Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 273

Thread: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

  1. #41
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    If you read the article Gates is not saying that it would have been impossible to move asessts into the area, you're creating a strawman by pretending that his statement says something other than what it clearly does say

    Its about proper decision making and planning not just throwing assests into threatre. Also thinking that flying a fighter jet over the compound is going to "scare away" anyone is just stupid, or have we forgotten that in the 11 years in Afghanistan that fighers don't just run from aircraft, or the near 9 years we spent in Iraq that the enemy doesn't just run from aircraft, and did we also forget that Libya had been for months part of a very extensive air campaign wherein people not only knew from reputation of the militaries flying sorties over Libya but also from personal experience of seeing aircraft fly over head that they aren't going to just drop bombs in the middle of a city?

    The notion that aircraft are going to scare people away plays into a sterotype that these people are some kind of primative caveman that will look in dumb-founded awe and fear and technology, and that's especially wrong for militiants and terrorists who have experience fighting technologically superior fighing forces or have studied those who had.

    Its about not throwing military asessts and personel into a situation that you do not understand and know nothing about.
    Well, first off, there were assets on the ground who were informing both the State Department and the CIA what was happening on the ground so it was known, if only in a general sense, what was going on - to suggest they would be going in blind is false.

    Secondly, when attempting to save American lives, the US military often makes the decision to attempt a rescue when little is known and danger is high. I recall shortly after the raid to kill bin Laden, there were American forces in Afghanistan who were pinned down and receiving enemy fire from multiple sources and the military sent in a couple of helicopters with a lot of Navy Seals and other special forces as well as regular forces to attempt a rescue. As it turns out, the rescue was successful but one of the helicopters went down and over a dozen Americans were lost in that crash including many special ops. There were no reprecussions to the administration in that case - there was no finger pointing saying that lives were foolishly lost trying to save other lives. This is what American special forces do for a living and they are a special breed of person who thinks nothing of risking their own life in order to save a fellow soldier or fellow American.

    And again, to suggest that the strongest military in the world, one that spends about $700 billion a year, could not launch some type of counter offensive against a rag-tag bunch of Gaddafi hangers-on is to insult the professionalism and great skill of America's forces.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  2. #42
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Exactly no one knew how events would unfold beforehand that's his entire point,
    which is why we didn't just throw a bunch of military asessts into the area because we didn't know how it would turn out.



    The 24 MEU was in Djibouti on Sept 11, 2012. Warrior competition pits U.S. Marines against each other in mountains of Djibouti > 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit > Article Display Page

    Also no military fighting organization has the ability to simply move anywhere in the world at 18 hours notice, especially a sea-borne fighting force.



    If you read the article Gates is not saying that it would have been impossible to move asessts into the area, you're creating a strawman by pretending that his statement says something other than what it clearly does say



    Its about proper decision making and planning not just throwing assests into threatre. Also thinking that flying a fighter jet over the compound is going to "scare away" anyone is just stupid, or have we forgotten that in the 11 years in Afghanistan that fighers don't just run from aircraft, or the near 9 years we spent in Iraq that the enemy doesn't just run from aircraft, and did we also forget that Libya had been for months part of a very extensive air campaign wherein people not only knew from reputation of the militaries flying sorties over Libya but also from personal experience of seeing aircraft fly over head that they aren't going to just drop bombs in the middle of a city?

    The notion that aircraft are going to scare people away plays into a sterotype that these people are some kind of primative caveman that will look in dumb-founded awe and fear and technology, and that's especially wrong for militiants and terrorists who have experience fighting technologically superior fighing forces or have studied those who had.

    Its about not throwing military asessts and personel into a situation that you do not understand and know nothing about.
    This is horse sh** ^^^^

    In June the TERRORIST, not the " protestors " blew a 12 foot hole in the Consulate Compound wall.

    All other Western Consulate Personal had pulled out do to the increasing security concerns.

    There were NUMEROUS prior request for increased security, and NO it wasn't turned down because of a lack of funds.

    So your'e saying, 3 months after the Consulate was attacked, the most powerful, technologically advanced military in the world couldn't get something in place ?

    They couldn't devise a plan or put the assets in place off site, in Tripoli to Counter a larger attack ?

    You see why your explanation makes zero sense.

    Its not like they weren't warned.....repeatedly.

  3. #43
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,153

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Why would you need Canada's approval to invade Canada, or carry out military exercises there?

    There are dozens of countries the US has involved themselves in where no approval was given by the host country, but in my experience it has been for the good. If the US feels a country needs invading and they have the interests to do it they will, as with Panama and Grenada, just do it.

