If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: Republicans have a "cartoonish impression" of US military capability. OH SNAP   (rawstory.com) divider line 596
    More: Interesting, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Benghazi, Special Forced, Bob Schieffer  
•       •       •

6891 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 May 2013 at 6:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



596 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-12 03:32:13 PM
Gates: 911, please send the fire department to my house - I see flames.
911: I´m sorry, they couldn´t possibly get there in time.
Gates: How do you know? Please, please.
911: You have a cartoonish view of fire department capability.


/ripped from RPool
 
2013-05-12 03:41:48 PM

EnviroDude: Gates: 911, please send the fire department to my house - I see flames.
911: I´m sorry, they couldn´t possibly get there in time.
Gates: How do you know? Please, please.
911: You have a cartoonish view of fire department capability.

/ripped from RPool


Why would rip that? Other than to shreads, that is.
 
2013-05-12 03:53:46 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-12 03:54:26 PM

EnviroDude: Gates: 911, please send the fire department to my house - I see flames.
911: I´m sorry, they couldn´t possibly get there in time.
Gates: How do you know? Please, please.
911: You have a cartoonish view of fire department capability.

/ripped from RPool


Well, if the nearest fire truck was 5 hours away then yeah, I'd agree that is a cartoonish view of the fire department's capabilities.
 
2013-05-12 04:51:29 PM
I wondered how Acme got a defense contract.
 
2013-05-12 05:06:38 PM
These are people who think 24 is a documentary. Shocker.
 
2013-05-12 05:08:09 PM
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-12 05:16:56 PM
Gates: Benghazi-obsessed Republicans have 'cartoonish' view of military capability reality.

Fixed that for everyone.
 
2013-05-12 05:24:35 PM
So when is the GOP going to show the military how to teleport?
 
2013-05-12 05:29:09 PM
Well, he's right. Folks seem to think that their military is sitting in a room waiting to be unleashed like a video game. You have X amount of units, and they can respond immediately to any threat within their area of operations at a moment's notice. That we have everyone on alert, 24 hours a day, and that units are just waiting to be sent out, planes and helicopters gassed up and ready, and already armed with various payloads, and pilots just pick the plane or chopper that is right for the mission like it's some kind of game.

Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.
 
2013-05-12 05:38:59 PM
And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.
 
2013-05-12 05:40:06 PM

hubiestubert: Well, he's right. Folks seem to think that their military is sitting in a room waiting to be unleashed like a video game. You have X amount of units, and they can respond immediately to any threat within their area of operations at a moment's notice. That we have everyone on alert, 24 hours a day, and that units are just waiting to be sent out, planes and helicopters gassed up and ready, and already armed with various payloads, and pilots just pick the plane or chopper that is right for the mission like it's some kind of game.

Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.


And most of the servicemen are just like Seal Team 6.
 
2013-05-12 05:49:36 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


upload.wikimedia.org
www.blogcdn.com
media.salon.com
webprobuddy.com
/p.s. Inouye had a goddamn Medal of Honor
 
2013-05-12 05:53:37 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


I bet that you are a big Ted Nugent fan, aren't you, sunshine?

FAIL.
 
2013-05-12 05:59:17 PM

hubiestubert: Well, he's right. Folks seem to think that their military is sitting in a room waiting to be unleashed like a video game. You have X amount of units, and they can respond immediately to any threat within their area of operations at a moment's notice. That we have everyone on alert, 24 hours a day, and that units are just waiting to be sent out, planes and helicopters gassed up and ready, and already armed with various payloads, and pilots just pick the plane or chopper that is right for the mission like it's some kind of game.

Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.


I wonder what the percentage of people on any congress committee have any working knowledge of anything other than how to win a reelection?
 
2013-05-12 06:00:12 PM
In this thread: A lot of Fark Independents with cartoonish impressions of US military capability.
 
2013-05-12 06:09:50 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


I'll pass that along to George McGovern's ghost.
 
2013-05-12 06:12:39 PM

EnviroDude: Gates: 911, please send the fire department to my house - I see flames.
911: I´m sorry, they couldn´t possibly get there in time.
Gates: How do you know? Please, please.
911: You have a cartoonish view of fire department capability.

/ripped from RPool


That's stupid and doesn't make sense. The person that came up with should feel bad and you should feel worse for cribbing it. Then again you're a troll so what's it matter?
 
2013-05-12 06:15:33 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-12 06:16:38 PM
Shocked? Anything a Republican claims to believe must fit onto a bumper sticker. Nobody would have stoof for this even 30 years ago, but that's what you get when your "News Media" is taken over by those who cu their teeth selling fiction in Hollywood and on TV. Enjoy.
 
2013-05-12 06:17:03 PM

EnviroDude: Gates: 911, please send the fire department to my house - I see flames.
911: I´m sorry, they couldn´t possibly get there in time.
Gates: How do you know? Please, please.
911: You have a cartoonish view of fire department capability.

/ripped from RPool


Do you also compare the US economy to a family budget?

Of course you do.
 
2013-05-12 06:17:43 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


and Popcorn Johnny is an idiot, so I guess reality is in everyone else's favor?
 
2013-05-12 06:18:12 PM
fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-05-12 06:18:36 PM
Obvious tag gone AWOL like GWB?
 
2013-05-12 06:20:31 PM

hubiestubert: Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.


Just like how we have Congressmen on various scientific committees with no understanding of basic science, or even outright disbelief of it (like climate change deniers or young Earth creationists).

Congressional committee assignments are NOT doled out with respect to the experience, understanding or skill of the congressman, but instead through seniority and favors.

That's part of what's broken with the whole goddamn system, the people making the rules have zero concept of what they're making rules about.  (Then again, the military itself has that problem to a lesser extent, judging from the number of officers I've dealt with who know jack and shiat about the business end of how their unit does their mission).
 
2013-05-12 06:20:50 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


Aren't you supposed to be out shooting illegal immigrants?
 
2013-05-12 06:20:59 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


Another lie Republicans spout to make themselves feel better.

Like, "Republicans are fiscally responsible," or "We're tough on terrorism," or "I'm not gay."
 
2013-05-12 06:21:01 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk
 
2013-05-12 06:21:16 PM
Is Benghazi a cartoon yet?

oilersnation.com

Everything's comin' up Milhouse.
 
2013-05-12 06:21:22 PM
Considering these are many of the same folks who believe that a 2,000-year-old fairy tale is scientific and that The Flintstones is historically accurate, yea... I'm not surprised they don't know sh*t about how the military operates. I mean, I don't either, but I don't pretend to and then get all uppity when they do or do not do something in a way that contradicts my delusional view of the world.
 
2013-05-12 06:22:29 PM

Silverstaff: Just like how we have Congressmen on various scientific committees with no understanding of basic science, or even outright disbelief of it (like climate change deniers or young Earth creationists).


Or like how Michele Bachmann is on the Intelligence Committee.
 
2013-05-12 06:22:52 PM

hubiestubert: Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.


You should see the Intelligence Committee.
 
2013-05-12 06:23:33 PM
I've been reading journal articles in preparation for a presentation on the topic of US global dominance, and I gotta say, yep. William Kristol Jr in particular seems to be surrounded by a cloud of people who believe the US military is like an episode of Whacky Racers, and if you can't simultaneously hold down a land war against all of China while shooting down nukes from two countries and do so without increasing military recruitment goals, then America is not ready and needs to spend more money on the Military. What's really strange is that the character and tone of the articles takes this really marked shift around 2009, when they go from talking about how the military needs to be stronger because otherwise how else will they continue distributing Freedom Bombs, and then to about how the US Military is under attack and needs protection from a culture of disarmament. It's really, really weird, and I know the joke is that Obama was inaugurated in 2009, but the shift in tone is like suddenly these guys noticed that there are anti-war protestors anywhere, or something.

That these people are now wondering why Navy Seals can't teleport thirty yards and stab a terrorist in the toe prompting an autokill does not surprise me.
 
2013-05-12 06:24:05 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Silverstaff: Just like how we have Congressmen on various scientific committees with no understanding of basic science, or even outright disbelief of it (like climate change deniers or young Earth creationists).

Or like how Michele Bachmann is on the Intelligence Committee.


api.ning.com
 
2013-05-12 06:30:39 PM
Four special forces guys in God Mode could have totally spawned in and pwnd that mob.
 
2013-05-12 06:30:54 PM

hubiestubert: Well, he's right. Folks seem to think that their military is sitting in a room waiting to be unleashed like a video game. You have X amount of units, and they can respond immediately to any threat within their area of operations at a moment's notice. That we have everyone on alert, 24 hours a day, and that units are just waiting to be sent out, planes and helicopters gassed up and ready, and already armed with various payloads, and pilots just pick the plane or chopper that is right for the mission like it's some kind of game.

Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.


I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

If it had happened on, say, the 11th of February or whatever then I could understand it. You are correct, we don't usually have troops on hot standby 24\7 and haven't for a very long time (Cold war era). But to have to go to Norther Italy, Spain and Croatia for men and equipment (and even then they aren't on standby, on Sept. 11th) is a major screw up by someone.
 
2013-05-12 06:33:45 PM
When Obama *does* take a calculated risk and carry out a successful surgical strike (killing bin Laden), he's taking credit not due him, and using it for political gain.

When he doesn't take an insane risk, he's deliberately throwing away American lives for political gain.
 
2013-05-12 06:33:46 PM

Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Well, he's right. Folks seem to think that their military is sitting in a room waiting to be unleashed like a video game. You have X amount of units, and they can respond immediately to any threat within their area of operations at a moment's notice. That we have everyone on alert, 24 hours a day, and that units are just waiting to be sent out, planes and helicopters gassed up and ready, and already armed with various payloads, and pilots just pick the plane or chopper that is right for the mission like it's some kind of game.

Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.

I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

If it had happened on, say, the 11th of February or whatever then I could understand it. You are correct, we don't usually have troops on hot standby 24\7 and haven't for a very long time (Cold war era). But to have to go to Norther Italy, Spain and Croatia for men and equipment (and even then they aren't on standby, on Sept. 11th) is a major screw up by someone.


Was it a problem last year on 9/11? The year before that? How about the year before that, year before that ,year before that, year before that, year before that, year before that, year before that,  and year before that ?

Did we need them? What the hell makes you think this year was going to be different?
 
2013-05-12 06:35:37 PM
rpmedia.ask.com
 
2013-05-12 06:38:42 PM

Radioactive Ass: Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.


Budget cuts. And ask yourself who was responsible for those.
 
2013-05-12 06:38:46 PM

Kome: Considering these are many of the same folks who believe that a 2,000-year-old fairy tale is scientific and that The Flintstones is historically accurate, yea... I'm not surprised they don't know sh*t about how the military operates. I mean, I don't either, but I don't pretend to and then get all uppity when they do or do not do something in a way that contradicts my delusional view of the world.


A large percentage of people who claim to be Democrats also believe that fairy tale and vice versa.  When are we going to start talking about that?  It's not "Guns and Religion" vs "Unions and Secularism", there is quite a lot of overlap.  We never talk about the things that truly separate the left from the right because it isn't that easy and it changes from topic to topic.  I bet if we did, it would probably really scare the crap out of those in charge.  United We Stand...
 
2013-05-12 06:40:14 PM

fusillade762: Radioactive Ass: Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

Budget cuts. And ask yourself who was responsible for those.


The democrats, if they had won enough seats the GOP would not have had the power to cut the budget.
 
2013-05-12 06:41:10 PM

zappaisfrank: [fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net image 500x376]



Thank you.
 
2013-05-12 06:44:09 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


You shut your whore mouth, chickenhawk.
 
2013-05-12 06:45:33 PM

ghare: Was it a problem last year on 9/11? The year before that? How about the year before that, year before that ,year before that, year before that, year before that, year before that, year before that, and year before that ?

Did we need them? What the hell makes you think this year was going to be different?


Like we said in the Navy, Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. That's what this sounds like to me, a lack of prior planning. We did and had a lot of things that never got used for real life problems, that doesn't mean that it was a bad idea to do them. I've shot somewhere around 60 exercise torpedoes and countless waterslugs yet never shot a warshot at anyone in anger (nobody in the USN has in a very long time). Therefore the Navy should stop carrying torpedoes on their submarines.

The job of the military is to be ready in the event of something happening and then figuring out where those things are most likely to happen. Is Northern Italy a current hot spot or is the Middle East, especially on that date, the best place to have men and equipment available?
 
2013-05-12 06:47:41 PM

fusillade762: Budget cuts. And ask yourself who was responsible for those.


The men get paid the same no matter where they are. Budget cuts aren't going to change that. Nice try though.
 
2013-05-12 06:48:03 PM

Radioactive Ass: I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

If it had happened on, say, the 11th of February or whatever then I could understand it. You are correct, we don't usually have troops on hot standby 24\7 and haven't for a very long time (Cold war era). But to have to go to Norther Italy, Spain and Croatia for men and equipment (and even then they aren't on standby, on Sept. 11th) is a major screw up by someone.


Where exactly would you have them based? Its not like there are countries beating down our doors to get US troops stationed in their territory. And supposing we did have some sort of rapid-reaction force stationed within an hour of anywhere in the world we have people -because that's what it'd take - those troops would be just as much a target as the Benghazi consulate was. Remember USS Cole? Remember Khobar Towers? Unless you're planning on invading half the countries in the world just so we can station troops there to be the world's policeman, it is simply not feasible to have a base everywhere we might want it.
 
2013-05-12 06:48:30 PM

Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Well, he's right. Folks seem to think that their military is sitting in a room waiting to be unleashed like a video game. You have X amount of units, and they can respond immediately to any threat within their area of operations at a moment's notice. That we have everyone on alert, 24 hours a day, and that units are just waiting to be sent out, planes and helicopters gassed up and ready, and already armed with various payloads, and pilots just pick the plane or chopper that is right for the mission like it's some kind of game.

Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.

I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

If it had happened on, say, the 11th of February or whatever then I could understand it. You are correct, we don't usually have troops on hot standby 24\7 and haven't for a very long time (Cold war era). But to have to go to Norther Italy, Spain and Croatia for men and equipment (and even then they aren't on standby, on Sept. 11th) is a major screw up by someone.


Well, if we are going to schlep troops back and forth randomly based on days that may or may not be symbolic to Islamic militants, then we need to have troops on hot standby on:

January 1st
February 26th
April  18th
June 14th
June 25th
July 4th
August 7th
September 5th
September 11th
October 12th
November 17th
December 25th
The start of Ramadan
The end of Ramadan
Eid Al-Fitr
Eid Al-Adha
The start of Hanukkah
the end of Hannukah
And every other major Jewish holiday
Etc.
 
2013-05-12 06:50:48 PM

Rincewind53: Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x300]
[www.blogcdn.com image 325x419]
[media.salon.com image 360x274]
[webprobuddy.com image 600x450]
/p.s. Inouye had a goddamn Medal of Honor


i56.tinypic.com
 
2013-05-12 06:53:09 PM

Rincewind53: In this thread: A lot of Fark Independents with cartoonish impressions of US military capahillbillity.

 
2013-05-12 06:53:40 PM
Did Obama find the Benghazi Killers yet?  He promised to find and arrest them. How hard can it be?  He has pictures and everything.

global.fncstatic.com
 
2013-05-12 06:54:06 PM
"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way. And there just wasn't time to do that."

You'll never convince the seen-too-many-episodes-of-24 FOX watcher crowd of that fact but still, nice response to all the manufactured hysteria. Those idiots appear to be angry that the military didn't lose even more people that day by sending them in immediately without accurate intelligence, sufficient weaponry or superior numbers.

That all noted, why is AfriCom still based in freaking Stuttgart, Germany?
 
2013-05-12 06:55:11 PM
Rincewind53 biatchslapped Popcorn Douchebag Johnny with that post
 
2013-05-12 06:56:03 PM

SamWaters: Did Obama find the Benghazi Killers yet?  He promised to find and arrest them. How hard can it be?  He has pictures and everything.

[global.fncstatic.com image 660x371]


Somebody alert reddit.  They did a bangup job last time.
 
2013-05-12 06:56:03 PM
Homer: Lisa, being President is easy! You just point the Army and shoot!
 
2013-05-12 06:56:35 PM
They should have just dispatched Solid Snake. He totally would have kicked the Bengayzee's asses. Sam Fisher, Commander Shepard or Kirby would also have been acceptable choices.
 
2013-05-12 06:57:41 PM

SamWaters: Did Obama find the Benghazi Killers yet?  He promised to find and arrest them. How hard can it be?  He has pictures and everything.

[global.fncstatic.com image 660x371]


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
Who cares? What difference does it make?
 
2013-05-12 06:57:43 PM
...okay, it is harder than you think to find one of those war-propaganda posters of gazillions of guns and cannons and tanks and planes all pointed in the same direction. You know the type, right?
 
2013-05-12 06:58:32 PM

ghare: Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Well, he's right. Folks seem to think that their military is sitting in a room waiting to be unleashed like a video game. You have X amount of units, and they can respond immediately to any threat within their area of operations at a moment's notice. That we have everyone on alert, 24 hours a day, and that units are just waiting to be sent out, planes and helicopters gassed up and ready, and already armed with various payloads, and pilots just pick the plane or chopper that is right for the mission like it's some kind of game.

Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.

I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

If it had happened on, say, the 11th of February or whatever then I could understand it. You are correct, we don't usually have troops on hot standby 24\7 and haven't for a very long time (Cold war era). But to have to go to Norther Italy, Spain and Croatia for men and equipment (and even then they aren't on standby, on Sept. 11th) is a major screw up by someone.

Was it a problem last year on 9/11? The year before that? How about the year before that, year before that ,year before that, year before that, year before that ...


Not to mention that Benghazi is about 1000 miles from Israel and the rest of the Middle East.  Were we supposed to have a carrier group standing by offshore of every embassy and consulate from Morocco to Afghanistan?
 
2013-05-12 06:58:54 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Where exactly would you have them based? Its not like there are countries beating down our doors to get US troops stationed in their territory. And supposing we did have some sort of rapid-reaction force stationed within an hour of anywhere in the world we have people -because that's what it'd take - those troops would be just as much a target as the Benghazi consulate was. Remember USS Cole? Remember Khobar Towers? Unless you're planning on invading half the countries in the world just so we can station troops there to be the world's policeman, it is simply not feasible to have a base everywhere we might want it.


That's above my pay grade, however I find it very hard to believe that if the US had asked that they wouldn't have had too much of a problem finding at least one place in the ME (maybe Turkey, it's fairly well centered in the region and is a NATO Ally) or even Southern Europe to sit for a day or two. Hell just two days ago the US put some forces on alert over what's going on in Libya right now. It's not like they can't do it, it's that they didn't think ahead and do it last Sept.

BSABSVR: Well, if we are going to schlep troops back and forth randomly based on days that may or may not be symbolic to Islamic militants, then we need to have troops on hot standby on:


Are any of those dates ones where a major attack as symbolic as 9/11 was done? It's no coincidence that the Benghazi attacks happened on that date.
 
2013-05-12 07:01:17 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: They should have just dispatched Solid Snake. He totally would have kicked the Bengayzee's asses. Sam Fisher, Commander Shepard or Kirby would also have been acceptable choices.


Number of times my Call of Duty Clan [AKFU] was called by Obama: 0

And with an average K/D ration of 15:1, I think we know a little something about a) how to take out a mob. and B) That it only takes .8 seconds to call in an airstrike.  Don't even get me stared on how to thin out a crowd by spamming bouncing bettys.
 
2013-05-12 07:03:40 PM

Rincewind53: In this thread: A lot of Fark Independents with cartoonish impressions of US military capability.


Gee, and I was saying this two days ago already. Someone is stealing all my material.

It's due to too much TV and movies, where Jack Bauer can magically get from San Pedro to downtown LA via the 110 freeway at rush hour (a 75-minute drive) in ONE one-hour segment and still have time for plot development and posing on the street corner; or how two commandos in Modern Warfare 2 can take out an entire Russian airbase and never get killed or run out of ammo and still make it to Brazil the next day. IT'S NOT REAL, PEOPLE.

In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli--but. Was the plane warmed up, on the runway, ready to take off? Or did they still have to fuel it up, get the flight crew their orders and charts, and prep a plane that takes anywhere from an hour to a lunar month to take off? And once they landed in Benghazi...how far is it from the airstrip to the consulate? Or did people think they were going to parachute out of the C-130 as it flew over the consulate and land guns a-blazin' in the front yard? Or did they think they would fight their way through the streets like that spectacularly (un)successful mission in Mogadishu? It worked in Ridley Scott's movie; but in real life, not so much. Remember that one?

The military command knows what they can and can't do. The rest of us do not. If they say they couldn't have done it without killing more personnel, I'm inclined to believe them.
 
2013-05-12 07:05:11 PM

Radioactive Ass: Wolf_Blitzer: Where exactly would you have them based? Its not like there are countries beating down our doors to get US troops stationed in their territory. And supposing we did have some sort of rapid-reaction force stationed within an hour of anywhere in the world we have people -because that's what it'd take - those troops would be just as much a target as the Benghazi consulate was. Remember USS Cole? Remember Khobar Towers? Unless you're planning on invading half the countries in the world just so we can station troops there to be the world's policeman, it is simply not feasible to have a base everywhere we might want it.

That's above my pay grade, however I find it very hard to believe that if the US had asked that they wouldn't have had too much of a problem finding at least one place in the ME (maybe Turkey, it's fairly well centered in the region and is a NATO Ally) or even Southern Europe to sit for a day or two.


Hicks asked for planes stationed in Italy to do a flyby and somehow scare the Libyans off like Native Americans scared by loud iron horses.  The military decided it was too far away to help, and a plane flying that low would most likely be shot at by surface to air missiles left over from Quadaffi and the civil war.
 
2013-05-12 07:05:52 PM
MODERN WARFARE 3 IS REAL TO ME DAMNIT!
 
