something we can blow up."

Just a theory I've been working on. Now it has a name, thank you. Going forward, this will be referred to as the "Chicken Tonight Theory". I have already written the jingle:
https://youtu.be/_GdiNk3-IPE

What about a book? Tomahawk Missiles for the Soul?

CM189191

tbergs said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".

Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?

I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.

No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.

I'm glad we don't.

Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!

The MOAB was designed in 2002 and produced in 2003. So the MOAB was 14 years old. What if the expiration time was 15 years and we were just trying to use them up before they go bad?

Do Tomahawks have a shelf life? Maybe this is our way of rotating stock?

My wife and I do this all the time. We say, "Hey. We gotta use this chicken today or tomorrow." Then we cook the chicken.

Sooo... you're probably right:

General 1: "Guys. We got a freaking set of missiles we gotta use."
General 2: "Okay. Anyone got a target? Doesn't have to be anything great. Just something we can blow up."

Just a theory I've been working on. Now it has a name, thank you. Going forward, this will be referred to as the "Chicken Tonight Theory". I have already written the jingle:
https://youtu.be/_GdiNk3-IPE

What about a book? Tomahawk Missiles for the Soul?

Way ahead of you...working movie title in progress:

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?

You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.

so you cite analysts and experts but can't name any? If I said a statement like that i'd have at least three sources to back it up.

You can hang your hat on my lack of sources if you want, but the obvious will remain obvious.
The folks who make careers in military geopolitics have been seeing supported rebel factions turning on us throughout conflicts across the world.

don't cite authors and evidence if you don't have any. your credibility is now shot.

I didn't cite anything, I alluded.
I'm not concerned too much about my credibility rating around here, everyone has their issues. Unless I have you mixed up with another poster, I have been disturbed by your obsession with war and glorifying it, and wonder what impact that has on your history students. That doesn't mean I discount everything you say because I don't trust your credibility, it just means that in issues of the US going to war I assume you may or may not have patriotic bias.

I 'm definitely not glorifying war. War sucks.

I must have you confused with the poster who eagerly jumps into anything related to WW2 and who collects WW2 weapons.

I do collect ww2 weapons and my favorite era of history is ww2. I still don't want war. Shit, I hate war so much I thought of moving to dirty's house! lol

Drowned Out

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Drowned Out said:

mcgruff10 said:

Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?

You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?

it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.

it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?

you say it's hindsight, I say it's lack of foresight at best, intentional negliegence as a means to an end at worst.
I'm sure if you wanted to go back in history you could find a ton of examples of rulers and states aligning with people that bite them in the ass,I hope you're not serious about inferring no one could see it coming. The enemy of my enemy and all that. A cursory knowledge of Iran, Iraq, and the Kurds provides several examples of the problems that occur when supporting dictators (or insurgents) against the will of the people - and as gambs mentioned, this began in the 50's. That is just one dispute.
The US was the main founder (via Pakistan) of militant Wahhabism. They nurtured it to achieve their goals in Afghanistan. A bi-partisan effort (as always as pertains to foreign policy), by the Carter and Regan admins. Im sure you're aware of Zbigniew Brzezinski's admissions on the topic.

What did they expect when they cultivate hate based on religion, then send their troops to the holy land of the hateful soldiers they created? Bin Laden wrote several letters to his CIA handlers telling them there would be consequences for this if they didn't pull out. His supposed admission videos mention it expressly. The US was training for plane hijack attacks. You can't say 9/11 and al Qaeda/mujahideen turning on the US was a surprise to anyone with a passing interest in history (though I know nationalism clouds the memory in the United States of amnesia).
And if you are the type who connects dots through history to the present, it is easy to see that this same movement is still allied with US interests, and pursuing common goals.

Smellyman

brianlux said:

Bombing the shit out of people does not change their outlook. If anything, it strengthens their resolve. Let's stop being so naive.

This. USA just keeps creating more

Smellyman

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

by the way...where are these analysts from 1945 who predicted the future?