    There is no reason whatsoever to invade Canada, unless you know something Canadians don't.
    and in this instance, there are indications the host country, either disapproved or rescinded permission to conduct a military exercise at benghazi

    now, if you are insisting we should have invaded benghazi, that is another matter
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Gates is playing Monday morning quarterback. He had no idea how the events would unfold beforehand.
    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Marine 24th MEU Rapid Deployment Force, with the capability of deploying over 100 troops from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world in 18 hours was tooling around in the Mediterranean at the ready. It would take a few hours at most to deploy them.
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Well, first off, there were assets on the ground who were informing both the State Department and the CIA what was happening on the ground so it was known, if only in a general sense, what was going on - to suggest they would be going in blind is false.

    Secondly, when attempting to save American lives, the US military often makes the decision to attempt a rescue when little is known and danger is high. I recall shortly after the raid to kill bin Laden, there were American forces in Afghanistan who were pinned down and receiving enemy fire from multiple sources and the military sent in a couple of helicopters with a lot of Navy Seals and other special forces as well as regular forces to attempt a rescue. As it turns out, the rescue was successful but one of the helicopters went down and over a dozen Americans were lost in that crash including many special ops. There were no reprecussions to the administration in that case - there was no finger pointing saying that lives were foolishly lost trying to save other lives. This is what American special forces do for a living and they are a special breed of person who thinks nothing of risking their own life in order to save a fellow soldier or fellow American.

    And again, to suggest that the strongest military in the world, one that spends about $700 billion a year, could not launch some type of counter offensive against a rag-tag bunch of Gaddafi hangers-on is to insult the professionalism and great skill of America's forces.
    The comparison to an engagement in Afghanistan doesn't really hold up. Engagements of that sort are a whole different situation, firstly there is QRF(Quick Reaction Force) on stand-by in any area of operations so unlike Benghazi people are prepped and ready. Secondly, communications in military operations rarely if ever completely fail there are back-up comms, back-ups to the back-ups, and back-ups for those as well so forces on the ground can give accurate or at least reasonable information. Thirdly, as all military operations in Afghanistan or anywhere are planned out in advance the commander who would make a call to send reinforcements would have an understanding of the situation as well as all sorts of other factors provided by intelligence services, not to mention active intel gathering during the course of the mission to keep updated to any changes. Of course a plan can go wrong, but certain things like terrain, disposition of local civilians, friendly forces on the ground, etc don't really change. Fourthly sending QRF into an engagement in Afghanistan, again where people on the ground can keep commanders updated to the situation, is different than sending a small Special Forces team into a crowded city in the middle of a riot where no one on the ground has communication with anyone else.

    Consider this, supposing that you as a military planner knew that the US compound in Benghazi had been attacked and occupied and you don't know where the US personel are in the city. What exactly are you going to send in any Special Forces to do? You have no idea where to look, or if they are alive or dead, you have no idea what the enemy presense is on the ground, you have no idea if the point you select to drop off a Special Forces team by helicopter is going to be safe or not, because they sure as hell aren't going to paradrop into a city. For all you know you could be flying a few helicopter into a few hundred potentially hostile individuals armed with who knows what. Say you decide to land at the US compound itself, well hell that's been occupied by an unknown number of potentially hostile individuals, and even if they aren't hostile, landing a small team into the middle of a pissed of crowd of people is not going to go well.

    In all liklehood if you go in blind or knowing only a fraction of the information you're just going to make the problem worse, because know do you not only have to figure out the status and location of the embassy personel but also how you're going to get the SF team you sent in after them out safely and just hope to hell they don't get killed as well.

    Yes the US military has a massive budget, but that doesn't mean it can do anything, anywhere, with no warning whatsoever.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    This is horse sh** ^^^^

    In June the TERRORIST, not the " protestors " blew a 12 foot hole in the Consulate Compound wall.

    All other Western Consulate Personal had pulled out do to the increasing security concerns.

    There were NUMEROUS prior request for increased security, and NO it wasn't turned down because of a lack of funds.

    So your'e saying, 3 months after the Consulate was attacked, the most powerful, technologically advanced military in the world couldn't get something in place ?

    They couldn't devise a plan or put the assets in place off site, in Tripoli to Counter a larger attack ?

    You see why your explanation makes zero sense.