2013-05-12 07:08:38 PM

Karac: Not to mention that Benghazi is about 1000 miles from Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Were we supposed to have a carrier group standing by offshore of every embassy and consulate from Morocco to Afghanistan?


There is a difference between distance and being ready. If you are ready then the time factor can be halved. As I said above, I don't expect the military to be all up all of the time, that actually is cartoonish. However, there are times and places where being at a higher state of readiness is a really good idea. It's not like the date is going to sneak up on you. In addition, when Cairo started getting the way it got that day, hours before the first attack in Benghazi it's unconscionable that nobody appears to have thought about having people get in a higher readiness state than "Meh, SSDD".
 
2013-05-12 07:08:43 PM

Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Well, he's right. Folks seem to think that their military is sitting in a room waiting to be unleashed like a video game. You have X amount of units, and they can respond immediately to any threat within their area of operations at a moment's notice. That we have everyone on alert, 24 hours a day, and that units are just waiting to be sent out, planes and helicopters gassed up and ready, and already armed with various payloads, and pilots just pick the plane or chopper that is right for the mission like it's some kind of game.

Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.

I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

If it had happened on, say, the 11th of February or whatever then I could understand it. You are correct, we don't usually have troops on hot standby 24\7 and haven't for a very long time (Cold war era). But to have to go to Norther Italy, Spain and Croatia for men and equipment (and even then they aren't on standby, on Sept. 11th) is a major screw up by someone.


Thank you for illustrating exactly the mental deficiency and willful and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are displaying. It was a brave choice to make yourself the example, and I commend you for your selflessness...
 
2013-05-12 07:08:49 PM

SamWaters: Did Obama find the Benghazi Killers yet?  He promised to find and arrest them. How hard can it be? He has pictures and everything.


fasteddie9318.files.wordpress.com

"And, again, I don't know where [Osama Bin Laden] is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
 
2013-05-12 07:09:04 PM
Considering most Republicans have never served a day in our military this is no surprise. Fantasize is what chickenhawks do best.
 
2013-05-12 07:09:06 PM

Kibbler: When Obama *does* take a calculated risk and carry out a successful surgical strike (killing bin Laden), he's taking credit not due him, and using it for political gain.

When he doesn't take an insane risk, he's deliberately throwing away American lives for political gain.


Yep.
 
2013-05-12 07:09:25 PM

zappaisfrank: [fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net image 500x376]


It should be obvious that the Republican Party Line doesn't care about people, just grandstanding.
 
2013-05-12 07:10:27 PM

Karac: Hicks asked for planes stationed in Italy to do a flyby and somehow scare the Libyans off like Native Americans scared by loud iron horses.


I still can't believe a diplomat would think something that stupid would be a good idea.
 
2013-05-12 07:10:56 PM

Mister Peejay: zappaisfrank: [fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net image 500x376]

It should be obvious that the Republican Party Line doesn't care about people, just grandstanding. anything except power.


Fascists are like that.
 
2013-05-12 07:11:40 PM

Radioactive Ass: Are any of those dates ones where a major attack as symbolic as 9/11 was done? It's no coincidence that the Benghazi attacks happened on that date.


I didn't say it was a coincidence.  Nor did I even  imply it, dick.

As for the dates, they are all very symbolic.  Look at one of the first things people do every time there is a mass murder/terrorist is look at other events on that date.  They look for symbolism.  All of those dates would be symbolic to an Islamic terrorist.  All of them.  And if something were attacked on the anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole, it would be OBVIOUS to Monday Morning quarterbacks that of course an attack was going to happen on the day because DUH.

If you want troops stationed at the ready when an attack is more symbolic than not, you pretty much need them at the ready all the time.  Until someone attacks on a random day that isn't symbolic when the argument would be that it's OBVIOUS that they were going to attack when we lowered our alert level because DUH.
 
2013-05-12 07:11:50 PM

Mrtraveler01: Karac: Hicks asked for planes stationed in Italy to do a flyby and somehow scare the Libyans off like Native Americans scared by loud iron horses.

I still can't believe a diplomat would think something that stupid would be a good idea.


What about a diplomat that never got a promotion?
 
2013-05-12 07:12:02 PM

Karac: Hicks asked for planes stationed in Italy to do a flyby and somehow scare the Libyans off like Native Americans scared by loud iron horses. The military decided it was too far away to help, and a plane flying that low would most likely be shot at by surface to air missiles left over from Quadaffi and the civil war.


Hicks was an idiot however he didn't know that the planes were in Italy at that time. As I said, I would have assumed that there were some sort of preparedness on that particular date.
 
2013-05-12 07:14:41 PM

Radioactive Ass: Karac: Not to mention that Benghazi is about 1000 miles from Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Were we supposed to have a carrier group standing by offshore of every embassy and consulate from Morocco to Afghanistan?

There is a difference between distance and being ready. If you are ready then the time factor can be halved. As I said above, I don't expect the military to be all up all of the time, that actually is cartoonish. However, there are times and places where being at a higher state of readiness is a really good idea. It's not like the date is going to sneak up on you. In addition, when Cairo started getting the way it got that day, hours before the first attack in Benghazi it's unconscionable that nobody appears to have thought about having people get in a higher readiness state than "Meh, SSDD".


Really?  'Cause you sure are acting like ITT.
 
2013-05-12 07:15:03 PM

hubiestubert: Thank you for illustrating exactly the mental deficiency and willful and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are displaying. It was a brave choice to make yourself the example, and I commend you for your selflessness...


Thanks for that bit of derpiness on your part. I hope that if your area ever holds a WTO conference that your police dept goes "Meh, so what" and does nothing to prepare for it. Lets see how that might work out for you.
 
2013-05-12 07:16:12 PM

Radioactive Ass: That's above my pay grade, however I find it very hard to believe that if the US had asked that they wouldn't have had too much of a problem finding at least one place in the ME (maybe Turkey, it's fairly well centered in the region and is a NATO Ally) or even Southern Europe to sit for a day or two. Hell just two days ago the US put some forces on alert over what's going on in Libya right now. It's not like they can't do it, it's that they didn't think ahead and do it last Sept.


I suggest you look at a map some time, because Turkey is as far away from Libya as Italy is. But we have military bases in the UAE, maybe they could... damn, that map ruins everything!

It is a big farking planet, and unlike your hindsight psychic abilities, we can't actually predict in advance what day terrorists will attack on (would you have predicted 9/11 prior to 2001?).
 
2013-05-12 07:16:44 PM

quatchi: That all noted, why is AfriCom still based in freaking Stuttgart, Germany?


I don't think we got that many advanced military bases in Africa.    The rights to land must be obtained, it needs to be secure, the facilities built, etc.  And truth be known resources are more easily obtained in Germany.  Sure people will have to be flown were needed, but that would still be true if it was actually based in Africa.  Africa is a big place and the base is unlikely to be put in an actual trouble spot.
 
2013-05-12 07:16:47 PM

draa: Considering most Republicans have never served a day in our military this is no surprise. Fantasize is what chickenhawks do best.


Sadly, their one "war hero" has been playing along, to a certain extent.

abcnews.go.com
 
2013-05-12 07:17:35 PM

max_pooper: Mrtraveler01: Karac: Hicks asked for planes stationed in Italy to do a flyby and somehow scare the Libyans off like Native Americans scared by loud iron horses.

I still can't believe a diplomat would think something that stupid would be a good idea.

What about a diplomat that never got a promotion?


I can see why he never got the promotion.
 
2013-05-12 07:17:46 PM

Mrtraveler01: Karac: Hicks asked for planes stationed in Italy to do a flyby and somehow scare the Libyans off like Native Americans scared by loud iron horses.

I still can't believe a diplomat would think something that stupid would be a good idea.


Maverick made the guy drop his coffee when he buzzed the tower in Top Gun, so maybe the attackers would have dropped their mortars.
 
2013-05-12 07:18:02 PM

Radioactive Ass: Wolf_Blitzer: Where exactly would you have them based? Its not like there are countries beating down our doors to get US troops stationed in their territory. And supposing we did have some sort of rapid-reaction force stationed within an hour of anywhere in the world we have people -because that's what it'd take - those troops would be just as much a target as the Benghazi consulate was. Remember USS Cole? Remember Khobar Towers? Unless you're planning on invading half the countries in the world just so we can station troops there to be the world's policeman, it is simply not feasible to have a base everywhere we might want it.

That's above my pay grade, however I find it very hard to believe that if the US had asked that they wouldn't have had too much of a problem finding at least one place in the ME (maybe Turkey, it's fairly well centered in the region and is a NATO Ally) or even Southern Europe to sit for a day or two. Hell just two days ago the US put some forces on alert over what's going on in Libya right now. It's not like they can't do it, it's that they didn't think ahead and do it last Sept.


Forces stationed in Turkey would've still been a thousand kilometers away, you know.
 
2013-05-12 07:18:20 PM

Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Thank you for illustrating exactly the mental deficiency and willful and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are displaying. It was a brave choice to make yourself the example, and I commend you for your selflessness...

Thanks for that bit of derpiness on your part. I hope that if your area ever holds a WTO conference that your police dept goes "Meh, so what" and does nothing to prepare for it. Lets see how that might work out for you.


WTO is a bit different from a terrorist attack. Might have something to do with a fixed date and a location.
 
2013-05-12 07:18:57 PM

Radioactive Ass: Karac: Hicks asked for planes stationed in Italy to do a flyby and somehow scare the Libyans off like Native Americans scared by loud iron horses. The military decided it was too far away to help, and a plane flying that low would most likely be shot at by surface to air missiles left over from Quadaffi and the civil war.

Hicks was an idiot however he didn't know that the planes were in Italy at that time. As I said, I would have assumed that there were some sort of preparedness on that particular date.


Tell us, what deployments would have been necessary to have US forces on alert to deploy anywhere in the middle east within one hour on that day? How many planes, ships and troops deployed in what locations. Be specific about your solution to this problem that you believe to be so simple and obvious.
 
2013-05-12 07:18:59 PM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but liberals often have a cartoonish impression of US military capability as well. In fact, the military is either an unbeatable juggernaut of instant death anywhere and anytime, or a bungling, incapable buffoonery at others, depending on the political circumstances under discussion.
 
2013-05-12 07:22:58 PM

Halli: Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Thank you for illustrating exactly the mental deficiency and willful and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are displaying. It was a brave choice to make yourself the example, and I commend you for your selflessness...

Thanks for that bit of derpiness on your part. I hope that if your area ever holds a WTO conference that your police dept goes "Meh, so what" and does nothing to prepare for it. Lets see how that might work out for you.

WTO is a bit different from a terrorist attack. Might have something to do with a fixed date and a location.



But, but, but... it was 9/11 you guys!  We should have known terrorists were going to attack the consulate in Libya on that day... because it was 9/11!  How do you not get that?
/amidoinitright
 
2013-05-12 07:23:43 PM
So, Pickering & Gates have both called BS.  Ignorant RINO's, I'm sure.

More hearings and more whistle blowers on tap...  yasss, yasss (if any of you Farkers  `claim' any of the R's on the House Oversight Committee, drop him/her a line and demand that a running total of the cost, to the taxpayer, of the `investigations', including witness transport & misc., of the Oversight Committee hearings into (insert `B' word here) be posted to his/her official website and be updated daily (only real scandal that I can fathom is the cost of this circus).
 
2013-05-12 07:25:06 PM

vygramul: Not to put too fine a point on it, but liberals often have a cartoonish impression of US military capability as well. In fact, the military is either an unbeatable juggernaut of instant death anywhere and anytime, or a bungling, incapable buffoonery at others, depending on the political circumstances under discussion.


1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-05-12 07:25:30 PM

StinkyFiddlewinks: Obvious tag gone AWOL like GWB?


GWB didn't just go AWOL, he was gone long enough to be classified as a deserter.
 
2013-05-12 07:26:41 PM

Smidge204: "And, again, I don't know where [Osama Bin Laden] is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."


Of course not. By then Bush had moved on to the more important problem of looking for the WMDs.
 
2013-05-12 07:26:52 PM

Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Thank you for illustrating exactly the mental deficiency and willful and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are displaying. It was a brave choice to make yourself the example, and I commend you for your selflessness...

Thanks for that bit of derpiness on your part. I hope that if your area ever holds a WTO conference that your police dept goes "Meh, so what" and does nothing to prepare for it. Lets see how that might work out for you.


I'm impressed by the conflation, and deflection at this point.

Please. Do go on. Were ALL embassies across the globe supposed to go on high alert, with air assets ready to buzz the tower? Was it just the ones where there might be some brown people, or the ones with a LOT of brown people near? What about those where there were dirty Commies? What about areas where ethnic cleansing had occurred? Was it just the ones where there were Muslim populations?  Please, break down who was supposed to be on high alert, with Special Forces teams ready to extract, and which bases should have been covering who, and how the Embassies were supposed to coordinate with the military, and visa versa, especially in the face of cuts to their security staff, and likewise, please show your work on how the Department of State supersedes the command structure of the Defense Department's personnel.
 
2013-05-12 07:30:13 PM
That would explain the thought behind $2.8 billion dollars allocated for improved Abrams tanks... when we have two thousand mission-capable tanks (and thousands of other tracked vehicles like these 113-series) sitting unused in the Nevada desert:

www.tacomlcmccommunityreport.com

Somewhere deep in the minds of Republicans is a fantasy. In that fantasy, we are lining up divisions of tanks and storming across the fields, deserts, or woods in a major symmetrical conflict. When in reality, the future will consist of very small skirmishes in who-knows-what terrain.

The Abrams, great system that it is, has been all but useless in the more mountainous regions of Afghanistan. It would be no different in the Balkans, Alps, Himalayas, or Taebaeks. Nor is it useful in any kind of swampy marshland. And in urban settings - which are definitely the conflicts of the future - a platoon of tanks is nothing but collateral damage that can be used as enemy propaganda.
 
2013-05-12 07:31:06 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Radioactive Ass: That's above my pay grade, however I find it very hard to believe that if the US had asked that they wouldn't have had too much of a problem finding at least one place in the ME (maybe Turkey, it's fairly well centered in the region and is a NATO Ally) or even Southern Europe to sit for a day or two. Hell just two days ago the US put some forces on alert over what's going on in Libya right now. It's not like they can't do it, it's that they didn't think ahead and do it last Sept.

I suggest you look at a map some time, because Turkey is as far away from Libya as Italy is. But we have military bases in the UAE, maybe they could... damn, that map ruins everything!

It is a big farking planet, and unlike your hindsight psychic abilities, we can't actually predict in advance what day terrorists will attack on (would you have predicted 9/11 prior to 2001?).


Nostradamus did, why can't the US Military?

/ Need more defense spending ASAP
 
2013-05-12 07:33:10 PM

BSABSVR: I didn't say it was a coincidence. Nor did I even imply it, dick.

As for the dates, they are all very symbolic. Look at one of the first things people do every time there is a mass murder/terrorist is look at other events on that date. They look for symbolism. All of those dates would be symbolic to an Islamic terrorist. All of them. And if something were attacked on the anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole, it would be OBVIOUS to Monday Morning quarterbacks that of course an attack was going to happen on the day because DUH.

If you want troops stationed at the ready when an attack is more symbolic than not, you pretty much need them at the ready all the time. Until someone attacks on a random day that isn't symbolic when the argument would be that it's OBVIOUS that they were going to attack when we lowered our alert level because DUH.


Again. That particular date is one where one would expect trouble expressly directed at US targets abroad, moreso than any other date 9/11 tops the list. The Cole date (to use an example) is nowhere near being as symbolic as 9/11 in that regard.

glmorrs1: Really? 'Cause you sure are acting like ITT.


Yes really. I've been there and done that for 8 years. It's time consuming and a huge hassle which is why we stopped doing it when it was no longer needed. Now it might not have made a difference in this particular case if a few select units were on a better footing, however to apparently have nobody going through the motions just in case reeks of incompetence by someone.
 
2013-05-12 07:34:40 PM
EnviroDude:  I, too have a cartoonish view of not only American military capability, but also of partisan politics, as well as the principles of sound debate

Indeed.

Indeed.
 
2013-05-12 07:39:54 PM

vygramul: Not to put too fine a point on it, but liberals often have a cartoonish impression of US military capability as well. In fact, the military is either an unbeatable juggernaut of instant death anywhere and anytime, or a bungling, incapable buffoonery at others, depending on the political circumstances under discussion.


Because they know that 4 Special Forces troops stationed 500 miles from Benghazi probably can't get to the consulate (Black Hawk helicopter's top speed is less than 200mph) and be ready to put down an armed mob within an hour?

That's not incapable buffoonery. That's math.
 
2013-05-12 07:41:01 PM
Subby realizes Hicks is a liberal Democrat, right?
 
2013-05-12 07:41:03 PM

clkeagle: And in urban settings


Tanks are very effective in urban settings.
 
2013-05-12 07:41:20 PM

Tymast: fusillade762: Radioactive Ass: Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

Budget cuts. And ask yourself who was responsible for those.

The democrats, if they had won enough seats the GOP would not have had the power to cut the budget.


+1
 
2013-05-12 07:42:02 PM

glmorrs1: Halli: Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Thank you for illustrating exactly the mental deficiency and willful and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are displaying. It was a brave choice to make yourself the example, and I commend you for your selflessness...

Thanks for that bit of derpiness on your part. I hope that if your area ever holds a WTO conference that your police dept goes "Meh, so what" and does nothing to prepare for it. Lets see how that might work out for you.

WTO is a bit different from a terrorist attack. Might have something to do with a fixed date and a location.


But, but, but... it was 9/11 you guys!  We should have known terrorists were going to attack the consulate in Libya on that day... because it was 9/11!  How do you not get that?
/amidoinitright


9/11 changed everything including making sure the US military is available any place on the globe instantaneously.  Study it out.
 
2013-05-12 07:42:22 PM

SunsetLament: Subby realizes Hicks is a liberal Democrat, right?


Well that makes his idiotic comments more intelligent...or something.
 
2013-05-12 07:42:49 PM
Goes along well with their cartoonish view of economics, sociology, morality...pretty much everything else.
 
2013-05-12 07:43:34 PM
look, Hicks was to busy watching tv to answer the phone the first two times Stevens called, so give him a break
 
2013-05-12 07:43:41 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


Given that conservatives never back any of their statements with facts, you are in the clear.
 
2013-05-12 07:44:39 PM

clkeagle: The Abrams, great system that it is, has been all but useless in the more mountainous regions of Afghanistan. It would be no different in the Balkans, Alps, Himalayas, or Taebaeks. Nor is it useful in any kind of swampy marshland. And in urban settings - which are definitely the conflicts of the future - a platoon of tanks is nothing but collateral damage that can be used as enemy propaganda.


I don't know if I'd want to find an Abrams in the Alps.
 
2013-05-12 07:47:25 PM

Bane of Broone: Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.

[sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]


Huh. Back in the eighties, when I voluntarily offered to give my life to my country in the Army if needed, I was a Democrat. Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?
 
2013-05-12 07:47:48 PM
I blame Michael Bay.  I know that's my stock answer for a lot of things, but stick with me here.  Remember early in the first Transformers movie -- hold on, don't pretend you didn't see it.  Remember early in the movie when the soldiers are fleeing across the desert and they're attacked by Scorponok?  One of them makes a credit card call and within an minute and a half, an AC-130 begins raining fiery death and saves teh day.

I'm convinced a lot of Benghazi derpers honestly believe the military works this way.  I remember early in the Benghazi story, there was an actual Freeper conspiracy theory about an AC-130 circling overhead which Obama personally told to stand down so as not to offend Muslims, or something.

Anyway, they seem to think this is how shiat actually works.  Which is why I blame Michael Bay.
 
2013-05-12 07:48:54 PM

buckler: Bane of Broone: Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.

[sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

Huh. Back in the eighties, when I voluntarily offered to give my life to my country in the Army if needed, I was a Democrat. Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?


Johnny doesn't even vote.
 
2013-05-12 07:48:55 PM

buckler: Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?


US Army 1986 to 1994. Rank: SSG MOS: 67V

Served in Korea, Germany, Texas and Iraq.

Any other questions?
 
2013-05-12 07:49:52 PM

Dwight_Yeast: I don't know if I'd want to find an Abrams in the Alps.


You definitely don't want to find a stranger in the Alps.
 
2013-05-12 07:50:04 PM

Dwight_Yeast: clkeagle: The Abrams, great system that it is, has been all but useless in the more mountainous regions of Afghanistan. It would be no different in the Balkans, Alps, Himalayas, or Taebaeks. Nor is it useful in any kind of swampy marshland. And in urban settings - which are definitely the conflicts of the future - a platoon of tanks is nothing but collateral damage that can be used as enemy propaganda.

I don't know if I'd want to find an Abrams in the Alps.


Do you see what happens when you find an Abrams in the Alps, Larry?
 
2013-05-12 07:50:40 PM

Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

US Army 1986 to 1994. Rank: SSG MOS: 67V

Served in Korea, Germany, Texas and Iraq.

Any other questions?


Sure. How many Democrats were in your units, ya think?
 
2013-05-12 07:51:19 PM

TheMysteriousStranger: quatchi: That all noted, why is AfriCom still based in freaking Stuttgart, Germany?

I don't think we got that many advanced military bases in Africa.    The rights to land must be obtained, it needs to be secure, the facilities built, etc.  And truth be known resources are more easily obtained in Germany.  Sure people will have to be flown were needed, but that would still be true if it was actually based in Africa.  Africa is a big place and the base is unlikely to be put in an actual trouble spot.


I get why the US can't put an advanced base in place in Israel or Egypt or SA despite being the biggest recipients of aid in that region but I still think Germany is too far away.
 
