US Drops MOAB in Afganistan

[actaeon277]

Sure there are other ways to live
Just ask France, Poland, Belgium, etc. how they enjoyed living under someone else's rule.
Or Korea, China, Philippines, etc. how they felt.

Every gun, or box of ammo you buy is money that could go for the same hospitals and schools.
But just as every person needs to determine what they need for defense, so does each country.
It may not be Strawberry Fields Forever, or Imagine.. but it's humanity.

 

[Sylvain]

Couldn't find any ground footage at all, sadly.

Yeah, I'm surprised they couldn't find private to volunteer to hold a camera next to where they would drop that huge bomb.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed . . . . The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a brick school in more than thirty cities . . . . It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals . . . . We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat . . . . We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people . . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron . . . . Is there no other way the world may live?”

I don't need the gun on my nightstand either. Maybe the farts from all the extra cabbage I could buy would deter that nasty old burgler that wants in my house.

 

[printcraft]

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed . . . . The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a brick school in more than thirty cities . . . . It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals . . . . We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat . . . . We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people . . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron . . . . Is there no other way the world may live?”

 

[jamil]

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed . . . . The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a brick school in more than thirty cities . . . . It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals . . . . We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat . . . . We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people . . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron . . . . Is there no other way the world may live?”

Well. There's something I don't like about Ike. National defense is a constitutional responsibility of the US federal government. Providing for the poor is not. How much we spend on national defense is debatable. I don't think we need to spend nearly what we do. If it's so much that Pentagon accounting is too convoluted to audit, we need to reign that in.

But that's a much different conversation than trying to say that taking the money from the people who actually earned it, and spending it on a constitutional responsibility like national defense, is the moral equivalence of stealing from people who didn't earn it. That's just absurd. Nothing was stolen from the poor that was ever theirs to begin with.

You see someone hungry, cold, not properly clothed, to the extent you can, YOU as an individual, have a moral obligation to help those needier. I'm fine with advocating for less military spending. But the savings should be passed on to the people who paid the taxes, or, as big as our debt is, I'd be even more fond of using that savings to charge less to our children's future.

Compassion shaming just doesn't work when your primary advocacy is to vote for the government to be compassionate for you. Voting for other people to relieve your personal obligation does not impress me at all of your compassion. You can't be compassionate with other people's money.

 

[actaeon277]

Well. There's something I don't like about Ike. National defense is a constitutional responsibility of the US federal government. Providing for the poor is not. How much we spend on national defense is debatable. I don't think we need to spend nearly what we do. If it's so much that Pentagon accounting is too convoluted to audit, we need to reign that in.

But that's a much different conversation than trying to say that taking the money from the people who actually earned it, and spending it on a constitutional responsibility like national defense, is the moral equivalence of stealing from people who didn't earn it. That's just absurd. Nothing was stolen from the poor that was ever theirs to begin with.

You see someone hungry, cold, not properly clothed, to the extent you can, YOU as an individual, have a moral obligation to help those needier. I'm fine with advocating for less military spending. But the savings should be passed on to the people who paid the taxes, or, as big as our debt is, I'd be even more fond of using that savings to charge less to our children's future.

Compassion shaming just doesn't work when your primary advocacy is to vote for the government to be compassionate for you. Voting for other people to relieve your personal obligation does not impress me at all of your compassion. You can't be compassionate with other people's money.

 

[BugI02]

"Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."


ETA: Notice it doesn't say "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as the government has done it ... "

 

[Caleb]

If the target area is inaccessible by our troops and includes a complex cave, bunker, tunnel system, how do they come up with a number of casualties?

A news article I've read said there were IED keeping troops from getting close...

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Compassion shaming just doesn't work when your primary advocacy is to vote for the government to be compassionate for you. Voting for other people to relieve your personal obligation does not impress me at all of your compassion. You can't be compassionate with other people's money.

The whole post was good, but this is where you hit the ball out of the park.