    Its not like they weren't warned.....repeatedly.
    I'm speaking of the night of the attack not anything prior to that. Yes back in June better decisions could have been made, but keep in mind that its never been a standard procedure to put into place some kind of military quick reaction force to an embassy, let alone a consulate, that suffered an attack. There have been numerous embassy attacks in the last decade where bombs have been set on the wall or the gate, but none of those places got a special quick reaction force based close by for support in case something else happened. Lastly, keep in mind that the consulate was occupied in less than 20 minutes, even if the US military had men and equipment in Tripoli it would not have arrived in time either.

    Also I didn't say it was due to lack of funds, nor was I speaking about planning from June but only about the night of the attack itself. Don't put words into my mouth.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    and in this instance, there are indications the host country, either disapproved or rescinded permission to conduct a military exercise at benghazi

    now, if you are insisting we should have invaded benghazi, that is another matter
    You need Libya's permission to save Americans who are being attacked by Libyans?

    Americans should have done everything on their power to save their fellow Americans. It's an understanding throughout the military that that is what their comrades will do when they're in trouble.

    When American lives are at extreme risk, and later killed, the Commander in Chief should do everything he can to get his fellow Americans rescued. He should not boogie off to Vegas for a glad-handing fund raiser. Is that what you would have done?

  7. #47
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    You need Libya's permission to save Americans who are being attacked by Libyans?

    Americans should have done everything on their power to save their fellow Americans. It's an understanding throughout the military that that is what their comrades will do when they're in trouble.

    When American lives are at extreme risk, and later killed, the Commander in Chief should do everything he can to get his fellow Americans rescued. He should not boogie off to Vegas for a glad-handing fund raiser. Is that what you would have done?
    You are starting with a premise that we do not have to observe other sovereign states, and by implication, that other countries do not have to observe ours.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    The comparison to an engagement in Afghanistan doesn't really hold up. Engagements of that sort are a whole different situation, firstly there is QRF(Quick Reaction Force) on stand-by in any area of operations so unlike Benghazi people are prepped and ready. Secondly, communications in military operations rarely if ever completely fail there are back-up comms, back-ups to the back-ups, and back-ups for those as well so forces on the ground can give accurate or at least reasonable information. Thirdly, as all military operations in Afghanistan or anywhere are planned out in advance the commander who would make a call to send reinforcements would have an understanding of the situation as well as all sorts of other factors provided by intelligence services, not to mention active intel gathering during the course of the mission to keep updated to any changes. Of course a plan can go wrong, but certain things like terrain, disposition of local civilians, friendly forces on the ground, etc don't really change. Fourthly sending QRF into an engagement in Afghanistan, again where people on the ground can keep commanders updated to the situation, is different than sending a small Special Forces team into a crowded city in the middle of a riot where no one on the ground has communication with anyone else.

    Consider this, supposing that you as a military planner knew that the US compound in Benghazi had been attacked and occupied and you don't know where the US personel are in the city. What exactly are you going to send in any Special Forces to do? You have no idea where to look, or if they are alive or dead, you have no idea what the enemy presense is on the ground, you have no idea if the point you select to drop off a Special Forces team by helicopter is going to be safe or not, because they sure as hell aren't going to paradrop into a city. For all you know you could be flying a few helicopter into a few hundred potentially hostile individuals armed with who knows what. Say you decide to land at the US compound itself, well hell that's been occupied by an unknown number of potentially hostile individuals, and even if they aren't hostile, landing a small team into the middle of a pissed of crowd of people is not going to go well.

    In all liklehood if you go in blind or knowing only a fraction of the information you're just going to make the problem worse, because know do you not only have to figure out the status and location of the embassy personel but also how you're going to get the SF team you sent in after them out safely and just hope to hell they don't get killed as well.

    Yes the US military has a massive budget, but that doesn't mean it can do anything, anywhere, with no warning whatsoever.
    The British had pulled out of the area because of the attacks on their facilities, as did the Red Cross. And despite the warnings that an attack was imminent, there was no intelligence on the area? Nothing? No advance planning? The American military were completely blindsided by a bunch of ragtag terrorists and you use that as an excuse for the loss of lives. You apparently want a military where no one gets hurt but, if they do, it's every man and woman for themselves. This high level ignorance of the situation should not be an excuse. Instead it should be the cause of more firings.

    Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks - CBS News

  9. #49
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    So since Stevens said he didn't want more security, when the attack came Obama decided to dish out some tough love, right?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    You are starting with a premise that we do not have to observe other sovereign states, and by implication, that other countries do not have to observe ours.
    Both premises are accurate and there is much historical evidence to document them.

Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •