On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:44:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

why we have any interest in the middle east at all. It certainly is
not oil.

Maybe it's just simple humanitarianism.

There are people being ****ed over all over the planet and we really
do not care in most places.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:48:51 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

We are not talking about a quarter mile, we are talking a few hundred
feet and that cave system is bigger than that.

Were they aiming only at a large mountain containing caves or perhaps the entrance to a particular

It was pointed out by a military guy today on the talking head shows
that if we were really targeting caves, we should have used the MOP,
not the MOAB.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:49:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/16/2017 10:42 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 08:05:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Man, I almost spilled a mouthful of coffee onto my keyboard. Our
military leaders are not going to defeat these determined "religious"
fighters. Their cells are highly mobile and can spring up anywhere and
wreak havoc. If by some miracle our forces chased ISIS out of where it
is now, it'll just re-emerge Phoenix-like, somewhere else.

I could **** you off right away and make you a hawk if I pointed out
why we have any interest in the middle east at all. It certainly is
not oil.



Yeah. That was a myth quickly de-bunked.

Yes, anyone who understands how the world commodity market works
understands that whoever has the oil will be happy to sell it at the
market price. You notice that when we had a little dial down of the
middle eastern wars, the oil prices crashed.
I suspect the Russians are stirring the pot, just hoping they can get
them to go up again. They need the money.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:49:20 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

The goal in Vietnam wasn't to "win". Same in Korea.

Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning?

For humanitarian reasons?

That is even sillier in this context than the one up thread a bit.
If we were just interested in humanitarian causes, we would be bombing
Afghanistan with food, books and satellite connected PCs.
That would be a winning strategy in N Korea too.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:51:28 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/16/17 12:49 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:39:44 -0400, wrote:

Why would we send our kids into a war we had no plans of winning?

For humanitarian reasons?


We helped kill a million asians for humanitarians reasons, eh?

The flogging will continue until moral improves.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:34:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:44:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

why we have any interest in the middle east at all. It certainly is
not oil.

Maybe it's just simple humanitarianism.

There are people being ****ed over all over the planet and we really
do not care in most places.

That's true. But that's not to say we shouldn't do what we can where we can. I'd love to see us
doing more to punish the assholes in Africa doing their damndest to rape, plunder and pillage
everything they can, including girls even younger than those Harry likes.

Perhaps we take on those who may present a bigger threat. Of course, if you believe there are no
threats out there, then that is a meaningless point also.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:52:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Isn't it odd that the progressive liberals who talk so much about
rights of the downtrodden and oppressed seem to have little concern for
those who live elsewhere in the world.

No the odd thing is how specific we are about who we really care about
around the world and how we try to "free" them. Our goal seems to be
to replace whatever government they have with a US friendly dictator.
There is no better recent example than Egypt. The US celebrated the
Arab spring, gleefully watched them dump Mubarak, bragged about their
free elections and then did everything we could to get rid of the
democratically elected Morsi and reinstall a Mubarak apparatchik
because Morsi was not going to toe the line.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:37:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:48:51 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

We are not talking about a quarter mile, we are talking a few hundred
feet and that cave system is bigger than that.

Were they aiming only at a large mountain containing caves or perhaps the entrance to a particular

It was pointed out by a military guy today on the talking head shows
that if we were really targeting caves, we should have used the MOP,
not the MOAB.

Perhaps, if we needed a lot of penetration. But if the goal was to seal the entrance, then the MOAB
was the right choice.

Here is an article that should squelch some of the whining about the cost of the MOAB. Of course,
Harry won't pay attention, 'cause then facts would confuse him.

"Many reports Thursday, including USA Today, the Washington Examiner, CNBC and others, claimed the
MOAB cost $314 million to develop, citing a 2011 Los Angeles Times report.

The cost estimates in that article, however, only refer to the cost of the Air Force’s biggest
bunker busting bomb, the 5,300 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or GBU-57, which is built by
private defense contractor Boeing Company. “At a total cost of about $314 million, the military has
developed and ordered 20 of the GPS-guided bombs, called Massive Ordnance Penetrators,” the LA Times
report says."

further:

"While the two bomb types are related, they serve different functions — the MOP is designed to
destroy underground bunkers as deep as 200 feet below the surface, while the MOAP wipes out
everything on the surface within a mile radius. The MOAB, like its Daisy Cutter predecessor, can
only be dropped out of a C-130 built by Lockheed Martin, and the MOP is deployed from the B-2, a
Boeing aircraft."

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...E2%80%99-20181

Gosh, maybe the military did the right thing after all.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:55:45 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

Thats a dumb plan. Throwing away potentially good explosive
devices. The old stuff still can be dropped and cause blunt force
trauma even if the explosivefails. Waste not want
not.

I'm thinking his 'old stuff' was *accidentally* left to begin 'oozing'. The Army, at least the units
I was in, would use the older ammo for training as opposed to dumping it in the sea. I can't believe
the Coast Guard would purposely let ammo get so old it began 'oozing' unless someone f'ed up big
time.
At least you admit ammo has a shelf life.
I already said the 3 classes are ready service, training and trash.
We had limited ability to actually shoot live ammo and it was seldom
new when we got it anyway so disposal was pretty common.
You also pointed out why it was pretty much free to drop this bomb.
I doubt they "train" with an 18,000 bomb.

What was your typical cycle time on your large caliber rounds (105-155
etc)?
How long was it class 1, 2 and 3?

On 4/16/2017 4:34 PM, wrote:


On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 12:44:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

why we have any interest in the middle east at all. It certainly is
not oil.

Maybe it's just simple humanitarianism.

There are people being ****ed over all over the planet and we really
do not care in most places.



In terms of percent of GNP, Sweden leads the list for foreign
humanitarian aid by government at just under 1 percent of GNP.
In terms of GNI (whatever that is) Turkey actually is on top.

The USA government direct humanitarian aid by GNP is something like
number 20 on the list.

However, when you add in private and corporate donations, the USA dwarfs
all other nations in total humanitarian aid at about 6.4 billion.
Surprisingly, Turkey is next at $3.2 billion, then the UK at $2.8
billion. (2015 numbers)

I guess it depends on who you say doesn't care.