• Sign up free today!

    Join in on the discussion, prediction leagues and competitions today! Sign up takes no longer than 5 minutes.

Sign in to follow this  
football forum

BREAKING: US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

Recommended Posts

The World Police is back in the game. Get fucked, ISIS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CTRL + F Civilians

Quote

"US forces took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties with this strike. US Forces will continue offensive operations until ISIS-K is destroyed in Afghanistan," read the statement from US Forces Afghanistan.

Uuugh, okay. I hope that is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an American, I'm not sure if I like this or not...I hate being the world police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ATL said:

As an American, I'm not sure if I like this or not...I hate being the world police.

It's far more complicated than that. If you want to look upon this on the basis of morality; is it okay to allow an organisation like ISIS to entrenched into a nation? is it okay for America to apply their own moral authority on other nations? is it okay of X nation to intervene in Y nation if Y nation is in serious threat of human rights violations? It's a can of worms that contradicts itself over and over again. Is it okay to let fundamentalist Islamists take control? No. Is it okay to drop gigantic bombs? No. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ATL said:

As an American, I'm not sure if I like this or not...I hate being the world police.

I wouldn't be sure neither, it's all nice and good bombing the terrorists and all, but the reprisals?, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ISIS were the only casualties then great but I doubt it. The US Forces saying they took all precautions possible really doesn't mean much, don't think many people are naive enough anymore to believe that the American military is as righteous as they claim.

This will either escalate things even further which is scary and we'll get the bullshit "they hate us for our freedom" line or it'll slow things down. Let's hope for the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spike said:

It's far more complicated than that. If you want to look upon this on the basis of morality; is it okay to allow an organisation like ISIS to entrenched into a nation? is it okay for America to apply their own moral authority on other nations? is it okay of X nation to intervene in Y nation if Y nation is in serious threat of human rights violations? It's a can of worms that contradicts itself over and over again. Is it okay to let fundamentalist Islamists take control? No. Is it okay to drop gigantic bombs? No. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

Under the questioning scenarios you've put forward which are good points.  Why don't they use 10 of those bombs on Saudi Arabia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Under the questioning scenarios you've put forward which are good points.  Why don't they use 10 of those bombs on Saudi Arabia?

You know the answer. It begins with $ and ends with $$. You know if the Afghans or even ISIS could line America's pockets with gold they'd be safe. The constitution is incorruptible not the country it that derives from it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spike said:

It's far more complicated than that. If you want to look upon this on the basis of morality; is it okay to allow an organisation like ISIS to entrenched into a nation? is it okay for America to apply their own moral authority on other nations? is it okay of X nation to intervene in Y nation if Y nation is in serious threat of human rights violations? It's a can of worms that contradicts itself over and over again. Is it okay to let fundamentalist Islamists take control? No. Is it okay to drop gigantic bombs? No. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

Exactly. It's absolutely a tough call in all ways. The attack on Syria made sense, this hopefully makes sense. Any causalities and I'm out. I just couldn't imagine harming innocents in this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ATL said:

Exactly. It's absolutely a tough call in all ways. The attack on Syria made sense, this hopefully makes sense. Any causalities and I'm out. I just couldn't imagine harming innocents in this. 

The brutality of it all sometimes is a tough pill to swallow. What I mean is; for example if the USA was a foreign super-power before WW2 and used it's power to bomb the fuck out of Germany to prevent the strangle hold of the Nazis, is it justified? It is better to murder 1,000,000 people to save 40,000,000? These are the impossible decisions people like Harry Truman have made, sure we can sit here and say that we wouldn't have nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima but how do we know it was murder to stop more murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Teso Dos Bichos said:

Media hype Trump's bomb theatre. But the Pentagon dropped 26,172 bombs during 2016. More than a MOAB every day.

Even if all these bombs averaged 1000lbs that's 71,404lbs a day or almost three MOABs a day.

@wikileaks

Exactly selling a headline, this is literally not anything news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elsewhere China is desperately trying to cool things down as a large fleet of US and Japanese warships is heading towards North Korea this morning.

Hillary will start world war 3, we must vote for the Donald :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems there's no doubt we're heading into WWIII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SirBalon said:

It seems there's no doubt we're heading into WWIII.

