NOM

I'm on a News high lately.

The US blows up (kinda) an airbase in Syria, sends an aircraft carrier group towards North Korea and today they drop the MOAB on ISIS.

Exciting times!

Honestly, I'm somewhere in the middle with all this. Part of me is glad to see some action and the other part is horrified. Regardless, it's fascinating to watch.

Trump seems to be using his master persuader methods from "art of the deal" on China. It seems they may actually do something about North Korea soon. Kinda scary.

Additionally I don't buy for a minute that Russian relations are truly strained. It's all a show to take media pressure off the russian connections. Both regimes have something to gain from playing this game.

I saw that, too. I saw what MOAB stands for.

I recently worked on a project of military pension application cards. They were from the Civil War up until the early twenties. I think there was a duplicate card (the same card photographed twice) about once every quarter million. I saw repeat applications (where the same person had been on disability so long, they needed to fill out a second card) with about the same frequency. I'm going to guess there were about three million cards.

Think about that three million households where the principal breadwinner was either killed in action or wounded sufficiently in action as to be permanently disabled. These were applications for just the United States. Three million households needing financial aid. All because heads of state have to have pissing contests. It gave me pause.

Would that it were that these world leaders couldn't descend on Moab, Utah and work out their differences with a biking competition and discussions over s'mores round a campfire while looking up at the stars in the night sky.

Korihor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:22 pm Honestly, I'm somewhere in the middle with all this. Part of me is glad to see some action and the other part is horrified. Regardless, it's fascinating to watch.

Honestly I've been critical of the overuse of air power from the US since the first Gulf war. Marines and soldiers can discriminate between targets better than the smartest of bombs and drones (thus far). Air power should be used as infantry and ground support only IMO, not as the primary offensive capability. Otherwise you get civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands when it could be reduced to a small percentage of that.

Before I sign off on this, I should say that yes, I understand it would require the death of more US troops. I understand that point of view. And I understand anybody with a family member on the ground who objects. I can only speak for myself on this one, but if it were up to me I would change the basic doctrine of modern warfare.

Mad Jax wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:25 pm Before I sign off on this, I should say that yes, I understand it would require the death of more US troops. I understand that point of view. And I understand anybody with a family member on the ground who objects. I can only speak for myself on this one, but if it were up to me I would change the basic doctrine of modern warfare.

I sympathize with your correct assessment of military force. But I fear that the exclusive use of air power and overwhelming explosives is billed as a military action, but is actually just a political action.