 

[JTScribe]

View attachment 54896

 

[oldpink]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to printcraft again.
Not that it works anyway.

 

[JollyMon]

 

[KellyinAvon]

US drops MOAB then denounces Syria dropping barrel bombs?

That's like comparing ice cream to Tuesday

 

[pearlman1966]

'Mother of all bombs' test video from 2003 Video - ABC News

 

[KellyinAvon]

I bet somewhere in the massive DoD budget there's a code for MOAB SLEP (Service life extension program)

 

[gregr]

Here's the real footage of the drop...unfortunately night vision, from a drone, with no sound - [video=youtube;5VtXpKPec8E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VtXpKPec8E[/video]
Couldn't find any ground footage at all, sadly.

The ground footage was all destroyed in the blast...

 

[gregr]

US drops MOAB then denounces Syria dropping barrel bombs?

Yeah, we denounced the innocents being hit with gas, then bombed the animals who did it, weird, huh?

 

[gregr]

Well. There's something I don't like about Ike. National defense is a constitutional responsibility of the US federal government. Providing for the poor is not. How much we spend on national defense is debatable. I don't think we need to spend nearly what we do. If it's so much that Pentagon accounting is too convoluted to audit, we need to reign that in.

But that's a much different conversation than trying to say that taking the money from the people who actually earned it, and spending it on a constitutional responsibility like national defense, is the moral equivalence of stealing from people who didn't earn it. That's just absurd. Nothing was stolen from the poor that was ever theirs to begin with.

You see someone hungry, cold, not properly clothed, to the extent you can, YOU as an individual, have a moral obligation to help those needier. I'm fine with advocating for less military spending. But the savings should be passed on to the people who paid the taxes, or, as big as our debt is, I'd be even more fond of using that savings to charge less to our children's future.

Compassion shaming just doesn't work when your primary advocacy is to vote for the government to be compassionate for you. Voting for other people to relieve your personal obligation does not impress me at all of your compassion. You can't be compassionate with other people's money.

Agree with all you`ve said, except about defense spending. The surest way to not have to use our military might, is for our military might to be so overwhelmingly superior that it just cannot make sense to contest it.

 

[jamil]

Agree with all you`ve said, except about defense spending. The surest way to not have to use our military might, is for our military might to be so overwhelmingly superior that it just cannot make sense to contest it.

I think we can be much more efficient with our military spending. I'm okay with having an overwhelming force. But I'm not okay with wasteful spending. I'm also not okay with the crony military industrial complex. Solving those two issues doesn't deplete our military might. Is there a "too much military spending" for you? I think we've gone far past that. A dollar's worth of military spending doesn't necessarily give us a dollars worth of military might.

 

[Jludo]

Well. There's something I don't like about Ike. National defense is a constitutional responsibility of the US federal government. Providing for the poor is not. How much we spend on national defense is debatable. I don't think we need to spend nearly what we do. If it's so much that Pentagon accounting is too convoluted to audit, we need to reign that in.

But that's a much different conversation than trying to say that taking the money from the people who actually earned it, and spending it on a constitutional responsibility like national defense, is the moral equivalence of stealing from people who didn't earn it. That's just absurd. Nothing was stolen from the poor that was ever theirs to begin with.

You see someone hungry, cold, not properly clothed, to the extent you can, YOU as an individual, have a moral obligation to help those needier. I'm fine with advocating for less military spending. But the savings should be passed on to the people who paid the taxes, or, as big as our debt is, I'd be even more fond of using that savings to charge less to our children's future.

Compassion shaming just doesn't work when your primary advocacy is to vote for the government to be compassionate for you. Voting for other people to relieve your personal obligation does not impress me at all of your compassion. You can't be compassionate with other people's money.

I think you read a bit too far into this. The point is that there's a tradeoff between 'defense' spending and spending in other areas. We waste entirely too much on defense spending. Billions on a new carrier group is real money which could be spent on infrastructure or elsewhere.