It has been going on since the attacks on Iraq, Syria etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Elsewhere China is desperately trying to cool things down as a large fleet of US and Japanese warships is heading towards North Korea this morning.

Hillary will start world war 3, we must vote for the Donald :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

I think he's caught them on the hop, where Obama did deals with Iran and placed sanctions on North Korea without actually doing fuck all, Trump is very quickly showing that his threats aren't to be taken lightly.

Is this WW3? No. For WW3 you need genuine bit hitters on either side, China won't risk a military campaign against the Yanks over some Korean nut. 

Will the US go in to North Korea? Not on the ground certainly, I think if they're sure he's aspiring to nuclear capability and he's close they will strategically take that out, of which I have absolutely no issue with. The west's tactic of asking China to bring their dog to heel has done sweet FA and you point blank can't fuck around with tin pot dictators getting WMD's (insert Trump gag here)

Will the US go in to Syria? I still think No, I now lean toward the theory Artful dodger posted that as a stand alone event this way Trump putting down a marker to Assad and the world in general. As a stand alone event, the raid on Syria said we won't tolerate this sort of action etc and using this in the classic bully fashion of pick on the weak guy to make your point to all. His personal rhetoric has cooled towards Russia and the silly accusations that he was a Russian plant have gone away now. It was either a very calculated move or he's got lucky by being a idiot. Personally for me i think he may well have been to easily persuaded to act against Syria and i don't think it was the correct thing to do, I guess time will tell,

Personally I actually lean towards the false flag attack theory from Assad, I just don't trust the neo-cons in Washington at all. As Assad has said "what did i have to gain from it?" so far the only evidence i've heard was a Turkish autopsy, Turkey a regime desperate to go in put the boot in and remove Assad themselves.

Hillary had talked up war with Russia and was committed to yet more regime change, she was a disaster guaranteed, Trump is potentially a disaster and potentially not.

Think back though you have ISIS, the Obama administration armed them and dropped leaflets, Trump does this

 

We can call him a nutter all we like, the reality is no one is mugging the Yanks off today in the global climate. They may well manipulate and run rings round in time to varying degrees of success no doubt,  but i guarantee every world leader has had meetings with defense strategists to reassess how they treat America after the events of the last few days. It's kinda like parenting, if you don't carry out your threats the kids take the piss, if you do the threat afterwards is enough to establish control.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump has gone all cowboy like after saying in his campaign that his tenure would be a more insular inward looking one with the statement "America First", concentrating on fixing the US' many domestic issues.

Now aside from that because Trump being contradictory seems to be a defect in his character...  Aside from all that the question is whether he is right in his actions so far and whatever future actions he and his government take where exterior issues are concerned.

  • Was he right to agree to fire 50 odd Tomahawk Missiles on a Syrian airbase after Assad's alleged gas attack on his own people.
  • Was Trump right to drop a "Mother of All Bombs" on an Afaganistan cave network which was supposedly being used by ISIS.
  • Is Donald Trump correct in sending an envoy of warships to the surrounding area of the Korean Peninsula due to North Korea allegedly wanting to test more nuclear weapons.

If he's right, then we should stand by this and stop being overly pedantic on his every moves and applaud his sudden will to police the world in an attempt to eradicate "tyrants".

If he's wrong and he's just making things worse in a provocative manner, then what are other nations going to do about this guy that can be leading us to the possibly most unstable era in the history of mankind and a potential Third World War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With America behaving the way it does, is there any wonder North Korea is armed to the teeth and has a nuclear program?

This story that a hermit kingdom like North Korea is a threat that needs to be taken out is retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's certainly right on North Korea, China just haven't taken the rest of the world seriously and brought them to heel. You just can't allow these type of countries to obtain nuclear weapons, it's a complete No No. 

We can speculate on the morality and all that, and with the benefit of hindsight he may well look foolish in certain areas. If we pour over the Cold War I'm sure we can all criticise aspects of behaviour as the global game of brinkmanship ensued. The fact is you have a rogue state under a totalitarian dictator who despite repeated sanctions and threats appears to be continuing with a weapons program that seems designed to become nuclear capable. Whether it's tomorrow or next year is irrelevant we (the global community) need to deal with it. It's like any problem, the longer you sit on it the greater the mess becomes. 

