MOAB kill total -- 36 ISIS fighters

Anyone who thinks that civilians ought to have tactical control of the battlefield is an idiot.

Utter and complete.

See: Lyndon B. Johnson.

The question about whether the weapon should have been developed is not relevant to a discussion of whether is should be used. Start another thread.

The money spent developing and testing this weapon is gone. If the weapon is useful(clearly it was) and cost effective, it should be used.

The fact that a weapon like this wasn't used to get Bin Laden in the first place is precisely why civilians need to stay out of the tactical decision making process. Originally Posted by kehaar

exactly right! my tax dollars wisely spent .. finally

Anyone who thinks that civilians ought to have tactical control of the battlefield is an idiot.

Utter and complete.

See: Lyndon B. Johnson.
I agree. But tell me, does that include the use of nukes? Most would say not. Retaliatory use of chemical weapons? Again, most would say no. So precisely where is the dividing line between "tactical" and "strategic/political" weapons in a non-state actor war? Hmmm, not as clear as it would be nice to have. By the way, I completely support the use of this weapon in this case.

The question about whether the weapon should have been developed is not relevant to a discussion of whether is should be used. Start another thread.
Actually, since the weapon and its use is the topic, then discussing the weapon does seem to be a reasonable area of commentary in this thread. If that part of the broader topic doe not interest you, please feel to only reply to the posts that do.

The money spent developing and testing this weapon is gone. If the weapon is useful(clearly it was) and cost effective, it should be used.
Please stop implying I said things that I did not. See the comment above.

The fact that a weapon like this wasn't used to get Bin Laden in the first place is precisely why civilians need to stay out of the tactical decision making process. Originally Posted by kehaar

Before one can agree with that or not, one must define whether OBL was a tactical or a political target at the time. One could very easily argue that he was a political target, and if so, that puts the decision making issue out of the military's hands.

One of the primary desires of both Bush and Obama was to confirm that OBL was dead. Drop a MOAB on him, and that would be very hard to do. As a political target, vaporizing OBL beyond recognition would not have been the desired goal--thus no MOAB.

When you say deploying a weapon cost 10's of millions of dollars, you are stating precisely what I am implying. I am reasonably sure that Trump has not given authorization to use nuclear weapons at any point. The field commander knows this, and when civilians are in control of the military, the field commander obeys the civilian leadership. Fascist blur that control line.

Utilizing a strawman arguments is a prime characteristic of fascist.

It is a funny concept that we would have chosen to not decapitate the Al Queda leadership because we wanted trophies. That is truly a fascist concept.

Fixated with fascists, are you?

I don't think you addressed any of my points in a cohetent way. Care to keep the topic somewhat related to the MOAB?

I responded to your statement about the cost of the weapon.

I responded to your statement that field commanders could use nuclear weapons under the concept of military control of battlefield decisions.

I responded to your statement of about why big bombs shouldn't have been used on Bin Laden.

I pointed out that your argument tactics are characteristic of a deplorable political philosophy.

What did I waste/miss?

What did I waste/miss? Originally Posted by kehaar

You "wasted" your time on discussing something to do with the use of munitions and military tactics with OT, and you "missed" the depth of his ignorance. He sort of makes shit up as he goes along to "cover up" his turds he leaves in the sandbox.

(See his initial criticism of the "MOAB" as being ineffective AND expensive.)

First, if Trump is not authorized to use nuclear weapons then who is?

Second, it was a major mistake to kill Bin Laden. He should have been taken and interrogated. If circumstances had been more dicey then, yes, kill the SOB. But they had him dead to rights and alone with a wife or two.

First, if Trump is not authorized to use nuclear weapons then who is?

Second, it was a major mistake to kill Bin Laden. He should have been taken and interrogated. If circumstances had been more dicey then, yes, kill the SOB. But they had him dead to rights and alone with a wife or two. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

How do you know he's not being interrogated now?

Trump is the only person that can authorize the use of nuclear weapons(except maybe submarine commanders). That was my point. The strawman argument posited by the Old-T was meant to divert the discussion.

How do you know he's not being interrogated now? Originally Posted by LexusLover

hes dead jim!

The strawman argument posited by the Old-T was meant to divert the discussion. Originally Posted by kehaar

He does not regularly, because he knows little, if anything, about most of the shit he posts. He begins with "ineffective" MOAB's to "vaporizing" consequences .... and pretends he "knew it all along"!

Now he's morphed himself into a "personal protection" contractor expert who knows all about their training vs. the secret service!

Here are some "personal protection" contractors ... OT sees them riding around in the Walmart parking lots in golf cars all the time .....

You have certainly deteriorated over the past several months.

Now you are completely incapable--or unwilling--to read. Or think. Or be honest.

I read your BS and often wonder if under all that loud noise you make there is the any substance, or is it all insecurity and jealousy? That would explain a lot--but who knows.

You have certainly deteriorated over the past several months. Originally Posted by Old-T

And your "opinion" isn't worth the stains in your "undies."

Do those guys remind you of the Walmart "guards"? I thought so!

And your "opinion" isn't worth the stains in your "undies."

Do those guys remind you of the Walmart "guards"? I thought so! Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's odd--I have the same feeling about your opinions.

So long as you intentionally read for distortion instead of what is actually said, your opinions are only worth laughing at--nothing more.

Carry on.

And your "opinion" isn't worth the stains in your "undies."

Do those guys remind you of the Walmart "guards"? I thought so! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Old Toad trying to tell everybody he is the brightest bulb in the room again