2013-05-12 07:52:01 PM
Also, it's the bad kind of cartoon, too. Not a hip, cool cartoon like Archer, or a crude, snarky cartoon like South Park, or a classic like Loony Tunes, or even a once-great, now slowly-winding-down series like The Simpsons. No, we're talking a very, very bad cartoon, like Clutch Cargo, or one of those cut rate Japanimation pieces of crap that are more storyboard than animation and are filled with repetitive dialog like, "Now I must continue my quest to collect the seven sacred pieces of the dragon amulet because when I have collected them all I will have fulfilled my quest by finding all the pieces and then I will have the whole amulet and my quest will be completed." No, wait, it's more like the kind of cartoon a marginally talented eight-year-old would make by doodling some figures on the edge of the pages in a notebook and then flip through them really fast, only he has attention deficit disorder and gave up after only ten pages or so. Basically, what I'm saying here is that Republicans are just farking retarded, and if there's anything other than a test pattern and a monotone blaring inside their heads, I'd be pretty surprised.
 
2013-05-12 07:52:09 PM
Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.
 
2013-05-12 07:53:03 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


Which is why during the last Republican administration, the only people with confirmed kills during the Vietnam years were a career military general and the First Lady.

Maybe we should have sent Laura over there with a '63 Chevy and a bottle of Night Train.
 
2013-05-12 07:54:53 PM
glmorrs1: Really? 'Cause you sure are acting like ITT.

Yes really. I've been there and done that for 8 years. It's time consuming and a huge hassle which is why we stopped doing it when it was no longer needed. Now it might not have made a difference in this particular case if a few select units were on a better footing, however to apparently have nobody going through the motions just in case reeks of incompetence by someone.


Going through what motions?  Deploying half the farking military to everywhere on the goddamn planet, every goddamned year, just because the date happens to be 9/11?  I mean correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but that is what you areadvocating here.
 
2013-05-12 07:55:10 PM

SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.


So whose word should I value more, someone who has been in the military for decades and is the Secretary of Defense...or some guy on the internet?

Yes...let's just throw more people into the situation without thinking about it. Because evaluating the pros and cons of a situation is for pussies.
 
2013-05-12 07:56:51 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: I suggest you look at a map some time, because Turkey is as far away from Libya as Italy is. But we have military bases in the UAE, maybe they could... damn, that map ruins everything!

It is a big farking planet, and unlike your hindsight psychic abilities, we can't actually predict in advance what day terrorists will attack on (would you have predicted 9/11 prior to 2001?).


No, of course not. However I wouldn't be saying what I'm saying either. Context matters.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Forces stationed in Turkey would've still been a thousand kilometers away, you know.


Yes, I can read a map. My point was and is that nobody thought to follow the 6 P's.

Halli: WTO is a bit different from a terrorist attack. Might have something to do with a fixed date and a location.


See above.

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us, what deployments would have been necessary to have US forces on alert to deploy anywhere in the middle east within one hour on that day? How many planes, ships and troops deployed in what locations. Be specific about your solution to this problem that you believe to be so simple and obvious.


To deploy within an hour? Well, if you tell your people to be ready to go ahead of time they can do what it is that they know is going to be needed and have it ready to go. As to specifics that would be relative to the particular command. Again, it's not that we don't have things ready to go 24/7. it's that on that one date in particular it appears that nobody thought that maybe having at least some people ready for just that one day just in case might be a good idea.

hubiestubert: Please. Do go on. Were ALL embassies across the globe supposed to go on high alert, with air assets ready to buzz the tower? Was it just the ones where there might be some brown people, or the ones with a LOT of brown people near? What about those where there were dirty Commies? What about areas where ethnic cleansing had occurred? Was it just the ones where there were Muslim populations? Please, break down who was supposed to be on high alert, with Special Forces teams ready to extract, and which bases should have been covering who, and how the Embassies were supposed to coordinate with the military, and visa versa, especially in the face of cuts to their security staff, and likewise, please show your work on how the Department of State supersedes the command structure of the Defense Department's personnel.


Read what I replied to at first:

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

My question is why the hell not, at least for that one day of the year? Especially when you acknowledge that you know that there is turmoil going on at the time. I have no idea if they could have helped or not but to not have been a bit more prepared is idiotic. If I had not kept my gear ready to go and it was actually needed I would've had my ass handed to me by my CO and rightfully so.
 
2013-05-12 07:59:11 PM

buckler: Sure. How many Democrats were in your units, ya think?


Well since we didn't sit around talking politics, I wouldn't really know. You do realize that the split of those who identify themselves as a republican or democrat is pretty much an even split, right? No idea what point you're trying to make here.
 
2013-05-12 07:59:16 PM

Radioactive Ass: See above.


Uh huh. Clearly the US Military should get you into captain hindsight division.
 
2013-05-12 07:59:29 PM

clkeagle: That would explain the thought behind $2.8 billion dollars allocated for improved Abrams tanks... when we have two thousand mission-capable tanks (and thousands of other tracked vehicles like these 113-series) sitting unused in the Nevada desert:

[www.tacomlcmccommunityreport.com image 580x387]

Somewhere deep in the minds of Republicans is a fantasy. In that fantasy, we are lining up divisions of tanks and storming across the fields, deserts, or woods in a major symmetrical conflict. When in reality, the future will consist of very small skirmishes in who-knows-what terrain.

The Abrams, great system that it is, has been all but useless in the more mountainous regions of Afghanistan. It would be no different in the Balkans, Alps, Himalayas, or Taebaeks. Nor is it useful in any kind of swampy marshland. And in urban settings - which are definitely the conflicts of the future - a platoon of tanks is nothing but collateral damage that can be used as enemy propaganda.


The conservatives (bless their hearts!) are still fighting the second world war with John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart. It seems like they are unwilling to know how the world has changed in the last sixty-plus years. They certainly haven't figured out this internets stuff.
 
2013-05-12 07:59:39 PM

Fart_Machine: Four special forces guys in God Mode could have totally spawned in and pwnd that mob.


Especially with noclipping.  They could have come from every angle.
 
2013-05-12 08:00:41 PM

Radioactive Ass: Again. That particular date is one where one would expect trouble expressly directed at US targets abroad, moreso than any other date 9/11 tops the list. The Cole date (to use an example) is nowhere near being as symbolic as 9/11 in that regard.


It's not a football play where Obama makes a call, and terrorists make a call, and they both run at the same time and see who executes better, nor is there anything that requires terrorists to put their mortar shells away for 12 months if they see increased security in Tripoli.  If the ultimate goal is "destroy American Embassy in Libya", they wait until the security levels decrease.  If the ultimate goal is do something on 9/11, they (for example) drop a bomb in the streets and hope that the security detail starts shooting civilians up.

This is Monday morning quarterbacking of the highest order.  Did people make mistakes?  Obviously.  Was it obvious the day of?  Unclear. As another poster mentioned above, it's not like there were attacks on us embassies/consolates/interests regularly on 9/11.  The night of the Boston bombing it was clearly evident to Fark that the BPD erred by not having drug sniffing dogs and removing trash cans from the marathon route, right up until the bombs weren't in garbage cans and the police had drug sniffing dogs out.  Then it was obvious that the Saudi kid who was running away was part of the plot (it's still obvious to Glenn Beck).  Then when the photos of the suspects came out it was obvious that the police needed to be looking for a Pakistani and a Turk or possibly a Libyan and an Iranian.

And now it's just obvious that the feds should have been watching the Tsarnaevs.
 
2013-05-12 08:01:03 PM

Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Sure. How many Democrats were in your units, ya think?

Well since we didn't sit around talking politics, I wouldn't really know. You do realize that the split of those who identify themselves as a republican or democrat is pretty much an even split, right? No idea what point you're trying to make here.


Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. Any Democrat willing to actively enter a combat role is, by definition, not a coward. Your original statement fails.
 
2013-05-12 08:02:41 PM

buckler: Any Democrat willing to actively enter a combat role is, by definition, not a coward. Your original statement fails.


My comment was directed towards the current administration, not people that serve in the military.
 
2013-05-12 08:02:56 PM

Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Thank you for illustrating exactly the mental deficiency and willful and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are displaying. It was a brave choice to make yourself the example, and I commend you for your selflessness...

Thanks for that bit of derpiness on your part. I hope that if your area ever holds a WTO conference that your police dept goes "Meh, so what" and does nothing to prepare for it. Lets see how that might work out for you.


Considering that most after-action reportage of WTO conferences shows evidence that most of the trouble during the conference is instigated by the police?  Might actually help if they schlepped off to the donut shop and let people protest.

4.bp.blogspot.com

/I'm sure all the 'violent' protestors just happen to buy the same footwear from the same place as the local police department.
//I know I do, doesn't everyone?
 
2013-05-12 08:04:02 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Well since we didn't sit around talking politics, I wouldn't really know.


Yet you "know" Demorats are cowards.
 
2013-05-12 08:04:29 PM

Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Any Democrat willing to actively enter a combat role is, by definition, not a coward. Your original statement fails.

My comment was directed towards the current administration, not people that serve in the military.


Is next week when Obama is a blood thirsty drone tyrant?
 
2013-05-12 08:04:39 PM

SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.


so how long did it take for the first quick reaction team to arrive?
 
2013-05-12 08:07:29 PM
Pffft Popcornn Johhny is trying to come across as some hard core warrior, dbag was a scout helicopter mechanic, probably wasn't even rated as aircrew. Must have really seen the elephant in peace time Korea, Germany,Texas and the 72 in the Gulf, huh Johnny? And after in 8 years in a technical field you only made SSgt.? Total loser by an services standards.
 
2013-05-12 08:08:17 PM

Halli: Is next week when Obama is a blood thirsty drone tyrant?


I've never knocked Obama for taking military action, have I?
 
2013-05-12 08:08:33 PM

BSABSVR: A Dark Evil Omen: They should have just dispatched Solid Snake. He totally would have kicked the Bengayzee's asses. Sam Fisher, Commander Shepard or Kirby would also have been acceptable choices.

Number of times my Call of Duty Clan [AKFU] was called by Obama: 0

And with an average K/D ration of 15:1, I think we know a little something about a) how to take out a mob. and B) That it only takes .8 seconds to call in an airstrike.  Don't even get me stared on how to thin out a crowd by spamming bouncing bettys.


Yes. A million times yes.
 
2013-05-12 08:11:08 PM

Radioactive Ass: Wolf_Blitzer: I suggest you look at a map some time, because Turkey is as far away from Libya as Italy is. But we have military bases in the UAE, maybe they could... damn, that map ruins everything!

It is a big farking planet, and unlike your hindsight psychic abilities, we can't actually predict in advance what day terrorists will attack on (would you have predicted 9/11 prior to 2001?).

No, of course not. However I wouldn't be saying what I'm saying either. Context matters.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Forces stationed in Turkey would've still been a thousand kilometers away, you know.

Yes, I can read a map. My point was and is that nobody thought to follow the 6 P's.

Halli: WTO is a bit different from a terrorist attack. Might have something to do with a fixed date and a location.

See above.

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us, what deployments would have been necessary to have US forces on alert to deploy anywhere in the middle east within one hour on that day? How many planes, ships and troops deployed in what locations. Be specific about your solution to this problem that you believe to be so simple and obvious.

To deploy within an hour? Well, if you tell your people to be ready to go ahead of time they can do what it is that they know is going to be needed and have it ready to go. As to specifics that would be relative to the particular command. Again, it's not that we don't have things ready to go 24/7. it's that on that one date in particular it appears that nobody thought that maybe having at least some people ready for just that one day just in case might be a good idea.

hubiestubert: Please. Do go on. Were ALL embassies across the globe supposed to go on high alert, with air assets ready to buzz the tower? Was it just the ones where there might be some brown people, or the ones with a LOT of brown people near? What about those where there were dirty Commies? What about areas where ethnic cleansing had occurred? Was it just the ones where there were Muslim p ...


To be on scene within one hour so that they can actually intervene.  List every deployment needed
 
2013-05-12 08:11:56 PM

SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.


In an alternative universe where the Obama administration sends a bunch of randoms into Libya without any planning whatsoever:

"So Obama just sends underarmed, unprepared teams into the middle of a freaking bloodbath without any regard for the fact that he is essentially sending people off to die?  And F-16s?  A fast-attack dogfighter without the turning radius to provide adequate ground support?  What, did he think that hardened terrorists were just going to run in fear at a loud noise?  What should have been a tragedy that lost us 4 people cost us dozens and did nothing but embolden terrorists all over the middle east that even the best of the best the US has are fish in a barrel so long as Zero McEars commands them"
 
2013-05-12 08:12:00 PM

Fart_Machine: 9/11 changed everything including making sure the US military is available any place on the globe instantaneously. Study it out.


Not what I said at all. Study it out yourself.

glmorrs1: Going through what motions? Deploying half the farking military to everywhere on the goddamn planet, every goddamned year, just because the date happens to be 9/11? I mean correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but that is what you areadvocating here.


Not half, not even close. maybe, maybe half a dozen small units and their support who are at least prepared and aware of what may be asked of them. When it takes 24 hours to get stuff gathered up and transported less than 1,000 miles away (I'm not even talking about heavy equipment, I'm saying trained guys with standard weaponry greater than a 9mm pistol and some light body armor) then there was a problem that should be addressed.
 
2013-05-12 08:14:15 PM
Did they mention scrambling F-16's from Aviano to get there in less than an hour while pulling off a 100ft MACH 1.5 flyby?
 
2013-05-12 08:14:23 PM

Radioactive Ass: fusillade762: Budget cuts. And ask yourself who was responsible for those.

The men get paid the same no matter where they are. Budget cuts aren't going to change that. Nice try though.


Budget cuts don't change that, you're right. But when you cut the State Department's budget so that they can't afford to have a decent standing force of Marines at each consulate, you're sort of responsible when that lack of Marines leads to a consulate getting over run.
 
2013-05-12 08:15:13 PM

SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.


Gates' assessment is spot on. A military response would have placed more troops in harms' way... and more importantly, placed more Libyan civilians in harms' way. If the Libyan government was unwilling to respond with their own forces, we were best to stay away.

In response to the bolded portion - there is an answer, but has nothing to do with any current administration official. The simple fact is that the State Department, Defense Department, and CIA don't coordinate their efforts. And that goes well beyond any single consulate or imminent-danger area. It's not a scandal, but a systemic problem that needs to be fixed by both Congress and the respective federal agencies up to the Cabinet.

The attacks happened. They are finished. A witch hunt isn't going to improve our response to the next attack. That will only be solved by sitting down representatives from multiple agencies with representatives from their respective Congressional committees. They need to figure out how to communicate with each other... how to coordinate their threat assessments, how to share intelligence, how to allocate security resources, and how to deal with attacks and other contingencies. Whatever it takes.

A central database of current operations, capabilities and threats - with inputs from all involved parties? I'm not saying that a Marine captain needs to know the nature of a CIA clandestine operation - but maybe he/she needs to know that the CIA are doing something in a given city, and there needs to be an efficient way to get a message from one to the other.

Security and facility resources allocated by specific threat ratings? A policy that says all consulates are temporarily closed at a specific threat level, and all personnel and assets are recalled to the closest embassy? Maybe even include the host nation on that policy... an understanding that if we say these guys are leaving the consulate right this second - you will provide us clear street and airspace, no questions asked.

It seems like the people in power could figure out how to do it, if they would only surrender their little fiefdoms and put some time and effort into it.
 
2013-05-12 08:16:01 PM
Looks like Gates hit a nerve, Fark Benghazimongers are in a tizzy.
 
2013-05-12 08:17:15 PM

brainiac-dumdum: Looks like Gates hit a nerve, Fark Benghazimongers are in a tizzy.


Sunset's response was hysterical.
 
2013-05-12 08:17:26 PM

Radioactive Ass: Not what I said at all. Study it out yourself.


I was using snark but your suggestion is almost as ridiculous.
 
2013-05-12 08:17:53 PM

VictoryCabal: I blame Michael Bay.  I know that's my stock answer for a lot of things, but stick with me here.  Remember early in the first Transformers movie -- hold on, don't pretend you didn't see it.  Remember early in the movie when the soldiers are fleeing across the desert and they're attacked by Scorponok?  One of them makes a credit card call and within an minute and a half, an AC-130 begins raining fiery death and saves teh day.

I'm convinced a lot of Benghazi derpers honestly believe the military works this way.  I remember early in the Benghazi story, there was an actual Freeper conspiracy theory about an AC-130 circling overhead which Obama personally told to stand down so as not to offend Muslims, or something.

Anyway, they seem to think this is how shiat actually works.  Which is why I blame Michael Bay.


If our schools taught science and logical thinking more gooder, then people would walk out of Michael Bay movies because they are full of plot holes and blatant physics violations.

Yes, yes, movie.  But there's suspension of disbelief, and then there is hanging it by the neck until dead and then hitting it with sticks until the candy comes out, and nobody questions why a fresh corpse is full of candy.  Then the candy explodes, for no adequately explored reason.
 
2013-05-12 08:18:53 PM

Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Any Democrat willing to actively enter a combat role is, by definition, not a coward. Your original statement fails.

My comment was directed towards the current administration, not people that serve in the military.


OK...some examples?
 
2013-05-12 08:19:58 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Halli: Is next week when Obama is a blood thirsty drone tyrant?

I've never knocked Obama for taking military action, have I?


So your whole act consists of not making sense. Got it.
 
2013-05-12 08:20:26 PM

Bane of Broone: buckler: Bane of Broone: Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.

[sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

Huh. Back in the eighties, when I voluntarily offered to give my life to my country in the Army if needed, I was a Democrat. Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

Johnny doesn't even vote.


JOHNNY DON'T SURF!
 
2013-05-12 08:20:54 PM

Gyrfalcon: In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli-


And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?
 
2013-05-12 08:22:36 PM

Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Any Democrat willing to actively enter a combat role is, by definition, not a coward. Your original statement fails.

My comment was directed towards the current administration, not people that serve in the military.


Because that was easily identifiable in your original statement. Keep moving those goalposts.
 
2013-05-12 08:23:05 PM

Mrtraveler01: So whose word should I value more, someone who has been in the military for decades and is the Secretary of Defense...or some guy on the internet?

Yes...let's just throw more people into the situation without thinking about it. Because evaluating the pros and cons of a situation is for pussies.


And if we did what the troll said and all the troops responding died, I'm sure he PROMISES he wouldn't freak out and call for Obama's murder trial for sending in the troops like a moron.

To the other right wingers:
To be able to cover all areas we'd need dozens of bases in every country of the world and a much larger military so they can sit around on shifts on standby.  This would cost a lot of money and piss off the world due to the hundreds/thousands of military bases we'd need for this.   Which would lead to more and more attacks.

Which would cost a huge amount of additional money.

And in the mean time, every right wing politicians, pundits, and think tank is demanding that close all overseas bases and bring those troops back to the states.
 
2013-05-12 08:23:58 PM

fusillade762: Bane of Broone: buckler: Bane of Broone: Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.

[sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

Huh. Back in the eighties, when I voluntarily offered to give my life to my country in the Army if needed, I was a Democrat. Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

Johnny doesn't even vote.

JOHNNY DON'T SURF!


No, CHARLIE don't surf.  Sheesh.
 
2013-05-12 08:25:14 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Sure. How many Democrats were in your units, ya think?

Well since we didn't sit around talking politics, I wouldn't really know. You do realize that the split of those who identify themselves as a republican or democrat is pretty much an even split, right? No idea what point you're trying to make here.


DIG UP, STUPID.
 
2013-05-12 08:25:17 PM

stoli n coke: vygramul: Not to put too fine a point on it, but liberals often have a cartoonish impression of US military capability as well. In fact, the military is either an unbeatable juggernaut of instant death anywhere and anytime, or a bungling, incapable buffoonery at others, depending on the political circumstances under discussion.

Because they know that 4 Special Forces troops stationed 500 miles from Benghazi probably can't get to the consulate (Black Hawk helicopter's top speed is less than 200mph) and be ready to put down an armed mob within an hour?

That's not incapable buffoonery. That's math.


I was speaking in the general case.
 
2013-05-12 08:25:33 PM

Halli: So your whole act consists of not making sense. Got it.


It's a pretty lazy trolling technique but effective.
 
2013-05-12 08:26:18 PM

MisterRonbo: Gyrfalcon: In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli-

And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?


On Strike Back two special forces commandos fought their way through Johannesburg armed with only side arms and whatever they could take off of the people they killed, so why can't 4 real special forces commandos do it?
 
2013-05-12 08:27:50 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Halli: Is next week when Obama is a blood thirsty drone tyrant?

I've never knocked Obama for taking military action, have I?


Don't know. I've never really noticed you until today.
 
2013-05-12 08:28:22 PM

MisterRonbo: Gyrfalcon: In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli-

And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?


I hadn't even heard this little gem of a detail. That makes Republicans histrionic "Fartbongo could've sent in the green berets and didn't! IMPEACH!!" even more pathetic.
 
2013-05-12 08:30:12 PM
Psh. They could have gotten kill packages. Republicans do it all the time in call of duty.
 
2013-05-12 08:31:14 PM

Mister Peejay: VictoryCabal: I blame Michael Bay.  I know that's my stock answer for a lot of things, but stick with me here.  Remember early in the first Transformers movie -- hold on, don't pretend you didn't see it.  Remember early in the movie when the soldiers are fleeing across the desert and they're attacked by Scorponok?  One of them makes a credit card call and within an minute and a half, an AC-130 begins raining fiery death and saves teh day.

I'm convinced a lot of Benghazi derpers honestly believe the military works this way.  I remember early in the Benghazi story, there was an actual Freeper conspiracy theory about an AC-130 circling overhead which Obama personally told to stand down so as not to offend Muslims, or something.

Anyway, they seem to think this is how shiat actually works.  Which is why I blame Michael Bay.

If our schools taught science and logical thinking more gooder, then people would walk out of Michael Bay movies because they are full of plot holes and blatant physics violations.