I don't know their names, the CIA holds it's cards pretty close. It's pretty hard to imagine the CIA's Iran coup in 1953 was a spur of the moment decision, and even harder to imagine that it wasn't expressly the goal to destabilise.
Pretty much everything that has happened since is more of the same old same.
Even if the Mujahedeen turning on us wasn't an obvious possibility, perhaps we should have learned our lesson before propping up and then toppling Saddam, Bin Laden, and ISIS.
It's​ only Monday morning quarterbacking if you weren't on the field on Sunday.

from 1953 to 1979 iran remains an ally to the united states. so the united states government is supposed to know 26 years later that the iranian government would be over thrown and eventually take u.s. citizens hostages?
the us staged that coup during the cold war just like we sent aid to the afghan rebels fighting the soviet union in the late 70's during the cold war. our main fight during this time was the soviet union...no way we can predict 20 years down the line when we are worrying about communism. that's like saying gulf of tonkin is the reason for the cambodian gonocide.

After overthrowing a democratically elected nationalist president of the people in that he was one of them, who wanted Iranian oil revenue to go to the people and not international corporations and installing the shah, who was from the wealthy elite class and not only allowed the wealth of the nation to flow out, enriched himself and his cronies, but killed and tortured all manner of opponents. Some ally. You make it sound as if Iran was similar to post war France and Germany. That experience alone should have widened us to Afghanistan, the grave yard of empires, which in turn, should have wisened us up to Iraq. But some folks never learn nor care to understand history.

Amazing isn't it?

Of course there was nobody who saw this coming.

Right?

HughFreakingDillon

oftenreading said:

..... no chicken tonight in my coffee, no chicken tonight in my tea....

OH MY EFFING GOD I WILL NOW NEVER HEAR THAT TUNE THE SAME AGAIN. and I was just listening to the Guess Who over the weekend.

tbergs

Starting to wonder what kind of effect this bombing really had. Where did those fictional body count numbers come from and now the military isn't interested in accurate numbers on the? Hmm..that's a bit odd. Couple that with the deadly attack on the Afghan forces last week and it sounds like we used that MOAB to blow up an old rat maze. Nice smoke screen guys.

http://reut.rs/2oBwIYG

Halifax2TheMax

tbergs said:

Starting to wonder what kind of effect this bombing really had. Where did those fictional body count numbers come from and now the military isn't interested in accurate numbers on the? Hmm..that's a bit odd. Couple that with the deadly attack on the Afghan forces last week and it sounds like we used that MOAB to blow up an old rat maze. Nice smoke screen guys.

http://reut.rs/2oBwIYG

Haven't you heard? ISIS has been defeated. It's part of the huge 100 days of winning rally coming up this week.

my2hands

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

..... no chicken tonight in my coffee, no chicken tonight in my tea....

OH MY EFFING GOD I WILL NOW NEVER HEAR THAT TUNE THE SAME AGAIN. and I was just listening to the Guess Who over the weekend.

we saw The Guess Who a few weeks ago...

worst show I have ever seen, ever

its literally a cover band at this point with the worst front man in rock history

my2hands

people still haven't figured out that Terrorism is good for business?

its the perfect boogeyman... which had to be created after the fall of the Soviet Union left us without a boogeyman in the closet... Clinton starts cutting the defense budget... USA actually balances its budget and operates on a surplus... then... wait for it... "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"... nothing to see here... BOOM... the whole world changed on a dime and now everyone is scared and obsessed with security... civil liberties are thrown out the window... mass surveillance becomes acceptable... military & security spending explodes... Cha-Ching... and now all you need is one goofball with an AR-15, or even just a truck... its the perfect boogeyman because it keeps everyone scared, willing to hand over their rights, and willing to spend endless amounts of tax dollars on "homeland security" and the military... it allows us to operate militarily in several nations at once without anyone batting an eye... all of this while this new boogeyman actually poses ZERO risk to the United States global hegemony... its fucking brilliant... and of course to mention any of this in America you are labeled a kook or conspiracy theorist that wears a tinfoil hat...

doesn't anyone think its suspicious that as soon as the soviet threat fades into history Al Qaeda steps up.... and then once Osama was killed and Al Qaeda fades into history ISIS comes along from thin air?

its all bullshit... flame me all you want... its obvious if you actually care to look

cincybearcat

I don't agree with your opinion that seems to say these things are propped up. I just think a vacuum was created and somebody stepped in. There will always be an "Us" for every "them".