My personal preference would be tactically targeting there weapons programs as well as destroying the air capabilities of their army. I don't think the Yanks will want boots on the ground at all. Hopefully all the above can be achieved from the air, boots on the ground should be the last resort and may become necessity if we don't act eventually. Which I think we can all agree will be a complete and utter clusterfuck 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Panflute said:

With America behaving the way it does, is there any wonder North Korea is armed to the teeth and has a nuclear program?

This story that a hermit kingdom like North Korea is a threat that needs to be taken out is retarded.

think we're going to disagree on this one xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason North Korea feels the need to arm itself with nuclear weapons is because the US and its many vassals are trying to devour the entire world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always the same tactic. No matter if it's Iraq, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, North Korea or Ukraine, the narrative is always that their regional problems are our problems and we have to strike now. And when we did, the result has always been unmitigated disaster.

How about trying to leave countries alone for a while and see how that works.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Panflute said:

The reason North Korea feels the need to arm itself with nuclear weapons is because the US and its many vassals are trying to devour the entire world.

I wouldn't dispute that, but they're a threat with a nuclear weapon. Every country with Nuclear weapons is a threat and in the case of the states I'd say it's better the devil we know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Panflute said:

How about trying to leave countries alone for a while and see how that works.

Total agreement with this.

Even in the crazy case that that would mean a "Islamic Caliphate" in the middle east.  Let them just get on with it, it's their land and it should be their autonomy until otherwise where it effects our way of living where we live.  If those living where we live want that, then they can move there too.

We in Britain supposedly departed from the EU so as to become sovereign.  If this is the case, then let others be so to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Panflute said:

It is always the same tactic. No matter if it's Iraq, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, North Korea or Ukraine, the narrative is always that their regional problems are our problems and we have to strike now. And when we did, the result has always been unmitigated disaster.

How about trying to leave countries alone for a while and see how that works.

I'd certainly agree with Syria, not with North Korea though and that's purely because of the Nukes. If there was no nuclear armament I'd advocate leaving them to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Total agreement with this.

Even in the crazy case that that would mean a "Islamic Caliphate" in the middle east.  Let them just get on with it, it's their land and it should be their autonomy until otherwise where it effects our way of living where we live.  If those living where we live want that, then they can move there too.

We in Britain supposedly departed from the EU so as to become sovereign.  If this is the case, then let others be so to.

An Islamic Caliphate would never have emerged without encouragement, preparation, supplies and active military and medical assistance from the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

I wouldn't dispute that, but they're a threat with a nuclear weapon. Every country with Nuclear weapons is a threat and in the case of the states I'd say it's better the devil we know

I'd say the bigger threat is the country with globalist, imperialist, neo-colonialist aspirations. That country isn't North Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Panflute said:

I'd say the bigger threat is the country with globalist, imperialist, neo-colonialist aspirations. That country isn't North Korea.

No argument as to globalist ambition being a big threat, nuclear warfare is a bit more of a fatal threat for me and us all though. 

2 minutes ago, Panflute said:

An Islamic Caliphate would never have emerged without encouragement, preparation, supplies and active military and medical assistance from the West.

I think it would have given time, there's always some nut trying it, the various groups like Boko Haram had it as an ambition, I'd agree in the case of ISIS we've helped it expand so quickly and get off the ground though.

9 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Total agreement with this.

Even in the crazy case that that would mean a "Islamic Caliphate" in the middle east.  Let them just get on with it, it's their land and it should be their autonomy until otherwise where it effects our way of living where we live.  If those living where we live want that, then they can move there too.

We in Britain supposedly departed from the EU so as to become sovereign.  If this is the case, then let others be so to.

it would be duty bound out of their ideology to be expansionist so we'd have to tackle it in some form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I maintain that the main danger with Islam is the "Wahhabi" form and here in Britain because of now being ostracised by the EU we've been totally hypocritical and dealt with them.  It's disgusting, perverted and I don't want to listen to any rhetoric associated with damning Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Advertisement