Yes, yes, movie.  But there's suspension of disbelief, and then there is hanging it by the neck until dead and then hitting it with sticks until the candy comes out, and nobody questions why a fresh corpse is full of candy.  Then the candy explodes, for no adequately explored reason.


The problem with people's thinking on the military's capabilities goes back further than Michael Bay. The movie that launched everyone into the derposphere was First Blood Part II. While the first was a good movie exploring the shabby treatment of our veterans and lack of help for PTSD, the second was just a ra-ra circle jerk for Reaganites and Cold War paranoids.

It was funny how Rambo cured himself of PTSD within 3 years and refashioned himself as an unstoppable killing machine that could wipe out entire battalions single-handed.
 
2013-05-12 08:31:20 PM

Tymast: fusillade762: Radioactive Ass: Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

Budget cuts. And ask yourself who was responsible for those.

The democrats, if they had won enough seats the GOP would not have had the power to cut the budget.


+1
 
2013-05-12 08:33:56 PM
Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Please. Do go on. Were ALL embassies across the globe supposed to go on high alert, with air assets ready to buzz the tower? Was it just the ones where there might be some brown people, or the ones with a LOT of brown people near? What about those where there were dirty Commies? What about areas where ethnic cleansing had occurred? Was it just the ones where there were Muslim p ...

Read what I replied to at first:

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

My question is why the hell not, at least for that one day of the year? Especially when you acknowledge that you know that there is turmoil going on at the time. I have no idea if they could have helped or not but to not have been a bit more prepared is idiotic. If I had not kept my gear ready to go and it was actually needed I would've had my ass handed to me by my CO and rightfully so.


Go back and read what I wrote: what you are posting is EXACTLY the sort of willful ignorance of actual military matters. It illustrates quite succinctly the same lack of knowledge, and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are showing.

Break down, right now, HOW many Embassies need EXACTLY how many units, on high alert. Break down the number of support personnel needed to do exactly that. Across the globe. How many teams, how many crews, and where they need to deploy from. Please, do go on. You're asking questions that anyone with a smidgen of experience would never ask. And worse, you are fully expecting others to share that ignorance...
 
2013-05-12 08:33:58 PM

vygramul: stoli n coke: vygramul: Not to put too fine a point on it, but liberals often have a cartoonish impression of US military capability as well. In fact, the military is either an unbeatable juggernaut of instant death anywhere and anytime, or a bungling, incapable buffoonery at others, depending on the political circumstances under discussion.

Because they know that 4 Special Forces troops stationed 500 miles from Benghazi probably can't get to the consulate (Black Hawk helicopter's top speed is less than 200mph) and be ready to put down an armed mob within an hour?

That's not incapable buffoonery. That's math.

I was speaking in the general case.


Ive never seen libs or dems speak as though the military was full of incapable bungling baffoons.

And, their usual stance is saying wars will be a lot more work than at first glance and thus tend to push against nation building stupidity.

I would say dems and libs have a pretty historically accurate concept of military capability.
 
2013-05-12 08:34:24 PM

clancifer: EnviroDude: Gates: 911, please send the fire department to my house - I see flames.
911: I´m sorry, they couldn´t possibly get there in time.
Gates: How do you know? Please, please.
911: You have a cartoonish view of fire department capability.

/ripped from RPool

Why would rip that? Other than to shreads, that is.


Because EnviroDude prefers to let others do his thinking for him.
 
2013-05-12 08:35:05 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: MisterRonbo: Gyrfalcon: In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli-

And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?

I hadn't even heard this little gem of a detail. That makes Republicans histrionic "Fartbongo could've sent in the green berets and didn't! IMPEACH!!" even more pathetic.


Not only that, a CIA team DID respond immediately and was able to evacuate everyone except the two dipomats that were killed within the first 30 minutes of the attack.  The other two casualties happened several hours later when a mortar hit the roof directly and killed two CIA employees.
 
2013-05-12 08:35:34 PM

SunsetLament: what Gates


This summarizes the entire Benghazithon nicely.  Political agenda trumps experts.  Plus, non-experts know more than experts.
 
2013-05-12 08:35:58 PM

somedude210: Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.

and Popcorn Johnny is an idiot, so I guess reality is in everyone else's favor?


I knew his defense of rapists had to come from somewhere.
 
2013-05-12 08:37:44 PM

Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Well, he's right. Folks seem to think that their military is sitting in a room waiting to be unleashed like a video game. You have X amount of units, and they can respond immediately to any threat within their area of operations at a moment's notice. That we have everyone on alert, 24 hours a day, and that units are just waiting to be sent out, planes and helicopters gassed up and ready, and already armed with various payloads, and pilots just pick the plane or chopper that is right for the mission like it's some kind of game.

Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.

I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

If it had happened on, say, the 11th of February or whatever then I could understand it. You are correct, we don't usually have troops on hot standby 24\7 and haven't for a very long time (Cold war era). But to have to go to Norther Italy, Spain and Croatia for men and equipment (and even then they aren't on standby, on Sept. 11th) is a major screw up by someone.


The date of 9-11 is a big deal in this country. I'm not certain it's as ingrained into the Libyan lexicon as it is ours. I don't think Rudy Giuliani has visited Libya that often, nor do I think the majority of Libyans watch Fox News.

I would submit that to automatically assume a date that's significant to us holds the same significance to other countries is very shallow, arrogant thinking.
 
2013-05-12 08:37:56 PM

clkeagle: The simple fact is that the State Department, Defense Department, and CIA don't coordinate their efforts. And that goes well beyond any single consulate or imminent-danger area. It's not a scandal, but a systemic problem that needs to be fixed by both Congress and the respective federal agencies up to the Cabinet.

The attacks happened. They are finished. A witch hunt isn't going to improve our response to the next attack. That will only be solved by sitting down representatives from multiple agencies with representatives from their respective Congressional committees. They need to figure out how to communicate with each other... how to coordinate their threat assessments, how to share intelligence, how to allocate security resources, and how to deal with attacks and other contingencies. Whatever it takes.


This, this and more this.  Quite frankly, those four Americans were dead as soon as the first shot was fired, and it is a testament to the CIA and security personnel that were there that those were the only lives lost.  Nothing more could have done once the attack started.

The bigger issue is that there was a complete failure in embassy security preparation, including insufficient security personnel and over-reliance on a bunch of kids with AK-47s calling themselves a militia.  Chances are there are a bunch of bureaucrats to blame for not talking or listening to each other, but there is no grand conspiracy afoot.  It was most likely a systemic failure that requires a systemic response.  But as usual, the politicians on both sides are more interested in pointing fingers or absolving themselves of blame, rather than reorganizing an entrenched bureaucracy that is more interested in passing the blame to the next department over rather than implementing real change.

Why can't we all be adults and just say, "Yeah, our diplomatic security system has some major flaws that we didn't really account for, it's been this way for years and worked but obviously the world is different now, so let's start from scratch and rebuild it and make it work for today."
 
2013-05-12 08:39:51 PM

stoli n coke: The problem with people's thinking on the military's capabilities goes back further than Michael Bay. The movie that launched everyone into the derposphere was First Blood Part II. While the first was a good movie exploring the shabby treatment of our veterans and lack of help for PTSD, the second was just a ra-ra circle jerk for Reaganites and Cold War paranoids.

It was funny how Rambo cured himself of PTSD within 3 years and refashioned himself as an unstoppable killing machine that could wipe out entire battalions single-handed.


Human growth hormone.
 
2013-05-12 08:40:24 PM

BSABSVR: It's not a football play where Obama makes a call, and terrorists make a call, and they both run at the same time and see who executes better, nor is there anything that requires terrorists to put their mortar shells away for 12 months if they see increased security in Tripoli. If the ultimate goal is "destroy American Embassy in Libya", they wait until the security levels decrease. If the ultimate goal is do something on 9/11, they (for example) drop a bomb in the streets and hope that the security detail starts shooting civilians up.


Sure. But when it's the 4th down in the last quarter with 5 seconds to go and the team with the ball is behind by 1 point (to use your football analogy) you keep an eye out for the team with the ball to try and win. You don't treat it like you've already won and walk off of the field.

Philip Francis Queeg: To be on scene within one hour so that they can actually intervene. List every deployment needed


That was never my criteria. Never said it was. That's your requirement and it actually is cartoonish.
 
2013-05-12 08:40:36 PM

Smackledorfer: vygramul: stoli n coke: vygramul: Not to put too fine a point on it, but liberals often have a cartoonish impression of US military capability as well. In fact, the military is either an unbeatable juggernaut of instant death anywhere and anytime, or a bungling, incapable buffoonery at others, depending on the political circumstances under discussion.

Because they know that 4 Special Forces troops stationed 500 miles from Benghazi probably can't get to the consulate (Black Hawk helicopter's top speed is less than 200mph) and be ready to put down an armed mob within an hour?

That's not incapable buffoonery. That's math.

I was speaking in the general case.

Ive never seen libs or dems speak as though the military was full of incapable bungling baffoons.

And, their usual stance is saying wars will be a lot more work than at first glance and thus tend to push against nation building stupidity.

I would say dems and libs have a pretty historically accurate concept of military capability.


How many casualties were we going to take in 1991? How many casualties predicted for OIF because the street-fighting is totally different and Baghdad'll be like Stalingrad?

Both times, five-figure dead were asserted by people in opposition to the war.

Heck, there are people who think Vietnam ended with the North advancing as we withdrew and with the helo pic in Saigon was the last of the withdrawal under fire.
 
2013-05-12 08:40:39 PM

Clutch2013: I knew his defense of rapists had to come from somewhere.


Is this about the girl that claimed she was raped and committed suicide? You know, the case that was thoroughly investigated by police and nothing found. That the one you're biatching about?
 
2013-05-12 08:40:51 PM

Radioactive Ass: Fart_Machine: 9/11 changed everything including making sure the US military is available any place on the globe instantaneously. Study it out.

Not what I said at all. Study it out yourself.

glmorrs1: Going through what motions? Deploying half the farking military to everywhere on the goddamn planet, every goddamned year, just because the date happens to be 9/11? I mean correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but that is what you areadvocating here.

Not half, not even close. maybe, maybe half a dozen small units and their support who are at least prepared and aware of what may be asked of them. When it takes 24 hours to get stuff gathered up and transported less than 1,000 miles away (I'm not even talking about heavy equipment, I'm saying trained guys with standard weaponry greater than a 9mm pistol and some light body armor) then there was a problem that should be addressed.


Yes, I guess in hindsight, there was a problem.  It was 9/11, crazy bad shiat could go down on 9/11!  How could we not see that Libya, farking Libya of all places, would be attacked on that date and that we'd need one of those "half a dozen small units" on alert and stationed nearby to take care of it?
 
2013-05-12 08:41:36 PM

ratman999: Why can't we all be adults and just say, "Yeah, our diplomatic security system has some major flaws that we didn't really account for, it's been this way for years and worked but obviously the world is different now, so let's start from scratch and rebuild it and make it work for today."


That doesn't win elections.  Also tough to fit on a bumper sticker.
 
2013-05-12 08:42:32 PM
farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2013-05-12 08:46:43 PM

glmorrs1: Yes, I guess in hindsight, there was a problem. It was 9/11, crazy bad shiat could go down on 9/11! How could we not see that Libya, farking Libya of all places, would be attacked on that date and that we'd need one of those "half a dozen small units" on alert and stationed nearby to take care of it?


According to Gates the biggest problem was the danger of sending small units into an unknown situation.
 
2013-05-12 08:46:50 PM

SamWaters: Did Obama find the Benghazi Killers yet?  He promised to find and arrest them. How hard can it be?  He has pictures and everything.

[global.fncstatic.com image 660x371]


Alert the Strike Force! Be on the lookout for 'Non' from Superman II, Tupac Shakur and the Geico Caveman!
SHOW THEM NO MERCY!
 
2013-05-12 08:48:17 PM

Radioactive Ass: BSABSVR: It's not a football play where Obama makes a call, and terrorists make a call, and they both run at the same time and see who executes better, nor is there anything that requires terrorists to put their mortar shells away for 12 months if they see increased security in Tripoli. If the ultimate goal is "destroy American Embassy in Libya", they wait until the security levels decrease. If the ultimate goal is do something on 9/11, they (for example) drop a bomb in the streets and hope that the security detail starts shooting civilians up.

Sure. But when it's the 4th down in the last quarter with 5 seconds to go and the team with the ball is behind by 1 point (to use your football analogy) you keep an eye out for the team with the ball to try and win. You don't treat it like you've already won and walk off of the field.

Philip Francis Queeg: To be on scene within one hour so that they can actually intervene. List every deployment needed

That was never my criteria. Never said it was. That's your requirement and it actually is cartoonish.


well then tell us exactly what response time you think should  been in place throughout the mid east. two hours? 4? 12?
 
2013-05-12 08:48:17 PM

Mister Peejay: VictoryCabal: I blame Michael Bay.  I know that's my stock answer for a lot of things, but stick with me here.  Remember early in the first Transformers movie -- hold on, don't pretend you didn't see it.  Remember early in the movie when the soldiers are fleeing across the desert and they're attacked by Scorponok?  One of them makes a credit card call and within an minute and a half, an AC-130 begins raining fiery death and saves teh day.

I'm convinced a lot of Benghazi derpers honestly believe the military works this way.  I remember early in the Benghazi story, there was an actual Freeper conspiracy theory about an AC-130 circling overhead which Obama personally told to stand down so as not to offend Muslims, or something.

Anyway, they seem to think this is how shiat actually works.  Which is why I blame Michael Bay.

If our schools taught science and logical thinking more gooder, then people would walk out of Michael Bay movies because they are full of plot holes and blatant physics violations.

Yes, yes, movie.  But there's suspension of disbelief, and then there is hanging it by the neck until dead and then hitting it with sticks until the candy comes out, and nobody questions why a fresh corpse is full of candy.  Then the candy explodes, for no adequately explored reason.

 
2013-05-12 08:48:21 PM

PerilousApricot: Tymast: fusillade762: Radioactive Ass: Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

Budget cuts. And ask yourself who was responsible for those.

The democrats, if they had won enough seats the GOP would not have had the power to cut the budget.

+1


unfortunately the "libs" don't have a social conditioning pogrom operating with the help of corporate media coordinating with the churches in the country to keep the faithful and nationalistic infromed.
 
2013-05-12 08:49:12 PM

BSABSVR: The night of the Boston bombing it was clearly evident to Fark that the BPD erred by not having drug bomb sniffing dogs and removing trash cans from the marathon route, right up until the bombs weren't in garbage cans and the police had drug bomb sniffing dogs out.


Dogs are trained to alert on a specific scent. Even once a dog is trained to alert for, say, cocaine, he still has to be trained separately to alert for marijuana.

Bomb sniffing dogs are trained to alert on gunpowder and the more common explosives.

And there are dogs trained to alert on other things - DVDs, for example, to catch large shipments of counterfeits.

Former K9 officer told me a dog is good for about two hours of work a day.  If you have a large area to cover and an event that runs all day, you'll probably need quite a few explosives-trained dogs to watch for bombs like this.  I doubt they had enough in the Boston PD.
 
2013-05-12 08:54:15 PM

Fart_Machine: glmorrs1: Yes, I guess in hindsight, there was a problem. It was 9/11, crazy bad shiat could go down on 9/11! How could we not see that Libya, farking Libya of all places, would be attacked on that date and that we'd need one of those "half a dozen small units" on alert and stationed nearby to take care of it?

According to Gates the biggest problem was the danger of sending small units into an unknown situation.


I know, I was addressing what Radioactive Ass perceives to be the problem, which seems to be that we weren't psychic enough to be better prepared for a spontaneous terrorist attack in a city off the west coast of Africa.
 
2013-05-12 08:56:25 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-12 08:59:15 PM

glmorrs1: Fart_Machine: glmorrs1: Yes, I guess in hindsight, there was a problem. It was 9/11, crazy bad shiat could go down on 9/11! How could we not see that Libya, farking Libya of all places, would be attacked on that date and that we'd need one of those "half a dozen small units" on alert and stationed nearby to take care of it?

According to Gates the biggest problem was the danger of sending small units into an unknown situation.

I know, I was addressing what Radioactive Ass perceives to be the problem, which seems to be that we weren't psychic enough to be better prepared for a spontaneous terrorist attack in a city off the west coast of Africa.


yeah I mean there was what? 19 different attacks across the middle east that day because of the protests and the anniversary?  why couldn't they have known that Benghazi was the one to focus all their efforts on?
 
2013-05-12 08:59:57 PM

Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

US Army 1986 to 1994. Rank: SSG MOS: 67V

Served in Korea, Germany, Texas and Iraq.

Any other questions?


So, you were a pogue-ass pouge who served during the coldest point in the cold war?  Man, I hope when I need a rotary wing mechanic to explain force on force conflict to me, you're around.
 
2013-05-12 09:01:37 PM

glmorrs1: Yes, I guess in hindsight, there was a problem.  It was 9/11, crazy bad shiat could go down on 9/11!  How could we not see that Libya, farking Libya of all places, would be attacked on that date and that we'd need one of those "half a dozen small units" on alert and stationed nearby to take care of it?


Here's a math problem for you. Email this map to yourself on September 10th, 2012, with directions to number 1-6 where in the Muslim world you should place six "small units" to respond to potential anniversary threats.

upload.wikimedia.org

You couldn't respond to any possible attack in the Muslim world within an hour with a hundred response teams - armed and sitting in a helicopter with the engines running. Let alone the handful of assets we actually have available.

This is why general security is contracted to the respective host nations.  Maybe that's the wrong answer. Maybe we should shutter every one of our large bases in developed nations entirely, and retrain and reassign those 250,000+ troops into small QRFs in every third-world diplomatic facility.

Logistically, it's possible. Let me know when Congress will approve, and fund, a plan of that nature.
 
2013-05-12 09:02:07 PM

Radioactive Ass: The job of the military is to be ready in the event of something happening and then figuring out where those things are most likely to happen. Is Northern Italy a current hot spot or is the Middle East, especially on that date, the best place to have men and equipment available?



You do realize where Tripoli is located right?  Northern Italy is a lot closer than, say, Jordan or the UAE.
 
2013-05-12 09:03:14 PM

Radioactive Ass: Philip Francis Queeg: To be on scene within one hour so that they can actually intervene. List every deployment needed

That was never my criteria. Never said it was. That's your requirement and it actually is cartoonish.


The Pentagon timeline of the attack:  It started at 9:42, everyone (including the dead ambassador and 1 other casualty) were evacuated from the consulate by 11:30.

That's, at most, an hour and 45 minutes between the beginning of the attack and the death of the ambassador.  You say that the military should have had someone standing by that could have saved their lives.  One hour to just get to Benghazi is consistent with your requirement since they'd still need time to fight off the attackers.

Nice of you to admit that your own criteria are cartoonish.
 
2013-05-12 09:05:24 PM

glmorrs1: Mister Peejay: VictoryCabal: I blame Michael Bay.  I know that's my stock answer for a lot of things, but stick with me here.  Remember early in the first Transformers movie -- hold on, don't pretend you didn't see it.  Remember early in the movie when the soldiers are fleeing across the desert and they're attacked by Scorponok?  One of them makes a credit card call and within an minute and a half, an AC-130 begins raining fiery death and saves teh day.

I'm convinced a lot of Benghazi derpers honestly believe the military works this way.  I remember early in the Benghazi story, there was an actual Freeper conspiracy theory about an AC-130 circling overhead which Obama personally told to stand down so as not to offend Muslims, or something.

Anyway, they seem to think this is how shiat actually works.  Which is why I blame Michael Bay.

If our schools taught science and logical thinking more gooder, then people would walk out of Michael Bay movies because they are full of plot holes and blatant physics violations.

Yes, yes, movie.  But there's suspension of disbelief, and then there is hanging it by the neck until dead and then hitting it with sticks until the candy comes out, and nobody questions why a fresh corpse is full of candy.  Then the candy explodes, for no adequately explored reason.


Let's just pretend I posted a gif of Eddie Izzard eating popcorn in that reply.
 
2013-05-12 09:09:16 PM

hubiestubert: Go back and read what I wrote: what you are posting is EXACTLY the sort of willful ignorance of actual military matters. It illustrates quite succinctly the same lack of knowledge, and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are showing.

Break down, right now, HOW many Embassies need EXACTLY how many units, on high alert. Break down the number of support personnel needed to do exactly that. Across the globe. How many teams, how many crews, and where they need to deploy from. Please, do go on. You're asking questions that anyone with a smidgen of experience would never ask. And worse, you are fully expecting others to share that ignorance...


And again, you don't need everyone everywhere ready to go at any time. I have never said that here or elsewhere. However, on that particular date and under those particuar conditions that Gates himself acknowledged, to not have anyone ready to go that was within an hour of at least moving in their direction (or some other direction instead should it be called for) reeks of someone dropping the ball.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

Apparently nobody thought that the underlined part was important, especially on that particular date. As to who was responsible? I have no idea. I don't think that it's the presidents or SecDefs job to micromanage troop readiness schedules or levels of readiness other than in a very broad sense, on the other hand I don't think that it's the job of the guys actually carrying the rifles to do so either. It's somewhere in between the two.

basham: The date of 9-11 is a big deal in this country. I'm not certain it's as ingrained into the Libyan lexicon as it is ours. I don't think Rudy Giuliani has visited Libya that often, nor do I think the majority of Libyans watch Fox News.

I would submit that to automatically assume a date that's significant to us holds the same significance to other countries is very shallow, arrogant thinking.


And yet that's the date that they picked to do it. So much for shallow, arrogant thinking huh?

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps that date was picked because they know that it does have meaning to the people that they attacked? No, just dumb brown people who have no idea at all about how Americans feel about 9/11 instead. Talk about shallow and arrogant thinking.
 
