• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability

Status
Not open for further replies.
So it would be ok with you if the Americans were part of that collateral damage

I wouldn't be celebrating, but that s the nature of collateral damage. On 9/11, did you not support the order to shoot down any commercial airliner that did not immediately follow the grounding order...
 
Our missile guidance technology is a bit more advanced than you seem to think...

Our missile guidance technology is beyond approach. We can program a cruise missile to fly down the street and go thru someones bedroom window, but the explosion would take out the whole block, if not more. So that missile would have probably taken out the Americans we were trying to save.
 
Using you "logic" (if one can call it that), close air support should never be provided to our troops on the ground. That's an insane position to take or defend...


Close air support is generally done by helos or by what we called puff the magic dragon in VN and not fighter jets
 
I wouldn't be celebrating, but that s the nature of collateral damage. On 9/11, did you not support the order to shoot down any commercial airliner that did not immediately follow the grounding order...


So you would be ok if the Americans were killed in that collateral damage? The other part has nothing to do with this thread, remember Custer?
 
Our missile guidance technology is beyond approach. We can program a cruise missile to fly down the street and go thru someones bedroom window, but the explosion would take out the whole block, if not more. So that missile would have probably taken out the Americans we were trying to save.

I don't believe Cruise missiles would have been a viable option due to just what you point out, but the attack profile of a hellfire can be selected at the time of fire, or with newer models, in flight...
 
LOL, you now have the intelligence available to know the distance of the attackers in feet?

no i was trying to make the point that you can't bomb the enemy if they are literally right next to your own men. it was a tactic employed in Stalingrad by the Russians, by placeing their frontlines right next to the germans in the city and fighting at close quarters, the germans could not use their airforce to bomb the russians without the risk of hitting their own men.
 
So you would be ok if the Americans were killed in that collateral damage? The other part has nothing to do with this thread, remember Custer?

It is germane as it related directly to acceptable level of collateral damage when we are under attack...
 
Good afternoon V1.1 - I find it remarkable the lengths to which people here will go to "rescue" Obama and Clinton but wouldn't lift a finger to save American assets on the ground in a hostile environment.

But they are lifting their fingers, CJ! They're typing! Granted, it's not to offer sympathy to the families of the men who were murdered by cowardly unwashed thugs in Benghazi, but attempts to justify BHO's seeming lack of concern for the lives of our Embassy personnel and Seals who were waiting in vain for help that never came. I wonder if their opinion would be the same if one of their husbands, brothers or friends had been among those who died in Benghazi! :shock: To each his own opinion...but very sad indeed...
 
no i was trying to make the point that you can't bomb the enemy if they are literally right next to your own men. it was a tactic employed in Stalingrad by the Russians, by placeing their frontlines right next to the germans in the city and fighting at close quarters, the germans could not use their airforce to bomb the russians without the risk of hitting their own men.

I believe the issue was defending against mortars and RPGs, neither of which are fired from that range unless it's a suicide mission of some sort...
 
But they are lifting their fingers, CJ! They're typing! Granted, it's not to offer sympathy to the families of the men who were murdered by cowardly unwashed thugs in Benghazi, but attempts to justify BHO's seeming lack of concern for the lives of our Embassy personnel and Seals who were waiting in vain for help that never came. I wonder if their opinion would be the same if one of their husbands, brothers or friends had been among those who died in Benghazi! :shock: To each his own opinion...but very sad indeed...

Excellent point as usual. Good evening pg...
 
I believe the issue was defending against mortars and RPGs, neither of which are fired from that range unless it's a suicide mission of some sort...

in which case we are talking about the attacks on the CIA annex, where two people were killed by mortar fire.
 
Our missile guidance technology is beyond approach. We can program a cruise missile to fly down the street and go thru someones bedroom window, but the explosion would take out the whole block, if not more. So that missile would have probably taken out the Americans we were trying to save.

That's ridiculous.

We have missiles that are made purely out of concrete, nothing else. People, do just a little research so your'e not left guessing.
 
in which case we are talking about the attacks on the CIA annex, where two people were killed by mortar fire.

When we make no attempt to provide support during an attack, it is an issue even if no one were to have lost their lives...
 
When we make no attempt to provide support during an attack, it is an issue even if no one were to have lost their lives...

Which attack the one on the consulate, or the one on the Annex.

the mortar attacks that killed the two victims in the annex came after there had been a lull in the initial attack on the annex.

should they have called for backup at the start of the attack, or when they were being shelled by mortars?
 
Which attack the one on the consulate, or the one on the Annex.

the mortar attacks that killed the two victims in the annex came after there had been a lull in the initial attack on the annex.

should they have called for backup at the start of the attack, or when they were being shelled by mortars?

Should who or what have been called back up? There was never an order executed to provide support from the start of the attacks. The ex SEALS at the annex were there against orders...
 
Should who or what have been called back up? There was never an order executed to provide support from the start of the attacks. The ex SEALS at the annex were there against orders...

and no one knew that until they had already left for benghazi. so who could have provided them backup without permission.

and besides when the attacks began No one in command knew what was going on. it was imposable to discern what was happening because it was pure pandimonium out there.
 
and no one knew that until they had already left for benghazi. so who could have provided them backup without permission.

I'm sorry, but this comment is just to stupid to address in a rational manner...
 
I'm sorry, but this comment is just to stupid to address in a rational manner...

look at the edit i made then.

if one wants to nitpick about not reacting to the calls for help, then one could point out disingenuously that ambassador Stephan called hicks back in Tripoli begging for help, but hicks did not answer the phone the first two times because he did not recognize the number calling him was his boss in Benghazi.

again there was not enough information to clarify what was going on.
 
Last edited:
Secretary Gates advocated no such position. He stated that resources were not available and the on-the-ground situation was uncertain. That's very different from advocating a position that the U.S. should not act if it had military assets and sufficient information to do so.

Added: The following link reveals what was "known" about the attack: Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

What a great link, thanks.

The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday.

At a Pentagon news briefing, Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be able to act on, even though the U.S. military was prepared to do so.

"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on," Panetta said. "(We) felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops to the consulate being attacked in Benghazi.

He said there was a drone aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began.

He said the drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack. But he described what the drone saw as "looking down, seeing a bunch of buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground."

snip​
 
That's ridiculous.

We have missiles that are made purely out of concrete, nothing else. People, do just a little research so your'e not left guessing.

How does a missile made purely out of concrete gonna fly. All they're gonna do is drop. Not much killing power unless you hit someone directly with it. And you talk about ridiculous.
 
How does a missile made purely out of
concrete gonna fly. All they're gonna do is drop. Not much killing power unless you hit someone directly with it. And you talk about ridiculous.


The entire missle is not concrete, just the payload. It's actually a dense concrete like substance and is specifically used to NOT create a ecplosion that would take out innocent targets.

Accelerate anything to 2 a thousand an hour and whatever it hits , it destroys.

Look , most " people " here trying to justify away our Govt's lack of action are extremely ignorant when it comes to our Military's capabilities.

It's incredibly naive to think we couldn't have responded because it was " pandemonium".

Spec Ops are trained for " pandemonium"
 
What a great link, thanks.



"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on," Panetta said. "(We) felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation."


This, has got to be one of THE MOST patently asinine comments I ever hallucinated I'd hear a SecDef make. Of course it's a microcosm of the weakness of the current administration.

Yeah Leon, so instead of sending HELP, and you had resources READY WILLING and ABLE to go, in fact they were IN CARS about to head to the airport in Tripoli, you just sat back, the current occupier Commander in Chief went to bed, and you let four American's die.

Of course the low information crowd thinks this is a good strategy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom