Bang Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 There's a lot of us, Sparta.. welcome. Believe it or not, once upon a time i was known as a conservative on this site.. then it went nuts. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 5 hours ago, Burgold said: I'll echo what others said about the drone program. It was deeply controversial and ethically questionable. I still feel uneasy about it. I like the notion of war being dirty, dangerous, and messy... the more we make it clean, sterile, and safe (for our side) the less we choose to avoid use of force. War at should be the last option and not the first. For the record, this isn't a Trump post. Just a general philosophical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 That thing cost $300M? Good mother of Christ. What a colossal waste of money. Did it actually kill any ISIS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 40 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said: That thing cost $300M? Good mother of Christ. What a colossal waste of money. Did it actually kill any ISIS? Yet he wants to fire civil servants who combined probably don't make that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 3 minutes ago, spjunkies said: Yet be wants to fire civil servants who combined probably don't make that much. Priorities, man. Can't be employing people when $300M bombs are needed to break rocks in Afghanistan. $300M would employ 4,000 people for a year, each with a $75k salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskin-All-In Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 $314 million is for 20 bombs. $16 million apiece. Probably less than what Dan paid for Redskins One. Both cause destruction and devastation whenever they are deployed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 36 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said: Priorities, man. Can't be employing people when $300M bombs are needed to break rocks in Afghanistan. $300M would employ 4,000 people for a year, each with a $75k salary. Fallacy. Not it if they're lazy and don't want to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 8 minutes ago, Redskin-All-In said: $314 million is for 20 bombs. $16 million apiece. Probably less than what Dan paid for Redskins One. Both cause destruction and devastation whenever they are deployed... I definitely laughed ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RansomthePasserby Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 43 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said: That thing cost $300M? Good mother of Christ. What a colossal waste of money. Did it actually kill any ISIS? I doubt it cost $300M. Don't believe everything you read on twitter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 11 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said: Fallacy. Not it if they're lazy and don't want to work. Stupid lazy bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 30 minutes ago, visionary said: So Don Jr. Is a dick just like his dad. Chip off the old blockhead. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 2 hours ago, Larry said: I seem to remember, about a year ago, when our military was saying that Russia was engaging in cyber warfare against the US election, and Russia was saying that they weren't. And I seem to remember a couple of long standing ES posters with well earned reputations of one-sided political cheerleading arguing that it wasn't happening. But you wouldn't have been one of those, would you? Nope, I was arguing they have been doing it for ages....along with interfering on other issues. In fact I have pointed out they hacked the parties and the govt.....which the DNC was warned about repeatedly. Now I have seen nothing where they have hacked the election, which I have taken issue with people alleging. Ya must be confused. 2 hours ago, Bang said: There's a lot of us, Sparta.. welcome. Believe it or not, once upon a time i was known as a conservative on this site.. then it went nuts. ~Bang Remember that time I got called a Liberal? I miss those days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why am I Mr. Pink? Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 44 minutes ago, RansomthePasserby said: I doubt it cost $300M. Don't believe everything you read on twitter... I read it cost 300M total for R&D and then to produce 20 of them. Cost is 16-17M. I think La Times misquoted saying the 1 bomb cost 300M when it was actually the whole program. News agencies then quoted La Times number ..... http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-does-moab-bomb-cost-mother-of-all-bombs-2017-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 6 hours ago, goskins10 said: ' There was quite a bit of anger and outrage over President's Obama's use of drones. It was not so much that they were being used but people wanted more transparency. I will say that from a military standpoint drones have the advantages of being more surgical and not risking US Military personel. Of course the later can also be a problem since it's easier to be more careless when your own life is not on the line. Make no mistake I am not advocating the use of drones. I am not in favor of any military unless there is just absolutely no choice. I was not at all happy with the drone program. But my bigger question back is that whenever President Trump (or any Republican) get's called to the carpet for something - the first response seems to be "Well X (fill in the villianized democrat of choice) did the same!" So if it was wrong then, isn't it wrong now? What does it matter if someone else did it before? It's still wrong now, right? Wasn't the idea to get better, assuming you believe there was a problem before? It's called using their playbook against them. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 5 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said: I read it cost 300M total for R&D and then to produce 20 of them. Cost is 16-17M. I think La Times misquoted saying the 1 bomb cost 300M when it was actually the whole program. News agencies then quoted La Times number ..... http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-does-moab-bomb-cost-mother-of-all-bombs-2017-4 I stand corrected. Still seems like a horrendous waste of money, though. 1 hour ago, RedskinsMayne said: Fallacy. Not it if they're lazy and don't want to work. These fine citizens sure wouldn't be interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RansomthePasserby Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 5 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said: I read it cost 300M total for R&D and then to produce 20 of them. Cost is 16-17M. I think La Times misquoted saying the 1 bomb cost 300M when it was actually the whole program. News agencies then quoted La Times number ..... http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-does-moab-bomb-cost-mother-of-all-bombs-2017-4 Ah, that makes sense. The first 20 of any product are ridiculously expensive when you count R&D. The first 20 Honda Civics were probably multiple millions of dollars by that metric as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 52 minutes ago, twa said: Remember that time I got called a Liberal? I miss those days. umm.. I think it was a Tuesday? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 10 hours ago, Bang said: totally agree, war is a very serious thing, and it should not be a political tool, although it usually is for somebody. It's unfortunate that our first reactions to a mission that involves us all is to divide again and see who to credit, or blame if it doesn't go well. Our greatest strength and what made us the world's most prominent power had been our ability to work together to a common goal. I hope it's not completely gone. ~Bang I fear that it is. We took out an ISIS target yesterday. That's fantastic. They're our enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Yes. There are many people who are lazy. So, let's not pretend the money would be necessarily better spent on welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 11 hours ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said: He went to Congress to seek approval to militarily strike another Country's military. Obama said he could have ordered strike against Syria wout seeking approval but he wanted approval (which many think he knew he wouldnt get so it gave him an out). Bush, Obama and Trump dont need approval to strike terrorist groups like in Yemen or ISIS or Al Qaeda. There is a difference btw striking a country vs a terrorist organization. Ive read up on this and democrats wanted the president to have a clearly defined limited approval of what he could and could not do. The president request contained limiting language on executive authority. Some republicans opposed bc they didnt think a president should be limited militarily for this military request or any future request and some repubs opposed bc it was obama. Obamas over all policy of limiting our troops on ground and exposure should not be criticized imo. He seemed to really value every soldiers life. He probably saved a bunch of US lives by going the drone route vs boots on ground. Or maybe the military is kinda embarrassed that only 23 of 60 tomahawk missiles actually hit their target. That was a poor showing on our part imo and not lost on China and Russia or potential buyers like India. I think we should be using these weapons in live combat to see if they actually work. This MOAD cost about 17 Mil .. but if its in a remote part of a desert where only bad guys are ... use it. Apparently we have 19 more MOABs. There is an authorization of force (AUMF) going back to 2001 that is being used to cover attacks against terrorists. Libya was done on the auspices of a NATO action (the French and other nations were heavily involved and to a certain extent took the lead). Neither NATO (not even Britain) or the UN would approve a strike against Syria, and it was not clearly the existing terror AUMF. Hence the request for the Congressional approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 8 hours ago, ExoDus84 said: That thing cost $300M? Good mother of Christ. What a colossal waste of money. Did it actually kill any ISIS? No it didn't cost $300M. The whole program cost $300M they ended up building 20 bombs if they don't build any more each bombs cost would be $15M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 Reminds me of a Chris Rock joke about bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.