2013-05-12 09:12:53 PM

clkeagle: glmorrs1: Yes, I guess in hindsight, there was a problem.  It was 9/11, crazy bad shiat could go down on 9/11!  How could we not see that Libya, farking Libya of all places, would be attacked on that date and that we'd need one of those "half a dozen small units" on alert and stationed nearby to take care of it?

Here's a math problem for you. Email this map to yourself on September 10th, 2012, with directions to number 1-6 where in the Muslim world you should place six "small units" to respond to potential anniversary threats.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x295]

You couldn't respond to any possible attack in the Muslim world within an hour with a hundred response teams - armed and sitting in a helicopter with the engines running. Let alone the handful of assets we actually have available.

This is why general security is contracted to the respective host nations.  Maybe that's the wrong answer. Maybe we should shutter every one of our large bases in developed nations entirely, and retrain and reassign those 250,000+ troops into small QRFs in every third-world diplomatic facility.

Logistically, it's possible. Let me know when Congress will approve, and fund, a plan of that nature.


You should be asking this to Radioactive Ass, he's the one that said we just needed half a dozen units to take care of any problem that may arise anywhere in world on a moments notice.
 
2013-05-12 09:14:18 PM

clkeagle: glmorrs1: Yes, I guess in hindsight, there was a problem.  It was 9/11, crazy bad shiat could go down on 9/11!  How could we not see that Libya, farking Libya of all places, would be attacked on that date and that we'd need one of those "half a dozen small units" on alert and stationed nearby to take care of it?

Here's a math problem for you. Email this map to yourself on September 10th, 2012, with directions to number 1-6 where in the Muslim world you should place six "small units" to respond to potential anniversary threats.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x295]

You couldn't respond to any possible attack in the Muslim world within an hour with a hundred response teams - armed and sitting in a helicopter with the engines running. Let alone the handful of assets we actually have available.

This is why general security is contracted to the respective host nations.  Maybe that's the wrong answer. Maybe we should shutter every one of our large bases in developed nations entirely, and retrain and reassign those 250,000+ troops into small QRFs in every third-world diplomatic facility.

Logistically, it's possible. Let me know when Congress will approve, and fund, a plan of that nature


THats not diplomatically possible. Consulate security is always the responsibility of the hist country. The US would never allow a foreign military presence at every consulate in the US.
 
2013-05-12 09:15:18 PM

Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Go back and read what I wrote: what you are posting is EXACTLY the sort of willful ignorance of actual military matters. It illustrates quite succinctly the same lack of knowledge, and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are showing.

Break down, right now, HOW many Embassies need EXACTLY how many units, on high alert. Break down the number of support personnel needed to do exactly that. Across the globe. How many teams, how many crews, and where they need to deploy from. Please, do go on. You're asking questions that anyone with a smidgen of experience would never ask. And worse, you are fully expecting others to share that ignorance...

And again, you don't need everyone everywhere ready to go at any time. I have never said that here or elsewhere. However, on that particular date and under those particuar conditions that Gates himself acknowledged, to not have anyone ready to go that was within an hour of at least moving in their direction (or some other direction instead should it be called for) reeks of someone dropping the ball.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

Apparently nobody thought that the underlined part was important, especially on that particular date. As to who was responsible? I have no idea. I don't think that it's the presidents or SecDefs job to micromanage troop readiness schedules or levels of readiness other than in a very broad sense, on the other hand I don't think that it's the job of the guys actually carrying the rifles to do so either. It's somewhere in between the two.

basham: The date of 9-11 is a big deal in this country. I'm not certain it's as ingrained into the Libyan lexicon as it is ours. I don't think Rudy Giuliani has visited Libya that often, nor do I think the major ...


I'm pretty sure the terrorists picked that day because there were protests going on and said protests provided perfect cover for launching a surprise attack on the consulate.  But, that's just my opinion.
 
2013-05-12 09:17:26 PM

EnviroDude: Gates: 911, please send the fire department to my house - I see flames.
911: I´m sorry, they couldn´t possibly get there in time.
Gates: How do you know? Please, please.
911: You have a cartoonish view of fire department capability.

/ripped from RPool


i.ytimg.com
 
2013-05-12 09:18:41 PM

19 Kilo: So, you were a pogue-ass pouge who served during the coldest point in the cold war?  Man, I hope when I need a rotary wing mechanic to explain force on force conflict to me, you're around.


What's wrong, test scores not high enough for aviation?
 
2013-05-12 09:19:27 PM
All the Republicans are asking is why we couldn't have sent in these guys:
th00.deviantart.net

Or even just one of them with the U.S. Olympic Gymnastic Team would have sufficed:
www.mentalfloss.com

Didn't you "Dumbocrats" watch the Saturday morning military documentaries?
 
2013-05-12 09:20:25 PM

glmorrs1: Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Go back and read what I wrote: what you are posting is EXACTLY the sort of willful ignorance of actual military matters. It illustrates quite succinctly the same lack of knowledge, and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are showing.

Break down, right now, HOW many Embassies need EXACTLY how many units, on high alert. Break down the number of support personnel needed to do exactly that. Across the globe. How many teams, how many crews, and where they need to deploy from. Please, do go on. You're asking questions that anyone with a smidgen of experience would never ask. And worse, you are fully expecting others to share that ignorance...

And again, you don't need everyone everywhere ready to go at any time. I have never said that here or elsewhere. However, on that particular date and under those particuar conditions that Gates himself acknowledged, to not have anyone ready to go that was within an hour of at least moving in their direction (or some other direction instead should it be called for) reeks of someone dropping the ball.

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

Apparently nobody thought that the underlined part was important, especially on that particular date. As to who was responsible? I have no idea. I don't think that it's the presidents or SecDefs job to micromanage troop readiness schedules or levels of readiness other than in a very broad sense, on the other hand I don't think that it's the job of the guys actually carrying the rifles to do so either. It's somewhere in between the two.

basham: The date of 9-11 is a big deal in this country. I'm not certain it's as ingrained into the Libyan lexicon as it is ours. I don't think Rudy Giuliani has visited Libya that often, nor do ...


Dammit, there was supposed to be a link at the end of THAT post:  http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/26/myths-and-facts-about-the- benghazi-attack-and-p/190150#g

/me can't internet good tonight
 
2013-05-12 09:21:57 PM
I give up, time to go get some fish tacos.
 
2013-05-12 09:25:42 PM

Radioactive Ass: Apparently nobody thought that the underlined part was important, especially on that particular date.


Actually, that's sort of the issue. With turmoil going on, there's an odd balance. You deploy a LOT of troops, and you essentially make for a lot of potential targets. But again, you keep hammering home the point that you have no real clue about the situation, but gosh darn it, you have so very many questions. That you don't really want answered, but it serves a purpose I suppose. Again, I thank you for illustrating a naive and limited way of thinking so elaborately at this point. It truly is a service...
 
2013-05-12 09:26:48 PM

Mrtraveler01: brainiac-dumdum: Looks like Gates hit a nerve, Fark Benghazimongers are in a tizzy.

Sunset's response was hysterical.


I LOL'd as well.

What will the wacky wingnuts do next? Make Gate's smackdown here a part of the faux scandal/conspiracy?

I think it would be worth it just to see one of the local trolls use the term "Gates-gate" in earnest.

/Of course, I'm a fairly silly person. YMMV.
 
2013-05-12 09:27:20 PM

Fart_Machine: glmorrs1: Yes, I guess in hindsight, there was a problem. It was 9/11, crazy bad shiat could go down on 9/11! How could we not see that Libya, farking Libya of all places, would be attacked on that date and that we'd need one of those "half a dozen small units" on alert and stationed nearby to take care of it?

According to Gates the biggest problem was the danger of sending small units into an unknown situation.


I find it really funny that people think a small team of special forces people could put down that attack. It's like people think that the special forces are some type of super human bullet proof killing machines or something.
 
2013-05-12 09:27:49 PM
i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-05-12 09:29:04 PM

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: So, you were a pogue-ass pouge who served during the coldest point in the cold war?  Man, I hope when I need a rotary wing mechanic to explain force on force conflict to me, you're around.

What's wrong, test scores not high enough for aviation?


You actually pulled the elitist card for an MOS with a 105 Mechanical Maintenance minimum score?  That has to the saddest attempt at an OH SNAP I've ever seen.
 
2013-05-12 09:34:38 PM

Hobodeluxe: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 580x270]


GI Joe is full of pussies.  Now Chuck Norris knows where its at:

www.the-other-view.com
 
2013-05-12 09:35:01 PM

Sgt Otter: You actually pulled the elitist card for an MOS with a 105 Mechanical Maintenance minimum score?  That has to the saddest attempt at an OH SNAP I've ever seen.


The test score requirements for my MOS were certainly higher than yours.
 
2013-05-12 09:35:32 PM

Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

US Army 1986 to 1994. Rank: SSG MOS: 67V
Served in Korea, Germany, Texas and Iraq.
Any other questions?


Yes: Seeing as you've been a helicopter mechanic, why don't you have any clue about the unrefueled range of the machines and whether pilots would be in any shape to run a mission in a hostile environment without ground spotters, SAM suppression, or andy logistics on the ground there? Did you farking sleep through BNCOC?
 
2013-05-12 09:39:59 PM

kpaxoid: SunsetLament: what Gates
 Plus, non-experts know more than experts.


Facts aren't as important as believing something really hard.
 
2013-05-12 09:42:48 PM

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: So, you were a pogue-ass pouge who served during the coldest point in the cold war?  Man, I hope when I need a rotary wing mechanic to explain force on force conflict to me, you're around.

What's wrong, test scores not high enough for aviation?


Herr  Otter schools you a couple posts down, so I'll just content myself with knowing you were one of those dudes who talked about banging wives and TA50 while real soldiers were deployed to combat zones.
 
2013-05-12 09:44:13 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

US Army 1986 to 1994. Rank: SSG MOS: 67V
Served in Korea, Germany, Texas and Iraq.
Any other questions?

Yes: Seeing as you've been a helicopter mechanic, why don't you have any clue about the unrefueled range of the machines and whether pilots would be in any shape to run a mission in a hostile environment without ground spotters, SAM suppression, or andy logistics on the ground there? Did you farking sleep through BNCOC?


Shush.  His ASVAB score was  really big.  He clearly knows about gunfights.
 
2013-05-12 09:48:11 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Yes: Seeing as you've been a helicopter mechanic, why don't you have any clue about the unrefueled range of the machines and whether pilots would be in any shape to run a mission in a hostile environment without ground spotters, SAM suppression, or andy logistics on the ground there? Did you farking sleep through BNCOC?


What in the hell are you talking about? I don't remember laying out an attack plan, so I have no idea what you're trying to argue here.
 
2013-05-12 09:49:47 PM
Wow, Popcorn Johnny's Internet Tough Guy credentials are getting shot down pretty fast.
 
2013-05-12 09:49:51 PM

fusillade762: Bane of Broone: buckler: Bane of Broone: Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.

[sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

Huh. Back in the eighties, when I voluntarily offered to give my life to my country in the Army if needed, I was a Democrat. Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

Johnny doesn't even vote.

JOHNNY DON'T SURF!


Johnny can barely string three words together.
 
2013-05-12 09:52:16 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

US Army 1986 to 1994. Rank: SSG MOS: 67V
Served in Korea, Germany, Texas and Iraq.
Any other questions?

Yes: Seeing as you've been a helicopter mechanic, why don't you have any clue about the unrefueled range of the machines and whether pilots would be in any shape to run a mission in a hostile environment without ground spotters, SAM suppression, or andy logistics on the ground there? Did you farking sleep through BNCOC?


Tread carefully, you're daring to doubt the military strategery of a REMF.
 
2013-05-12 09:52:48 PM

Evil High Priest: fusillade762: Bane of Broone: buckler: Bane of Broone: Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.

[sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

Huh. Back in the eighties, when I voluntarily offered to give my life to my country in the Army if needed, I was a Democrat. Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

Johnny doesn't even vote.

JOHNNY DON'T SURF!

Johnny can barely string three words together.


Can Johnn climb a flight of stairs without getting wheezy?
 
2013-05-12 09:54:10 PM

BSABSVR: Well, if we are going to schlep troops back and forth randomly based on days that may or may not be symbolic to Islamic militants, then we need to have troops on hot standby on:

January 1st
February 26th
April 18th
June 14th
June 25th
July 4th
August 7th
September 5th
September 11th
October 12th
November 17th
December 25th
The start of Ramadan
The end of Ramadan
Eid Al-Fitr
Eid Al-Adha
The start of Hanukkah
the end of Hannukah
And every other major Jewish holiday
Etc.


And then the wingnuts piss and moan and blame B. Hussein Osama for the deficit going up.

img196.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-12 09:54:36 PM

Gergesa: Hobodeluxe: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 580x270]

GI Joe is full of pussies.  Now Chuck Norris knows where its at:

[www.the-other-view.com image 500x375]


Feh.....Rank amateurs compared:

1.bp.blogspot.com

/Fark yeah!
 
2013-05-12 09:55:14 PM
This thread reminds me of my time in the Army, jealous grunts angry over not being able to qualify for an aviation MOS. I'll leave you guys to your growing circle jerk, much like when I was serving, we tried to keep away from the unwashed masses in combat arms.
 
2013-05-12 09:55:40 PM

EnviroDude: Gates: 911, please send the fire department to my house - I see flames.
911: I´m sorry, they couldn´t possibly get there in time.
Gates: How do you know? Please, please.
911: You have a cartoonish view of fire department capability.

/ripped from RPool


That is a bizarre comparison.

But, attention received.  Congratulations.
 
2013-05-12 09:55:41 PM
Popcorn Johnny: demaL-demaL-yeH:  Did you farking sleep through BNCOC?

What in the hell are you talking about? I don't remember laying out an attack plan, so I have no idea what you're trying to argue here.


That certainly answers my question. Thanks.

/I'll stick with DAT's assessment, then.
 
2013-05-12 09:58:18 PM

Popcorn Johnny: This thread reminds me of my time in the Army, jealous grunts angry over not being able to qualify for an aviation MOS. I'll leave you guys to your growing circle jerk, much like when I was serving, we tried to keep away from the unwashed masses in combat arms.


This was my favorite chairborne ranger retrograde maneuver ever.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Popcorn Johnny: demaL-demaL-yeH:  Did you farking sleep through BNCOC?

What in the hell are you talking about? I don't remember laying out an attack plan, so I have no idea what you're trying to argue here.

That certainly answers my question. Thanks.

/I'll stick with DAT's assessment, then.


Did you just call me a DAT?
 
2013-05-12 09:58:55 PM

ratman999: Why can't we all be adults


Because nearly half of our elected officials are retarded loons with fascist tendencies?
 
2013-05-12 09:59:02 PM

max_pooper: Wow, Popcorn Johnny's Internet Tough Guy credentials are getting shot down pretty fast.


www.empowernetwork.com
 
2013-05-12 09:59:55 PM

Popcorn Johnny: This thread reminds me of my time in the Army, jealous grunts angry over not being able to qualify for an aviation MOS. I'll leave you guys to your growing circle jerk, much like when I was serving, we tried to keep away from the unwashed masses in combat arms.


I see someone has to get to the gym in 26 minutes.
 
2013-05-12 10:01:42 PM
COME on gung-ho right wing themed troll accounts, answer!

If Obama had personally ordered a squad of under armed Navy Seals into Benghazi with zero planning and all of them died, would you have completely been fine and let it go or would you be calling for his impeachment over that?

Please, give me your honest answers on that.
 
2013-05-12 10:02:09 PM

zappaisfrank: [fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net image 500x376]


s3.vidimg02.popscreen.com

Some soups are fuuuunnyyyyy...
 
2013-05-12 10:02:11 PM
19 Kilo:
demaL-demaL-yeH: Popcorn Johnny: demaL-demaL-yeH:  Did you farking sleep through BNCOC?

What in the hell are you talking about? I don't remember laying out an attack plan, so I have no idea what you're trying to argue here.

That certainly answers my question. Thanks.

/I'll stick with DAT's assessment, then.

Did you just call me a DAT?


I was poking fun at his assumed higher ASVAB score superiority complex.
/If you're upset, call me a "crunchy" and we're even.
//Started out 8" SP ARTY.
 
2013-05-12 10:05:01 PM

MisterRonbo: Gyrfalcon: In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli-

And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?


There was a Marine detachment at the embassy equipped with M-4 assault rifles, shotguns, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, body armor, and  possibly a SAW or two.  I think that if the President or someone in their chain of command in the pentagon had ordered the marines, they might have loaned the special forces troops some hardware, don't you?
 
2013-05-12 10:07:06 PM
So If I understand this correctly this means that the GOP have cast Obama in the Role of Black Lex Luthor.
 
2013-05-12 10:07:43 PM

HK-MP5-SD: MisterRonbo: Gyrfalcon: In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli-

And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?

There was a Marine detachment at the embassy equipped with M-4 assault rifles, shotguns, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, body armor, and  possibly a SAW or two.  I think that if the President or someone in their chain of command in the pentagon had ordered the marines, they might have loaned the special forces troops some hardware, don't you?


Too bad the attack didn't happen at the embassy, it happened at the consulate which because it was a consulate, isn't as heavily guarded.
 
2013-05-12 10:07:51 PM

HK-MP5-SD: There was a Marine detachment at the embassy equipped with M-4 assault rifles, shotguns, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, body armor, and possibly a SAW or two. I think that if the President or someone in their chain of command in the pentagon had ordered the marines, they might have loaned the special forces troops some hardware, don't you?


I can't tell if you're trolling or just an idiot.
 
2013-05-12 10:08:08 PM

HK-MP5-SD: MisterRonbo: Gyrfalcon: In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli-

And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?

There was a Marine detachment at the embassy equipped with M-4 assault rifles, shotguns, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, body armor, and  possibly a SAW or two.  I think that if the President or someone in their chain of command in the pentagon had ordered the marines, they might have loaned the special forces troops some hardware, don't you?


So you think that when a consulate is attacked the proper response would be disarm the embassy?
 
2013-05-12 10:09:19 PM

HK-MP5-SD: MisterRonbo: Gyrfalcon: In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli-

And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?

There was a Marine detachment at the embassy equipped with M-4 assault rifles, shotguns, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, body armor, and  possibly a SAW or two.  I think that if the President or someone in their chain of command in the pentagon had ordered the marines, they might have loaned the special forces troops some hardware, don't you?


Let's see .... Would the Marine CO loan out equipment to four guys so they can head into a situation with no backup and limited intel to save a consulate that had already been evacuated.  Or would he have kept every weapon he had pointing out over the walls of the embassy he was guarding in case of an attack there?

Decisions, decisions...
 
2013-05-12 10:09:40 PM

HK-MP5-SD: MisterRonbo: Gyrfalcon: In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli-

And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?

There was a Marine detachment at the embassy equipped with M-4 assault rifles, shotguns, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, body armor, and  possibly a SAW or two.  I think that if the President or someone in their chain of command in the pentagon had ordered the marines, they might have loaned the special forces troops some hardware, don't you?


And what, exactly, do you think those four guys could have done against an unknown number of assailants with heavy weapons in a crowded city, even assuming they got there in time to do anything? And who would have taken on the mission they had already been assigned?
 
2013-05-12 10:11:37 PM

HK-MP5-SD: MisterRonbo: Gyrfalcon: In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli-

And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?

There was a Marine detachment at the embassy equipped with M-4 assault rifles, shotguns, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, body armor, and  possibly a SAW or two.  I think that if the President or someone in their chain of command in the pentagon had ordered the marines, they might have loaned the special forces troops some hardware, don't you?


So there was a marine detachment at the "embassy" that was a consulate and they didn't/couldn't fight off the crowd?  So, you're saying Marines are pussies?

Why do you hate America, guy who's online name is a German gun?

/hitler.
//godwin.
 
2013-05-12 10:13:34 PM

draa: Considering most Republicans have never served a day in our military this is no surprise. Fantasize is what chickenhawks do best.


I'm trying to find the exact quote and who said it, but...

War is a grand adventure to those who've never been in one.
 
2013-05-12 10:13:37 PM

19 Kilo: Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

US Army 1986 to 1994. Rank: SSG MOS: 67V

Served in Korea, Germany, Texas and Iraq.

Any other questions?

So, you were a pogue-ass pouge who served during the coldest point in the cold war?  Man, I hope when I need a rotary wing mechanic to explain force on force conflict to me, you're around.


He kind of reminds me of back when Pat Robertson was running for President and started bragging about his service in Korea. Then, some of his servicemates pointed out that his main job was making sure the bars at the Base Camp Officers Club stayed stocked. One retired officer said "The closest Pat Robertson ever came to action was at a Tokyo whorehouse."
 
2013-05-12 10:17:17 PM

stoli n coke: 19 Kilo: Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

US Army 1986 to 1994. Rank: SSG MOS: 67V

Served in Korea, Germany, Texas and Iraq.

Any other questions?

So, you were a pogue-ass pouge who served during the coldest point in the cold war?  Man, I hope when I need a rotary wing mechanic to explain force on force conflict to me, you're around.

He kind of reminds me of back when Pat Robertson was running for President and started bragging about his service in Korea. Then, some of his servicemates pointed out that his main job was making sure the bars at the Base Camp Officers Club stayed stocked. One retired officer said "The closest Pat Robertson ever came to action was at a Tokyo whorehouse."


I hate to defend Pat Robertson but keeping the bar stocked is a very important job.
 
2013-05-12 10:18:55 PM

Radioactive Ass: hubiestubert: Well, he's right. Folks seem to think that their military is sitting in a room waiting to be unleashed like a video game. You have X amount of units, and they can respond immediately to any threat within their area of operations at a moment's notice. That we have everyone on alert, 24 hours a day, and that units are just waiting to be sent out, planes and helicopters gassed up and ready, and already armed with various payloads, and pilots just pick the plane or chopper that is right for the mission like it's some kind of game.

Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.

I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East - despite all the turmoil that's going on - with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

Is a problem. Let's just say it. It's September 11th, in the Middle East, with known turmoil going on, Why the hell wouldn't you have some forces in the area on standby in case something does happen and they are needed? The guys in the consulate wouldn't know that you didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable (or "Cartoonish") idea to assume that you had someone in charge who could think ahead enough to be prepared just in case.

If it had happened on, say, the 11th of February or whatever then I could understand it. You are correct, we don't usually have troops on hot standby 24\7 and haven't for a very long time (Cold war era). But to have to go to Norther Italy, Spain and Croatia for men and equipment (and even then they aren't on standby, on Sept. 11th) is a major screw up by someone.


How many 9-11th have gone by with nothing?
 
2013-05-12 10:19:01 PM

glmorrs1: You should be asking this to Radioactive Ass, he's the one that said we just needed half a dozen units to take care of any problem that may arise anywhere in world on a moments notice.


Oops, sorry man... Easy to lose track of what's flippant and what isn't in a thread like this.

Philip Francis Queeg: THats not diplomatically possible. Consulate security is always the responsibility of the host country. The US would never allow a foreign military presence at every consulate in the US.


You just double-tapped one of the underlying points right between the eyes. If a bunch of American nutbars protested a Muslim diplomatic facility on our soil, and things got out of hand, we would never allow foreign special forces to land 12 hours later and start firing randomly into the crowd. We would insist those Americans responsible be arrested by American law enforcement officers, be given an American defense attorney, be tried in an American court, and sent to an American prison if convicted.

When citizens from a nation like Libya resort to violence, the onus to defuse the situation is upon them. They didn't do it. One of the first Muslim nations to ever sign a treaty with the United States failed to live up to their side of the bargain... and our reaction is to blame the administration for not instantly sending US troops through a magic portal.

In the future, any nation that doesn't provide a swift, local response should be dealt with by losing all diplomatic relations and foreign aid, and hit with immediate trade sanctions. Either act like a 21st century government, or say goodbye.  Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Malaysia, or Indonesia would have had every pair of boots within 50 miles curb-stomping that mob into submission if it happened inside their countries.
 
2013-05-12 10:20:49 PM

HK-MP5-SD: MisterRonbo: Gyrfalcon: In the same way, sure, four of our Special Forces guys were willing to go to Benghazi, and there was a C-130 that could have taken them, and it's a 4-hour flight from Tripoli-

And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?

There was a Marine detachment at the embassy equipped with M-4 assault rifles, shotguns, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, body armor, and  possibly a SAW or two.  I think that if the President or someone in their chain of command in the pentagon had ordered the marines, they might have loaned the special forces troops some hardware, don't you?


Oh, hey, another person that has no clue about military logistics.  First of all, SF isn't hostage rescue, they aren't infantry, they aren't equipped or trained to handle this type of situation.  Those 4 guys wanted to do the right thing, but were ill equipped to do so.  Second of all, why would the Libyans have let the SF team leave when they still hadn't let the CIA/Contractor team leave?  Third, why would you shift resources away from the embassy when the embassy is on alert?
 
2013-05-12 10:21:27 PM

Popcorn Johnny: This thread reminds me of my time in the Army, jealous grunts angry over not being able to qualify for an aviation MOS. I'll leave you guys to your growing circle jerk, much like when I was serving, we tried to keep away from the unwashed masses in combat arms.


Sir Johnny bravely ran away!
 
2013-05-12 10:27:27 PM
Republicans have a cartoonish impression of everything. Nothing in their worldview is based on reality.
 
2013-05-12 10:28:41 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Popcorn Johnny: This thread reminds me of my time in the Army, jealous grunts angry over not being able to qualify for an aviation MOS. I'll leave you guys to your growing circle jerk, much like when I was serving, we tried to keep away from the unwashed masses in combat arms.

Sir Johnny bravely ran away!


When danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled.

Yes, Sir Johnny turned about and gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet he beat a very brave retreat.
 
2013-05-12 10:30:51 PM

Mrtraveler01: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

So whose word should I value more, someone who has been in the military for decades and is the Secretary of Defense...or some guy on the internet?

Yes...let's just throw more people into the situation without thinking about it. Because evaluating the pros and cons of a situation is for pussies.


Who has the most to lose.? The administration that lied to us from day one about why this happen? The state and defense departments that got their arses handed to them?

The guys trying to save their careers?

Or the dead guys?
 
2013-05-12 10:31:16 PM

Popcorn Johnny: This thread reminds me of my time in my fantasy Army, jealous grunts angry over not being able to qualify for an aviation MOS, my GI Joe doll giving me the silent treatment yet again because I refuse to put clothes on him, instead choosing to promote my Cabbage Patch doll to the rank of Brigadier General. I'll leave you so I can imagine you guys to your growing circle jerk, much like when I was serving in my bedroom, we tried to keep away from the unwashed masses in combat arms, but then mom would call out for dinner and I'd have to put on my big boy pants.


FIFY.
 
2013-05-12 10:34:06 PM

fusillade762: Bane of Broone: buckler: Bane of Broone: Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.

[sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

Huh. Back in the eighties, when I voluntarily offered to give my life to my country in the Army if needed, I was a Democrat. Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

Johnny doesn't even vote.

JOHNNY DON'T SURF!


Does not approve
 
2013-05-12 10:34:20 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: well then tell us exactly what response time you think should been in place throughout the mid east. two hours? 4? 12?


4 to 5 depending upon the location would have been reasonable in my opinion (from getting the word to go until landing).

Karac: That's, at most, an hour and 45 minutes between the beginning of the attack and the death of the ambassador. You say that the military should have had someone standing by that could have saved their lives. One hour to just get to Benghazi is consistent with your requirement since they'd still need time to fight off the attackers.

Nice of you to admit that your own criteria are cartoonish.


What? That was not what my comments are addressing at all. I'm saying that apparently nobody even thought that it might be a good idea to have some people being more prepared than what they were on that particular date. I have already said that I don't know if it would have helped or not. Nobody else could have known that at the time or a week before that either for that matter. However they knew that the date had some importance and that there was already ongoing turmoil and apparently took no steps to prepare for the increased likelihood that someone might try something violent against some of our interests in the Middle East.
 
2013-05-12 10:35:23 PM

Popcorn Johnny: clkeagle: And in urban settings

Tanks are very effective in urban settings.


Sometimes . . .

stevenhomartialarts.com
 
2013-05-12 10:35:56 PM

Empty Matchbook: fusillade762: Bane of Broone: buckler: Bane of Broone: Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.

[sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

Huh. Back in the eighties, when I voluntarily offered to give my life to my country in the Army if needed, I was a Democrat. Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

Johnny doesn't even vote.

JOHNNY DON'T SURF!


Let's try that again WITH the preview button!

mimg.ugo.com

Does not approve!
 
2013-05-12 10:41:11 PM

EnviroDude: Who has the most to lose.? The administration that lied to us from day one about why this happen? The state and defense departments that got their arses handed to them?

The guys trying to save their careers?

Or the dead guys?


Why should anybody have anything to lose from this? Why hasn't a single person involved with the perpetuation of this so-called scandal and said "hey, maybe bickering and pointing fingers isn't going to bring them back to life. Maybe we should sit Republicans, Democrats, State, Defense, and Intelligence officials down like adults, and figure out how to prevent a future attack?"

The only groups who seem to think they have anything to lose by doing what I said:
1. Elected officials with an "R" by their names
2. Fox News' shareholders
 
2013-05-12 10:41:52 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Popcorn Johnny: This thread reminds me of my time in the Army, jealous grunts angry over not being able to qualify for an aviation MOS. I'll leave you guys to your growing circle jerk, much like when I was serving, we tried to keep away from the unwashed masses in combat arms.

Sir Johnny bravely ran away!


Too bad that those "jealous grunts" would have been the guys who actually carried out any rescue attempts, while the mechanics got to cheer on from the safety of the shed. I think he should keep digging. He hasn't quite hit bedrock yet, and I think that if he just pushes deeper, he can win us over with his vast reservoir of experience and daring do of battling vicious hydrolics and the vast number of hexnuts that he's personally loosened...
 
2013-05-12 10:43:26 PM

Popcorn Johnny: This thread reminds me of my time in the Army, jealous grunts angry over not being able to qualify for an aviation MOS. I'll leave you guys to your growing circle jerk, much like when I was serving, we tried to keep away from the unwashed masses in combat arms.


Wife-like typing detected.
 
2013-05-12 10:46:43 PM
67V? A friggin' helicopter mechanic??? Really out there on the sharp end, huh?

Well, I know who to turn to when I need advice on ground combat-related matters.

/11C & 11B, 22 years (so far), SFC, CIB, EIB.
//Let's not get into an ASVAB score dick measuring contest. A 105 Mechanical Maintenance sub-score ain't exactly indicative of a rocket surgeon, ITG.
///Next up, JohnnyPopcorn talks about how he's "been there and done that"
////Did what exactly? Checked that bolts were tightened to proper torque specs? What a badass!
 
2013-05-12 10:48:11 PM

hubiestubert: Too bad that those "jealous grunts" would have been the guys who actually carried out any rescue attempts, while the mechanics got to cheer on from the safety of the shed. I think he should keep digging. He hasn't quite hit bedrock yet, and I think that if he just pushes deeper, he can win us over with his vast reservoir of experience and daring do of battling vicious hydrolics and the vast number of hexnuts that he's personally loosened...


I don't think I've seen a more effective pwning on Fark for quite some time. I suppose we'll need to be on the lookout for a new login called Butterlover's Frank or something.
 
2013-05-12 10:59:04 PM

Radioactive Ass: Philip Francis Queeg: well then tell us exactly what response time you think should been in place throughout the mid east. two hours? 4? 12?

4 to 5 depending upon the location would have been reasonable in my opinion (from getting the word to go until landing).

Karac: That's, at most, an hour and 45 minutes between the beginning of the attack and the death of the ambassador. You say that the military should have had someone standing by that could have saved their lives. One hour to just get to Benghazi is consistent with your requirement since they'd still need time to fight off the attackers.

Nice of you to admit that your own criteria are cartoonish.

What? That was not what my comments are addressing at all. I'm saying that apparently nobody even thought that it might be a good idea to have some people being more prepared than what they were on that particular date. I have already said that I don't know if it would have helped or not. Nobody else could have known that at the time or a week before that either for that matter. However they knew that the date had some importance and that there was already ongoing turmoil and apparently took no steps to prepare for the increased likelihood that someone might try something violent against some of our interests in the Middle East.


So, in your head, EVERY Embassy where there are Muslims near--you do realize that Islam IS indeed a world wide religion with adherents across the globe, and even in China and Europe, we should have had teams mobilized and ready to drop boots, just in case, when they had regular security--and in fact had that security downsized a bit thanks to budget cuts--on the possibility that there might be extra trouble on that particular day, as opposed to staff trying to assess the situation on the ground?  I just want to be clear on this vision that you have. Because, as I stated from the get go: you exemplify the exact cartoonish thought process that was being discussed, and again, I congratulate you on sticking to it, because some folks might realize the enormity of the task that they figure is just "good thinking" after the fact, but you Sir, you have abandoned any pretense of rational thought process, and are hard charging of the "just asking the questions" hill. Kudos. It takes a brave man to fly in the face of facts with such reckless abandon, and still posit such ponderous "questions"...
 
2013-05-12 11:01:21 PM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


fark you, asshole.

My Dad was a Democrat and he volunteered to serve in Vietnam.
 
2013-05-12 11:01:28 PM

hubiestubert: Lionel Mandrake: Popcorn Johnny: This thread reminds me of my time in the Army, jealous grunts angry over not being able to qualify for an aviation MOS. I'll leave you guys to your growing circle jerk, much like when I was serving, we tried to keep away from the unwashed masses in combat arms.

Sir Johnny bravely ran away!

Too bad that those "jealous grunts" would have been the guys who actually carried out any rescue attempts, while the mechanics got to cheer on from the safety of the shed. I think he should keep digging. He hasn't quite hit bedrock yet, and I think that if he just pushes deeper, he can win us over with his vast reservoir of experience and daring do of battling vicious hydrolics and the vast number of hexnuts that he's personally loosened...


Well, in SSG Popcorn's defense, FRH (hydraulic fluid) is pretty nasty stuff.

Oh, and to your earlier point, the Army used to exist in boxes like a video game...  3ID, 1AD, 11ACR and lots of others would sit, ready for the fight to start. Or course, that was during the cold war, and the mission of a lot of those soldiers was to die in place to give everyone else a chance to get to the party.

But, you know, keeping multiple heavy divisions around, silver bullets in ready racks, machine guns mounted and nothing more than back plates and buffer springs in the armory...  Totally like today.  We should have at least a battalion deployed around EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN American presence in the world.  That KFC in Hong Kong?  At least an infantry company in the bathroom.
 
2013-05-12 11:04:53 PM

MustangFive: 11C & 11B, 22 years (so far), SFC, CIB, EIB.


22 years and a SFC? Your career seems to have stalled a bit, wouldn't you say? I was throwing a packet together for the SFC board when I decided to get out after 8 years.

So which of your infantry badges are you more proud of, the one given to all grunts who put boots on the ground in a combat zone or the one that requires you to do some half assed course that required such challenging tasks as applying a field dressing and throwing a hand grenade?
 
2013-05-12 11:06:04 PM

Popcorn Johnny: we tried to keep away from the unwashed masses in combat arms


Probably why you seem to have no idea what's possible and how to go about it.

Probably why you're getting schooled here by those that do.

/not one of those that do except for a passing interest...
 
2013-05-12 11:06:09 PM

Radioactive Ass: Philip Francis Queeg: well then tell us exactly what response time you think should been in place throughout the mid east. two hours? 4? 12?

4 to 5 depending upon the location would have been reasonable in my opinion (from getting the word to go until landing).

Karac: That's, at most, an hour and 45 minutes between the beginning of the attack and the death of the ambassador. You say that the military should have had someone standing by that could have saved their lives. One hour to just get to Benghazi is consistent with your requirement since they'd still need time to fight off the attackers.

Nice of you to admit that your own criteria are cartoonish.

What? That was not what my comments are addressing at all. I'm saying that apparently nobody even thought that it might be a good idea to have some people being more prepared than what they were on that particular date. I have already said that I don't know if it would have helped or not. Nobody else could have known that at the time or a week before that either for that matter. However they knew that the date had some importance and that there was already ongoing turmoil and apparently took no steps to prepare for the increased likelihood that someone might try something violent against some of our interests in the Middle East.


You know nothing about how the military operates even when on alert.  4-5 hours.  It can take 1-2 hours to get a QRF team on the ground in Afghanistan when the team was already stood up and briefed.  That is getting a team in country.  You think that just because we are America, we can just start sending troops in without geopolitical repercussions?

The US military does not have the capabilities to put QRF teams all over the world ready to save Americans, not today, not on 9/11, and not any day in the future.  It sucks that 4 Americans dies, but because people made tough decisions, it was only 4 Americans.  It sucks, but sending people to go die to say we did something is foolish.
 
2013-05-12 11:08:14 PM

Popcorn Johnny: MustangFive: 11C & 11B, 22 years (so far), SFC, CIB, EIB.

22 years and a SFC? Your career seems to have stalled a bit, wouldn't you say? I was throwing a packet together for the SFC board when I decided to get out after 8 years.

So which of your infantry badges are you more proud of, the one given to all grunts who put boots on the ground in a combat zone or the one that requires you to do some half assed course that required such challenging tasks as applying a field dressing and throwing a hand grenade?


I think there maybe even more epoch pwnage yet still to come.
 
2013-05-12 11:09:35 PM
19 Kilo: Well, in SSG Popcorn's defense, FRH (hydraulic fluid) is pretty nasty stuff.

I now have him farkied (in Red 3) as "Overexposed to JP-8."

Oh, and to your earlier point, the Army used to exist in boxes like a video game...  3ID, 1AD, 11ACR and lots of others would sit, ready for the fight to start. Or course, that was during the cold war, and the mission of a lot of those soldiers was to die in place to give everyone else a chance to get to the party.

Given the size, nature, and bureaucracy of the DoD... The transition from a Cold War military to an asymmetrical conflict force was bound to be slow and painful. And we've failed to transition even more spectacularly than most of us could have ever imagined.

But, you know, keeping multiple heavy divisions around, silver bullets in ready racks, machine guns mounted and nothing more than back plates and buffer springs in the armory...  Totally like today.  We should have at least a battalion deployed around EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN American presence in the world.  That KFC in Hong Kong?  At least an infantry company in the bathroom.

Wow. That bathroom would smell terrible...
 
2013-05-12 11:10:25 PM

Popcorn Johnny: MustangFive: 11C & 11B, 22 years (so far), SFC, CIB, EIB.

22 years and a SFC? Your career seems to have stalled a bit, wouldn't you say? I was throwing a packet together for the SFC board when I decided to get out after 8 years.

So which of your infantry badges are you more proud of, the one given to all grunts who put boots on the ground in a combat zone or the one that requires you to do some half assed course that required such challenging tasks as applying a field dressing and throwing a hand grenade?


Dude, a smart person should know when he should stop posting.
 
2013-05-12 11:10:32 PM

19 Kilo: Well, in SSG Popcorn's defense, FRH (hydraulic fluid) is pretty nasty stuff.


Tell me about it.
Least fun job ever: Pumping that cherry juice out of the well by hand after the gun decided to spring a leak. You pretty much have to sit in the damned well to do it.

/Are we good, or do you need to throw a "crunchy" or two at me?
 
2013-05-12 11:13:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dude, a smart person should know when he should stop posting.


Get out of here son, the veterans are taking shots at each other. Perhaps a nice game of Call of Duty would be more up your alley.
 
2013-05-12 11:14:02 PM
Come on, Fark libs. Is it so hard to acknowledge that we should have employed our time-travel technology to predict and preclude the attack, or at the very least used our orbital teleportation platform to zap the secret quantum brigade into Libya at exactly the decisive moment?
 
2013-05-12 11:14:35 PM

Popcorn Johnny: cameroncrazy1984: Dude, a smart person should know when he should stop posting.

Get out of here son, the veterans are taking shots at each other. Perhaps a nice game of Call of Duty would be more up your alley.


Your name is amazingly appropriate, right now.

Carry on, old boy.  This is high farking entertainment for a Sunday night.
 
2013-05-12 11:14:38 PM
Oh snap?  Don't you mean, "Yo, Joe!"
 
2013-05-12 11:14:58 PM
This is my favorite thread in a long while, even though I have no idea what any of these acronyms mean.
 
2013-05-12 11:15:18 PM

Radioactive Ass: ghare: Was it a problem last year on 9/11? The year before that? How about the year before that, year before that ,year before that, year before that, year before that, year before that, year before that, and year before that ?

Did we need them? What the hell makes you think this year was going to be different?

Like we said in the Navy, Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. That's what this sounds like to me, a lack of prior planning. We did and had a lot of things that never got used for real life problems, that doesn't mean that it was a bad idea to do them. I've shot somewhere around 60 exercise torpedoes and countless waterslugs yet never shot a warshot at anyone in anger (nobody in the USN has in a very long time). Therefore the Navy should stop carrying torpedoes on their submarines.

The job of the military is to be ready in the event of something happening and then figuring out where those things are most likely to happen. Is Northern Italy a current hot spot or is the Middle East, especially on that date, the best place to have men and equipment available?


Your ass. It has your head in it.
 
2013-05-12 11:15:19 PM

Popcorn Johnny: cameroncrazy1984: Dude, a smart person should know when he should stop posting.

Get out of here son, the veterans are taking shots at each other. Perhaps a nice game of Call of Duty would be more up your alley.


I see you are not a smart person. I guess cameron should just sit back and watch you get your ass handed to you again. I know it's going to be entertaining.
 
2013-05-12 11:15:29 PM

Popcorn Johnny: MustangFive: 11C & 11B, 22 years (so far), SFC, CIB, EIB.

22 years and a SFC? Your career seems to have stalled a bit, wouldn't you say? I was throwing a packet together for the SFC board when I decided to get out after 8 years.

So which of your infantry badges are you more proud of, the one given to all grunts who put boots on the ground in a combat zone or the one that requires you to do some half assed course that required such challenging tasks as applying a field dressing and throwing a hand grenade?


So you served in a low-density MOS, could do a mean two miles in your gym shorts and running shoes, and had time to work on your degree between beers in Germany. Want a trophy?
 
2013-05-12 11:15:35 PM

MustangFive: 67V? A friggin' helicopter mechanic??? Really out there on the sharp end, huh?

Well, I know who to turn to when I need advice on ground combat-related matters.

/11C & 11B, 22 years (so far), SFC, CIB, EIB.
//Let's not get into an ASVAB score dick measuring contest. A 105 Mechanical Maintenance sub-score ain't exactly indicative of a rocket surgeon, ITG.
///Next up, JohnnyPopcorn talks about how he's "been there and done that"
////Did what exactly? Checked that bolts were tightened to proper torque specs? What a badass!


Hey, somebody had to be there in the days when what the Apache did best was fall over on its side.
 
2013-05-12 11:16:19 PM

Popcorn Johnny: MustangFive: 11C & 11B, 22 years (so far), SFC, CIB, EIB.

22 years and a SFC? Your career seems to have stalled a bit, wouldn't you say? I was throwing a packet together for the SFC board when I decided to get out after 8 years.

So which of your infantry badges are you more proud of, the one given to all grunts who put boots on the ground in a combat zone or the one that requires you to do some half assed course that required such challenging tasks as applying a field dressing and throwing a hand grenade?


Ok badass.  You think your such a hot shot b/c you were going to put your packet in.  Last time I checked, putting a packet in meant nothing.  No one gets picked up on they're first look, especially not in 1994.  You want to come and try and earn a EIB, why don't you come down with my to GA and I'll set you up with some Ranger buddies and let's see how easy you think getting a EIB is.  Why don't you tell us about your Combat Mechanics Badge, oh wait there's no such thing because you got to chill out in some tent.

It's always the support MOS's with the big mouths that think that we can do anything and everything.  It was always the support blabbing about how badass they are and then letting the infantry guys clean up your mess.
 
2013-05-12 11:17:24 PM

Popcorn Johnny: cameroncrazy1984: Dude, a smart person should know when he should stop posting.

Get out of here son, the veterans are taking shots at each other. Perhaps a nice game of Call of Duty would be more up your alley.


I didn't know they made a Call of Duty: Helicopter Mechanic. I gotta pick that up! Is it scary?
 
2013-05-12 11:17:28 PM

Popcorn Johnny: cameroncrazy1984: Dude, a smart person should know when he should stop posting.

Get out of here son, the veterans are taking shots at each other. Perhaps a nice game of Call of Duty would be more up your alley.


I'm waiting for a Fobbit to show up and start talking shiat on you soon.
 
2013-05-12 11:18:51 PM

clkeagle: So you served in a low-density MOS


Yeah, the Army only had 9 helicopters and most of those were used for beer runs.
 
2013-05-12 11:19:14 PM

Popcorn Johnny: cameroncrazy1984: Dude, a smart person should know when he should stop posting.

Get out of here son, the veterans are taking shots at each other. Perhaps a nice game of Call of Duty would be more up your alley.


Out of interest, where in Germany where you?

dlp211: It's always the support MOS's with the big mouths that think that we can do anything and everything.  It was always the support blabbing about how badass they are and then letting the infantry guys clean up your mess.


Not always. Just, you know, most of the time.
 
2013-05-12 11:19:56 PM

ksdanj: Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.

fark you, asshole.

My Dad was a Democrat and he volunteered to serve in Vietnam.


yeah but he was probably one of those Swiftboat pilots and we all know what cowards there were ,what with their purple hearts and commendations of valor.

i2.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-12 11:20:23 PM

dlp211: Ok badass.  You think your such a hot shot b/c you were going to put your packet in.  Last time I checked, putting a packet in meant nothing.  No one gets picked up on they're first look, especially not in 1994.


I was sitting at the top of the potential candidates for SFC, even with my short time as a SSG. I was pretty mush a shoe in to make SFC in a couple of years. Only took me 5.5 to make SSG.
 
2013-05-12 11:21:03 PM
God damn.  I'm glad I don't have ignore turned all the way up, because this shiat is entertaining.
 
2013-05-12 11:21:04 PM

Bootleg: Out of interest, where in Germany where you?


Giebelstadt Army Airfield.
 
2013-05-12 11:21:41 PM

Clutch2013: God damn.  I'm glad I don't have ignore turned all the way up, because this shiat is entertaining.


There are days when having a light ignore list has its advantages.
 
2013-05-12 11:22:05 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Bootleg: Out of interest, where in Germany where you?

Giebelstadt Army Airfield.


Clearly the front lines. I bet those hausfraus were intimidating!
 
2013-05-12 11:22:25 PM

Popcorn Johnny: dlp211: Ok badass.  You think your such a hot shot b/c you were going to put your packet in.  Last time I checked, putting a packet in meant nothing.  No one gets picked up on they're first look, especially not in 1994.

I was sitting at the top of the potential candidates for SFC, even with my short time as a SSG. I was pretty mush a shoe in to make SFC in a couple of years. Only took me 5.5 to make SSG.


blogs.westword.com
 
2013-05-12 11:24:17 PM

Clutch2013: God damn.  I'm glad I don't have ignore turned all the way up, because this shiat is entertaining.


I don't know if Popcorn Johhny realizes that everyone is laughing at him. He probably still thinks he's a badass who would have easily killed a hundred men with his bare hands if only he was given the chance. He's like the Uncle Rico of the army.
 
2013-05-12 11:25:29 PM

Clutch2013: God damn.  I'm glad I don't have ignore turned all the way up, because this shiat is entertaining.


You're only an M85 with a GHB, so what do you know?
 
2013-05-12 11:25:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Clearly the front lines. I bet those hausfraus were intimidating!


Well it was a combat aviation brigade, we had those cool *pew* *pew* type whirly birds and everything.
 
2013-05-12 11:26:06 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Bootleg: Out of interest, where in Germany where you?

Giebelstadt Army Airfield.


Huh. Nice area? I mean, it was in Germany, but how was it for somewhere in Germany?
 
2013-05-12 11:26:41 PM

Popcorn Johnny: dlp211: Ok badass.  You think your such a hot shot b/c you were going to put your packet in.  Last time I checked, putting a packet in meant nothing.  No one gets picked up on they're first look, especially not in 1994.

I was sitting at the top of the potential candidates for SFC, even with my short time as a SSG. I was pretty mush a shoe in to make SFC in a couple of years. Only took me 5.5 to make SSG.


You have no clue where you sit until you put a packet in.  The scoring for E7 changes every single year and is not MOS specific.  Stop lying to yourself.  I probably know more E7 in 7's then you know E7's total.  I know how the whole thing works.
 
2013-05-12 11:28:43 PM

Bootleg: Huh. Nice area? I mean, it was in Germany, but how was it for somewhere in Germany?


It was basically an airfield in the middle of miles of wheat and other farmer's fields. The nearest main city was Wurzburg. The cool thing about Germany was that even the small towns were fun to visit so we always had somewhere cool and interesting to go.
 
2013-05-12 11:30:05 PM

dlp211: It was always the support blabbing about how badass they are and then letting the infantry guys clean up your mess.


www.liberationfrequency.co.uk
 
2013-05-12 11:30:51 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Bootleg: Huh. Nice area? I mean, it was in Germany, but how was it for somewhere in Germany?

It was basically an airfield in the middle of miles of wheat and other farmer's fields. The nearest main city was Wurzburg. The cool thing about Germany was that even the small towns were fun to visit so we always had somewhere cool and interesting to go.


So, a lot like WAAF. Yeah, I perfered the Heidelberg area, myself, but I guess the countryside can be nice.
 
2013-05-12 11:31:09 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: This is my favorite thread in a long while, even though I have no idea what any of these acronyms mean.


Me and all. Enjoying the GI Joe jokes though. I get those.

cameroncrazy1984: Popcorn Johnny: cameroncrazy1984: Dude, a smart person should know when he should stop posting.

Get out of here son, the veterans are taking shots at each other. Perhaps a nice game of Call of Duty would be more up your alley.


I didn't know they made a Call of Duty: Helicopter Mechanic. I gotta pick that up! Is it scary?

LOL. Okay I'm just gonna kick back and enjoy the show now.

[colbertpopcorn.gif]
 
2013-05-12 11:31:47 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: 19 Kilo: Well, in SSG Popcorn's defense, FRH (hydraulic fluid) is pretty nasty stuff.

Tell me about it.
Least fun job ever: Pumping that cherry juice out of the well by hand after the gun decided to spring a leak. You pretty much have to sit in the damned well to do it.

/Are we good, or do you need to throw a "crunchy" or two at me?


We're down like two flat tires.  No worries, yo.

Popcorn Johnny: clkeagle: So you served in a low-density MOS

Yeah, the Army only had 9 helicopters and most of those were used for beer runs.


Man, for someone without the beans to serve in a front line unit, you sure do know how to dig and keep digging.
 
2013-05-12 11:34:10 PM

Bootleg: So, a lot like WAAF. Yeah, I perfered the Heidelberg area, myself, but I guess the countryside can be nice.


Germany was a great place, I'd love to go back. We'd just hop in the car on the weekend with no idea most times where we were going and would always find something cool to do or interesting place to explore. I was lucky enough to be over there when the Berlin wall was coming down. Made the drive there and got to pass through Checkpoint Charlie while it was still around. Also chipped off a bunch of pieces of the wall for friends and family.
 
2013-05-12 11:35:48 PM
clkeagle:

[www.tacomlcmccommunityreport.com image 580x387]

You can never find a parking space at that mall.
 
2013-05-12 11:35:50 PM

19 Kilo: demaL-demaL-yeH: 19 Kilo: Well, in SSG Popcorn's defense, FRH (hydraulic fluid) is pretty nasty stuff.

Tell me about it.
Least fun job ever: Pumping that cherry juice out of the well by hand after the gun decided to spring a leak. You pretty much have to sit in the damned well to do it.

/Are we good, or do you need to throw a "crunchy" or two at me?

We're down like two flat tires.  No worries, yo.

Popcorn Johnny: clkeagle: So you served in a low-density MOS

Yeah, the Army only had 9 helicopters and most of those were used for beer runs.

Man, for someone without the beans to serve in a front line unit, you sure do know how to dig and keep digging.


His chosen tool:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-12 11:36:04 PM

Popcorn Johnny: cameroncrazy1984: Clearly the front lines. I bet those hausfraus were intimidating!

Well it was a combat aviation brigade, we had those cool *pew* *pew* type whirly birds and everything.


Oh wow really? And you got to change air filters! I bet that's the DLC for Call of Duty, right? So dangerous...
 
2013-05-12 11:36:31 PM

ongbok: HK-MP5-SD: There was a Marine detachment at the embassy equipped with M-4 assault rifles, shotguns, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, body armor, and  possibly a SAW or two.  I think that if the President or someone in their chain of command in the pentagon had ordered the marines, they might have loaned the special forces troops some hardware, don't you?

Too bad the attack didn't happen at the embassy, it happened at the consulate which because it was a consulate, isn't as heavily guarded.


Another poster claimed the 4 special forces soldiers in Tripoli could not help because they did not have the proper equipment.  i was just pointing out that the proper equipment was available in Tripoli.

Satanic_Hamster:
I can't tell if you're trolling or just an idiot.

What do you disagree with, the fact that the equipment existed in Tripoli, or that the Marines would have followed a direct order to allow other american troops to use that equipment?

max_pooper:
So you think that when a consulate is attacked the proper response would be disarm the embassy?

You may not know this, but the Marines' mission is not to defend the embassy from attack.  Their mission is to destroy classified documents in the event the embassy is overrun.  The physical security of the embassy is the responsibility of the host nation.  In any case, would reducing the weapons available to the marines by a small amount be worth it in exchange for a chance to rescue a missing ambassador?  Personally I think so, The special forces in Tripoli also apparently thought so, they were willing to try it even without the weapons from the embassy.

Karac:
Let's see .... Would the Marine CO loan out equipment to four guys so they can head into a situation with no backup and limited intel to save a consulate that had already been evacuated.  Or would he have kept every weapon he had pointing out over the walls of the embassy he was guarding in case of an attack there?

Decisions, decisions...


If he was ordered to loan out the equipment by the pentagon?  He would have loaned them out.  The military, they frown on disobeying direct orders.

demaL-demaL-yeH:
And what, exactly, do you think those four guys could have done against an unknown number of assailants with heavy weapons in a crowded city, even assuming they got there in time to do anything? And who would have taken on the mission they had already been assigned?

They could have started the four hour flight from Tripoli to Benghazi so in case the Ambassador who was missing called the embassy on the phone and said "I'm hiding in an abandoned building in Benghazi, send help!"
he wouldn't have to wait 5 hours for someone to come and get him.  Even if he did not call in, the military had 4 hours to gather intelligence before they arrived.  If they couldn't do anything when they got to Benghazi which in retrospect would have been the case, nothing would have been lost, However if he had survived the presence of  well trained special forces troops would have been huge.

As for the special forces troops previous mission, it would have had to wait.  When the Titannic hit the Iceburg, the crew stopped rearranging the deck chairs.

dlp211:
Oh, hey, another person that has no clue about military logistics.  First of all, SF isn't hostage rescue, they aren't infantry, they aren't equipped or trained to handle this type of situation.  Those 4 guys wanted to do the right thing, but were ill equipped to do so.  Second of all, why would the Libyans have let the SF team leave when they still hadn't let the CIA/Contractor team leave?  Third, why would you shift resources away from the embassy when the embassy is on alert?

First of all you have no idea which specific special forces units they were in.  Were they Army Special forces, Seals, Delta Force?  We don't know and never will.  They may not have been infantry, but they all almost definitely had basic infantry skills.  They were not equipped for the mission, but as I pointed out earlier the required equipment was available.  Were they trained for the mission? that would have depended on which specific special forces unit they were part of.  If they were seals or Delta the answer is a resounding Yes!  If the were army special forces the answer would depend on their previous duty.  Given the state of the world today, chances are good that they would have spent some time training Iraqi or Afghan soldiers in counter insurgency and hostage rescue techniques, so once again yes they would have had the required training.

19 Kilo:
So there was a marine detachment at the "embassy" that was a consulate and they didn't/couldn't fight off the crowd?  So, you're saying Marines are pussies?

The "embassy" is an embassy, is in Tripoli, had marines, and was never attacked.  The consulate was in Benghazi, had no marines and was attacked.  You are ignorant of current events, and geography should, look to educate yourself and refrain from commenting on issues you have no knowledge of until you do .
 
2013-05-12 11:36:54 PM

19 Kilo: Man, for someone without the beans to serve in a front line unit, you sure do know how to dig and keep digging.


When was the last significant tank battle, WWII?
 
2013-05-12 11:37:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Oh wow really? And you got to change air filters! I bet that's the DLC for Call of Duty, right? So dangerous...


Tell us about your service, Major Pain.
 
2013-05-12 11:40:40 PM

Popcorn Johnny: cameroncrazy1984: Oh wow really? And you got to change air filters! I bet that's the DLC for Call of Duty, right? So dangerous...

Tell us about your service, Major Pain.


Oh no, I'm not bragging about any military service. You're the one bragging about being an oil changer. Why don't you tell us how dangerous it was having to not trip over the tool box on the way to get a new filter?
 
2013-05-12 11:40:46 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Bootleg: So, a lot like WAAF. Yeah, I perfered the Heidelberg area, myself, but I guess the countryside can be nice.

Germany was a great place, I'd love to go back. We'd just hop in the car on the weekend with no idea most times where we were going and would always find something cool to do or interesting place to explore. I was lucky enough to be over there when the Berlin wall was coming down. Made the drive there and got to pass through Checkpoint Charlie while it was still around. Also chipped off a bunch of pieces of the wall for friends and family.


Yeah, I was way too late for any of that.
 
2013-05-12 11:41:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Oh no, I'm not bragging about any military service.


Can't brag about what you don't have, right?
 
2013-05-12 11:42:23 PM

Radioactive Ass: My question is why the hell not, at least for that one day of the year? Especially when you acknowledge that you know that there is turmoil going on at the time. I have no idea if they could have helped or not but to not have been a bit more prepared is idiotic. If I had not kept my gear ready to go and it was actually needed I would've had my ass handed to me by my CO and rightfully so.


OK, so where, exactly--and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight--should we have been "a bit more prepared"? Everywhere? And how much more is "a bit"? Should there have been 10 more Marines? 20? Fifty? In other words, based on what was known on September 10th--after ten years of nothing much happening, and no real reason to be alarmed--what would have been better to have done?  Bearing in mind that they knew LESS about an impending attack than was known on 9/11/2001.

You are honestly suggesting that simply because it was 9/11 and for no other reason we should have had every single US installation, embassy, consulate, base, outpost, foreign service office and inspection station on high alert on the off chance that there MIGHT be a terrorist attack. The answer to your question is that we could be more prepared--but nobody is really willing to live like that. Because you can't have a single day of heightened awareness as you're describing, and then go back to ordinary routine. Either you have high alert every day, all the time--or you don't. Bases in combat areas live under full alert; but in hostile countries, we don't HAVE embassies because they can't function under that kind of stress. And unless there is reason to think there is that kind of threat, because we are America, we don't have those kinds of lockdowns.

I suppose we could--but then, you know, the terrorists' goal of making us change our fundamental governmental structure would have succeeded, wouldn't it?
 
2013-05-12 11:42:46 PM

HK-MP5-SD: What do you disagree with, the fact that the equipment existed in Tripoli, or that the Marines would have followed a direct order to allow other american troops to use that equipment?


Source that they had those weapons?  And Bourne movies do not count.
 
2013-05-12 11:44:35 PM

Gyrfalcon: OK, so where, exactly--and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight--should we have been "a bit more prepared"? Everywhere? And how much more is "a bit"? Should there have been 10 more Marines? 20? Fifty? In other words, based on what was known on September 10th--after ten years of nothing much happening, and no real reason to be alarmed--what would have been better to have done?  Bearing in mind that they knew LESS about an impending attack than was known on 9/11/2001.


This isn't really about what could have or should have been done, it's how the Obama administration handled the aftermath.
 
2013-05-12 11:47:11 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Gyrfalcon: OK, so where, exactly--and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight--should we have been "a bit more prepared"? Everywhere? And how much more is "a bit"? Should there have been 10 more Marines? 20? Fifty? In other words, based on what was known on September 10th--after ten years of nothing much happening, and no real reason to be alarmed--what would have been better to have done?  Bearing in mind that they knew LESS about an impending attack than was known on 9/11/2001.

This isn't really about what could have or should have been done, it's how the Obama administration handled the aftermath.


What is the "it" you are referring to when talking a out what the Obama administration did in the aftermath?
 
2013-05-12 11:47:11 PM

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: Man, for someone without the beans to serve in a front line unit, you sure do know how to dig and keep digging.

When was the last significant tank battle, WWII?


Well, there was Najaf and Basra in 2003.
There was also these tiny little dust-ups in the middle of bumfark nowhere like Medina Ridge and 73 Easting in '91.
 
2013-05-12 11:47:40 PM

HK-MP5-SD: First of all you have no idea which specific special forces units they were in.  Were they Army Special forces, Seals, Delta Force?  We don't know and never will.  They may not have been infantry, but they all almost definitely had basic infantry skills.  They were not equipped for the mission, but as I pointed out earlier the required equipment was available.  Were they trained for the mission? that would have depended on which specific special forces unit they were part of.   If they were seals or Delta the answer is a resounding Yes!  If the were army special forces the answer would depend on their previous duty.  Given the state of the world today, chances are good that they would have spent some time training Iraqi or Afghan soldiers in counter insurgency and hostage rescue techniques, so once again yes they would have had the required training.


Oh you actually believe this don't you.
 
2013-05-12 11:48:01 PM

Popcorn Johnny: cameroncrazy1984: Oh no, I'm not bragging about any military service.

Can't brag about what you don't have, right?


You seem to.
 
2013-05-12 11:48:19 PM

Popcorn Johnny: clkeagle: So you served in a low-density MOS

Yeah, the Army only had 9 helicopters and most of those were used for beer runs.


Just reminding you that your 6-in-6 experience in the 90s wasn't the same as that of an 11-, 12-, or 19-series.

But if it makes you feel better, I do remember some 71Ms making rank that quickly.
 
2013-05-12 11:48:56 PM

max_pooper: What is the "it" you are referring to when talking a out what the Obama administration did in the aftermath?


Scrubbing the talking points to remove any mention of it being an organized attack, even though that's exactly what the CIA told them it was. They even went as far as to blame it on an internet video.
 
2013-05-12 11:49:10 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Gyrfalcon: OK, so where, exactly--and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight--should we have been "a bit more prepared"? Everywhere? And how much more is "a bit"? Should there have been 10 more Marines? 20? Fifty? In other words, based on what was known on September 10th--after ten years of nothing much happening, and no real reason to be alarmed--what would have been better to have done?  Bearing in mind that they knew LESS about an impending attack than was known on 9/11/2001.

This isn't really about what could have or should have been done, it's how the Obama administration handled the aftermath.


No, it's about how many filters you could change in a day.
 
2013-05-12 11:51:13 PM

HK-MP5-SD: demaL-demaL-yeH:
And what, exactly, do you think those four guys could have done against an unknown number of assailants with heavy weapons in a crowded city, even assuming they got there in time to do anything? And who would have taken on the mission they had already been assigned?

They could have started the four hour flight from Tripoli to Benghazi so in case the Ambassador who was missing called the embassy on the phone and said "I'm hiding in an abandoned building in Benghazi, send help!"
he wouldn't have to wait 5 hours for someone to come and get him.  Even if he did not call in, the military had 4 hours to gather intelligence before they arrived.  If they couldn't do anything when they got to Benghazi which in retrospect would have been the case, nothing would have been lost, However if he had survived the presence of  well trained special forces troops would have been huge.

As for the special forces troops previous mission, it would have had to wait.  When the Titannic hit the Iceburg, the crew stopped rearranging the deck chairs.


So you really are as stupid as i thought you were. Woulda? Coulda? Shoulda?
See my double facepalm? Imitate it. Hold that position and stick your head back up your fourth point of contact.
 
2013-05-12 11:51:16 PM

Popcorn Johnny: max_pooper: What is the "it" you are referring to when talking a out what the Obama administration did in the aftermath?

Scrubbing the talking points to remove any mention of it being an organized attack, even though that's exactly what the CIA told them it was. They even went as far as to blame it on an internet video.


Yes, because in the real world, there is this stuff called classified information.  That is information that can not be talked about with the appropriate clearances and is only on a need to know basis.  In the immediate aftermath of this attack, that information was classified.  That means we don't go on Sunday talk shows blabbing about it.  I know this is might be hard to understand for a mechanic.
 
2013-05-12 11:54:21 PM

dlp211: Yes, because in the real world, there is this stuff called classified information.  That is information that can not be talked about with the appropriate clearances and is only on a need to know basis.  In the immediate aftermath of this attack, that information was classified.  That means we don't go on Sunday talk shows blabbing about it.  I know this is might be hard to understand for a mechanic.


LOL
 
2013-05-12 11:54:50 PM

SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.


Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?
 
2013-05-12 11:57:26 PM

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: Man, for someone without the beans to serve in a front line unit, you sure do know how to dig and keep digging.

When was the last significant tank battle, WWII?


73 Easting?  Medina Ridge?  Ring any bells?    That fine crunchy (hah!) upthread pointed out a couple more recent ones.  For someone who's pretending to have served, you'd think you'd be a little more up on combat actions.

So, can you school me on the last significant rotary wing mechanic battle?  Crossed Wrenches Pass?  Last Slice of Pie at the Chowhall?  Holy Hell I Can't Find My Wallet Ridge?  The Genocide of the 5988-E?
 
2013-05-12 11:58:33 PM

HK-MP5-SD: ongbok: HK-MP5-SD: There was a Marine detachment at the embassy equipped with M-4 assault rifles, shotguns, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, body armor, and  possibly a SAW or two.  I think that if the President or someone in their chain of command in the pentagon had ordered the marines, they might have loaned the special forces troops some hardware, don't you?

Too bad the attack didn't happen at the embassy, it happened at the consulate which because it was a consulate, isn't as heavily guarded.

Another poster claimed the 4 special forces soldiers in Tripoli could not help because they did not have the proper equipment.  i was just pointing out that the proper equipment was available in Tripoli.


They were in Tripoli. Tripoli is not Benghazi, in fact it is 400 miles away from Benghazi. What the hell use were 4 special forces guys in Tripoli with weapons they borrowed from the Marines, going do for the people getting attacked at the consulate in Benghazi?
 
2013-05-12 11:59:09 PM

Kibbler: Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?


Well, obviously. Look how many times Fox News aired hearings of the ambassadors, and how many times Congress subpoenaed Powell and Condi to testify.

And how many times Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry went on MSNBC, saying that the cover-ups for those attacks were greater than Lewinsky times Whitewater times ten.
 
2013-05-12 11:59:53 PM

Kibbler: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?


I suppose it would depend.  In how many of them did continuing attacks occur seven hours after the initial assault (including the death of Americans fighting back) and the military decided sending available personnel to try and protect/evacuate them just wasn't worth it?
 
2013-05-13 12:00:04 AM

Kibbler: Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?


That's it, Obama supporters officially have nothing to fall back on and are pulling the "but...but...Bush" card. The same pathetic move Jay Carney pulled the other day when being questioned on the IRS targeting conservative groups.
 
2013-05-13 12:00:21 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Mrtraveler01: So whose word should I value more, someone who has been in the military for decades and is the Secretary of Defense...or some guy on the internet?

Yes...let's just throw more people into the situation without thinking about it. Because evaluating the pros and cons of a situation is for pussies.

And if we did what the troll said and all the troops responding died, I'm sure he PROMISES he wouldn't freak out and call for Obama's murder trial for sending in the troops like a moron.

To the other right wingers:
To be able to cover all areas we'd need dozens of bases in every country of the world and a much larger military so they can sit around on shifts on standby.  This would cost a lot of money and piss off the world due to the hundreds/thousands of military bases we'd need for this.   Which would lead to more and more attacks.

Which would cost a huge amount of additional money.

And in the mean time, every right wing politicians, pundits, and think tank is demanding that close all overseas bases and bring those troops back to the states.


 I am sorry  but, I wouldn't trust a republican think-tank  pro or con on any involvement within the middle east

since  a republican thinktank got us in a cluster fark, that we still haven't seen the  true cost  of yet.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-13 12:02:29 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Kibbler: Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?

That's it, Obama supporters officially have nothing to fall back on and are pulling the "but...but...Bush" card. The same pathetic move Jay Carney pulled the other day when being questioned on the IRS targeting conservative groups.


You still haven't been able to explain what the Obama adminstration did that you're so mad about.
 
2013-05-13 12:02:55 AM

19 Kilo: Medina Ridge


4 US tanks damaged

186 Iraqi tanks destroyed
127 AFV's destroyed.

I've seen more danger to US troops during training exercises.
 
2013-05-13 12:03:01 AM

19 Kilo: That fine crunchy (hah!) upthread pointed out a couple more recent ones.  For someone who's pretending to have served, you'd think you'd be a little more up on combat actions.


I'd break track with you any day, bro.*

/*As long as I don't have to put it back together or pull those big, nasty plates out of the way.
 
2013-05-13 12:03:38 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Gyrfalcon: OK, so where, exactly--and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight--should we have been "a bit more prepared"? Everywhere? And how much more is "a bit"? Should there have been 10 more Marines? 20? Fifty? In other words, based on what was known on September 10th--after ten years of nothing much happening, and no real reason to be alarmed--what would have been better to have done?  Bearing in mind that they knew LESS about an impending attack than was known on 9/11/2001.

This isn't really about what could have or should have been done, it's how the Obama administration handled the aftermath.


Oh, is that the new debate? Shiat, I can't keep up, last night it was about whether or not the Special Forces Delta SEALs SAS Marines could have flown in via CF-18 Attack helicopter and parajumped into the consulate basement in time to rescue the dead Ambassador.

Will you guys pick ONE scandal topic and stick to it so we can at least semi-rationally discuss it for three hours at a stretch?
 
2013-05-13 12:03:57 AM
FTFA: Gates pointed out that others had suggested that the military could have sent in Special Forces or some other small group.

"Based on everything I've read, people really didn't know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously, and to send some small number of Special Forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous," the former defense secretary observed. "And personally, I would not have approved that."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way. And there just wasn't time to do that."



He's right. People who believe this nonsense they see portrayed in movies and TV shows don't really understand how the military works. Of course, these are the same people who believe in the "enhance" feature for reading car license plates from badly blurred source photos, and instantaneous DNA results.
 
2013-05-13 12:05:10 AM
The USA did lose one soldier at Medina Ridge, he was killed by friendly fire.
 
2013-05-13 12:05:49 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Kibbler: Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?

That's it, Obama supporters officially have nothing to fall back on and are pulling the "but...but...Bush" card. The same pathetic move Jay Carney pulled the other day when being questioned on the IRS targeting conservative groups.


No it's not falling back on anything. It is a legitimate question. The same thing happened several times in the past, why didn't any of those times require hearing after hearing? What is different about this time? And while you are trying to think up an answer for that, also explain exactly what was the scandal?
 
2013-05-13 12:05:58 AM

Gyrfalcon: Oh, is that the new debate? Shiat, I can't keep up, last night it was about whether or not the Special Forces Delta SEALs SAS Marines could have flown in via CF-18 Attack helicopter and parajumped into the consulate basement in time to rescue the dead Ambassador.

Will you guys pick ONE scandal topic and stick to it so we can at least semi-rationally discuss it for three hours at a stretch?


Soon, they'll circle back to "Obama watched on real time cameras and ordered the C-130 Gunships and Armed Reaper Drones to stand down."  And then the circle of moronic lies will start over.
 
2013-05-13 12:07:02 AM

SunsetLament: Kibbler: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?

I suppose it would depend.  In how many of them did continuing attacks occur seven hours after the initial assault (including the death of Americans fighting back) and the military decided sending available personnel to try and protect/evacuate them just wasn't worth it?


Continuing attacks? You mean two completely seperate attacks, the second of which occured 7 hours later at a speeate facility and killed two members of the evacuation team that was sent earlier to... well evacuate personnel.

GOL apologists are very mad about stuff that only happens in their heads.
 
2013-05-13 12:07:22 AM

SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ...


...because I know much better than the former Secretary of Defense how the military can respond to an attack! Why won't anyone listen to me?!!?!
 
2013-05-13 12:09:07 AM

Radioactive Ass: Philip Francis Queeg: well then tell us exactly what response time you think should been in place throughout the mid east. two hours? 4? 12?

4 to 5 depending upon the location would have been reasonable in my opinion (from getting the word to go until landing).


So then you agree nothing could have been done to change the outcome in this case. Good.

Now please list the exact deployments that would be required to place a significant force into combat anywhere in the mid east in 4 to 5 hours time. I'd like to know how many resources you would have wasted  on a plan which you admit couldn't have intervened in time.
 
2013-05-13 12:10:11 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Gyrfalcon: Oh, is that the new debate? Shiat, I can't keep up, last night it was about whether or not the Special Forces Delta SEALs SAS Marines could have flown in via CF-18 Attack helicopter and parajumped into the consulate basement in time to rescue the dead Ambassador.

Will you guys pick ONE scandal topic and stick to it so we can at least semi-rationally discuss it for three hours at a stretch?

Soon, they'll circle back to "Obama watched on real time cameras and ordered the C-130 Gunships and Armed Reaper Drones to stand down."  And then the circle of moronic lies will start over.


In fairness, his Time Machine was broken that week, and he has since failed to activate it to prevent the attacks from happening. Obviously, he engineered the multitude of attacks during GW's stint in office as well. Truly, he is history's greatest monster...
 
2013-05-13 12:10:26 AM

ongbok: No it's not falling back on anything. It is a legitimate question. The same thing happened several times in the past, why didn't any of those times require hearing after hearing? What is different about this time? And while you are trying to think up an answer for that, also explain exactly what was the scandal?


Did the Bush administration blatantly lie about what took place during those attacks?
 
2013-05-13 12:10:52 AM

ongbok: HK-MP5-SD: ongbok: HK-MP5-SD: There was a Marine detachment at the embassy equipped with M-4 assault rifles, shotguns, M203 grenade launchers, hand grenades, body armor, and  possibly a SAW or two.  I think that if the President or someone in their chain of command in the pentagon had ordered the marines, they might have loaned the special forces troops some hardware, don't you?

Too bad the attack didn't happen at the embassy, it happened at the consulate which because it was a consulate, isn't as heavily guarded.

Another poster claimed the 4 special forces soldiers in Tripoli could not help because they did not have the proper equipment.  i was just pointing out that the proper equipment was available in Tripoli.

They were in Tripoli. Tripoli is not Benghazi, in fact it is 400 miles away from Benghazi. What the hell use were 4 special forces guys in Tripoli with weapons they borrowed from the Marines, going do for the people getting attacked at the consulate in Benghazi?


Call in the Marines most likely who have to respond from the closest military bases and could have been there in a day or two. I thought that was kind of obvious.
 
2013-05-13 12:13:29 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Radioactive Ass: Philip Francis Queeg: well then tell us exactly what response time you think should been in place throughout the mid east. two hours? 4? 12?

4 to 5 depending upon the location would have been reasonable in my opinion (from getting the word to go until landing).

So then you agree nothing could have been done to change the outcome in this case. Good.

Now please list the exact deployments that would be required to place a significant force into combat anywhere in the mid east in 4 to 5 hours time. I'd like to know how many resources you would have wasted  on a plan which you admit couldn't have intervened in time.


What's amazing is that the amount of resources required to pull something like this off don't exist.  The logistics of it all are astronomical.
 
2013-05-13 12:14:08 AM

Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: No it's not falling back on anything. It is a legitimate question. The same thing happened several times in the past, why didn't any of those times require hearing after hearing? What is different about this time? And while you are trying to think up an answer for that, also explain exactly what was the scandal?

Did the Bush administration blatantly lie about what took place during those attacks?


More than likely. They lied about pretty much everything from yellow cake uranium to mobile weapons labs to GW crashing his mountain bike.
 
2013-05-13 12:14:30 AM

Gyrfalcon: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ...

...because I know much better than the former Secretary of Defense how the military can respond to an attack! Why won't anyone listen to me?!!?!


Nope, I just agree with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson.  The problem is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson disagrees with Bob Gates.  When it comes to determining the capabilities of our members of the special forces, I'll lean towards the opinion of the Green Beret over the opinion of the IA at Langley turned career CYA risk adverse politician.  You don't like my opinion?  Take it up with the Gibson.
 
2013-05-13 12:15:13 AM

dlp211: What's amazing is that believe we can pull something like this off. But the amount of resources required to pull something like this off don't exist.  The logistics of it all are astronomical.


FTFM
 
2013-05-13 12:15:19 AM

max_pooper: More than likely.


And you want to talk about republicans and their logic?
 
2013-05-13 12:15:27 AM

SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.


See this is the perfect example of what Gates was talking about when he said people have a cartoonish impression of the military.

Oh no, fark what the expert in this type of situation says! Dammit send it the troops like I see them do on T.V!
 
2013-05-13 12:15:35 AM

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: Medina Ridge

4 US tanks damaged

186 Iraqi tanks destroyed
127 AFV's destroyed.

I've seen more danger to US troops during training exercises.


So, now you're authoritative on what actions the executive branch should have taken during a ground attack involving large groups of people, AND you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes a significant armored engagement?  And your experience is firmly rooted in being a REMF who spent some time tooling around Bavaria?

I've seen a new driver get his head torn off when he stuck it out of the driver's hole while a turret was traversing.  I've seen what was left of a 19D who was on the wrong side of a Brad round because the guy he was linking ammo with decided to use a hammer to seat it.  You're a fool.
 
2013-05-13 12:17:01 AM

dlp211: Philip Francis Queeg: Radioactive Ass: Philip Francis Queeg: well then tell us exactly what response time you think should been in place throughout the mid east. two hours? 4? 12?

4 to 5 depending upon the location would have been reasonable in my opinion (from getting the word to go until landing).

So then you agree nothing could have been done to change the outcome in this case. Good.

Now please list the exact deployments that would be required to place a significant force into combat anywhere in the mid east in 4 to 5 hours time. I'd like to know how many resources you would have wasted  on a plan which you admit couldn't have intervened in time.

What's amazing is that the amount of resources required to pull something like this off don't exist.  The logistics of it all are astronomical.


Not only that, but if we had put the logistics in place, and had teams ready for instant deployment, they like would have been sent to Egypt when the embassy compound was breached. Even in fantasy world they wouldn't have been available for Benghazi.
 
2013-05-13 12:17:31 AM

SunsetLament: Gyrfalcon: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ...

...because I know much better than the former Secretary of Defense how the military can respond to an attack! Why won't anyone listen to me?!!?!

Nope, I just agree with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson.  The problem is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson disagrees with Bob Gates.  When it comes to determining the capabilities of our members of the special forces, I'll lean towards the opinion of the Green Beret over the opinion of the IA at Langley turned career CYA risk adverse politician.  You don't like my opinion?  Take it up with the Gibson.


So can you point me to which quote you agree with Lt. Col. Gibson on?
 
2013-05-13 12:17:46 AM

Popcorn Johnny: max_pooper: More than likely.

And you want to talk about republicans and their logic?


Republicans have very little logic. They certainly don't have enough to piece together why the Benghazi attack was such a scandal. You can't explain what the Obama administration did that has got your grease stained panties in a knot.
 
2013-05-13 12:18:26 AM

19 Kilo: So, now you're authoritative on what actions the executive branch should have taken during a ground attack involving large groups of people, AND you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes a significant armored engagement? And your experience is firmly rooted in being a REMF who spent some time tooling around Bavaria?

I've seen a new driver get his head torn off when he stuck it out of the driver's hole while a turret was traversing. I've seen what was left of a 19D who was on the wrong side of a Brad round because the guy he was linking ammo with decided to use a hammer to seat it. You're a fool


According to my notes:
Popcorn Johnny(favorite: Sack of trolling shiat, fark you)
 
2013-05-13 12:20:15 AM

19 Kilo: I've seen a new driver get his head torn off when he stuck it out of the driver's hole while a turret was traversing.  I've seen what was left of a 19D who was on the wrong side of a Brad round because the guy he was linking ammo with decided to use a hammer to seat it.


I saw a new Cobra pilot die after walking into his own tail rotor. He was excited after a good day of qualifying at the range. Also saw two pilots die after hitting wires while flying at night.

Is there a point you're trying to make here?
 
2013-05-13 12:21:22 AM

Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: No it's not falling back on anything. It is a legitimate question. The same thing happened several times in the past, why didn't any of those times require hearing after hearing? What is different about this time? And while you are trying to think up an answer for that, also explain exactly what was the scandal?

Did the Bush administration blatantly lie about what took place during those attacks?


I don't know, he never said much about them. But Obama never lied lied either, he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA, and later corrected it when it was realized it was incorrect information.

And answer this, what exactly did he have to gain by lying about what happened? Because that is a very important question, unless you think he just lied to be lying. So your claim that he lied and tried to coverup what happened just doesn't make sense because their wasn't any reason for him to lie in that situation..
 
2013-05-13 12:23:02 AM
Besides, this conversation is moronic.

Obama would have sent in the four seals issued with scissor grenades, limbo vapor, and tripple-blast brain spitters.  Once they secured the consulate they could have then laid mimetic cluster mines and dug trenches and filled them with acid.
 
2013-05-13 12:24:08 AM

Popcorn Johnny: The USA did lose one soldier at Medina Ridge, he was killed by friendly fire.


It could have been a lot more because we really screwed up. If it weren't for their even greater screw-ups, we could have lost a lot of guys. Three major mistakes: 1) They weren't in their tanks, thanks to our air making it an unsafe place to hang out; 2) they chose berms rather than digging in - berms just kind of polish up the depleted uranium round as it goes through; 3) strangely enough, their pickets didn't warn the main force. It's not clear why.

Fix those three things, and at those ranges, even the M1 can be toasted.

Good God we farked up and we got lucky.
 
2013-05-13 12:24:16 AM

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: I've seen a new driver get his head torn off when he stuck it out of the driver's hole while a turret was traversing.  I've seen what was left of a 19D who was on the wrong side of a Brad round because the guy he was linking ammo with decided to use a hammer to seat it.

I saw a new Cobra pilot die after walking into his own tail rotor. He was excited after a good day of qualifying at the range. Also saw two pilots die after hitting wires while flying at night.

Is there a point you're trying to make here?


Yep.  You are, apparently, incapable of distinguishing training accidents from actual combat.  But, you're a keyboard commando and shall henceforth be relegated to the Blue 1 farky reserved for trolls.  Good on ya!  I hope your imagined faux-military expertise keeps you warm at night.  I'm also glad bigger men than you put themselves in harms way, and better men than you have supported them.  Kisses.
 
2013-05-13 12:24:30 AM

SunsetLament: Gyrfalcon: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ...

...because I know much better than the former Secretary of Defense how the military can respond to an attack! Why won't anyone listen to me?!!?!

Nope, I just agree with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson.  The problem is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson disagrees with Bob Gates.  When it comes to determining the capabilities of our members of the special forces, I'll lean towards the opinion of the Green Beret over the opinion of the IA at Langley turned career CYA risk adverse politician.  You don't like my opinion?  Take it up with the Gibson.


Ah. Last night, you were in solid with Gates. Now you agree with someone who doesn't agree with him...and what does Gibson have to say about it? Has he said anything except the hearsay quote that Gates claims he made about Gates having more balls than most politicians?
 
2013-05-13 12:25:20 AM

dlp211: SunsetLament: Gyrfalcon: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ...

...because I know much better than the former Secretary of Defense how the military can respond to an attack! Why won't anyone listen to me?!!?!

Nope, I just agree with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson.  The problem is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson disagrees with Bob Gates.  When it comes to determining the capabilities of our members of the special forces, I'll lean towards the opinion of the Green Beret over the opinion of the IA at Langley turned career CYA risk adverse politician.  You don't like my opinion?  Take it up with the Gibson.

So can you point me to which quote you agree with Lt. Col. Gibson on?


Sure, Hicks testified that he asked Gibson why he wasn't on the plane to Tripoli and Gibson responded that two separate times he told someone higher than him in the chain of command that he and three other members of his team were leaving to go to Benghazi and both times the response was that the four men were not to get on the airplane.  Then Gibson told Hicks that this was (paraphrase - if you want the exact quote, Google is your friend) "the first time in his career that someone in the State Department (Hicks) had more balls than the military (whoever gave him the stand-down order)."

Now ... who gave him the order?  Let's get Gibson in front of Congress and find out.  I'm sure everyone wants to know.
 
2013-05-13 12:25:37 AM

ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,


No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.
 
2013-05-13 12:25:42 AM

ongbok: I don't know, he never said much about them. But Obama never lied lied either, he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA, and later corrected it when it was realized it was incorrect information.

And answer this, what exactly did he have to gain by lying about what happened? Because that is a very important question, unless you think he just lied to be lying. So your claim that he lied and tried to coverup what happened just doesn't make sense because their wasn't any reason for him to lie in that situation..


See, Obama spent the last four years working the fact that he personally killed EVERY Al Queda operative IN THE WORLD with his bare hands.  He would work in every conversation about how Al Queso didn't exist any more and that they were all destroyed in the Pyramid Wars.  So having to admit before the Presidential Erection that not only did terrorists still exist but they still had the power to kill Americans, it would have ruined his reelection chances.
 
2013-05-13 12:27:18 AM

19 Kilo: Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: I've seen a new driver get his head torn off when he stuck it out of the driver's hole while a turret was traversing.  I've seen what was left of a 19D who was on the wrong side of a Brad round because the guy he was linking ammo with decided to use a hammer to seat it.

I saw a new Cobra pilot die after walking into his own tail rotor. He was excited after a good day of qualifying at the range. Also saw two pilots die after hitting wires while flying at night.

Is there a point you're trying to make here?

Yep.  You are, apparently, incapable of distinguishing training accidents from actual combat.  But, you're a keyboard commando and shall henceforth be relegated to the Blue 1 farky reserved for trolls.  Good on ya!  I hope your imagined faux-military expertise keeps you warm at night.  I'm also glad bigger men than you put themselves in harms way, and better men than you have supported them.  Kisses.


The idea of Johnny having been anywhere nearer combat than a live-fire round in Germany makes me laugh my ass off. He'd have been shot dead by some AK-toting camel jockey within moments of deploying into Iraq if he'd ever been there.
 
2013-05-13 12:27:43 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: 19 Kilo: That fine crunchy (hah!) upthread pointed out a couple more recent ones.  For someone who's pretending to have served, you'd think you'd be a little more up on combat actions.

I'd break track with you any day, bro.*

/*As long as I don't have to put it back together or pull those big, nasty plates out of the way.


Skirts.  The armor around the hull/roadwheels/track is called skirts.

/Tanks are totes manly tho.
 
2013-05-13 12:27:48 AM

SunsetLament: dlp211: SunsetLament: Gyrfalcon: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ...

...because I know much better than the former Secretary of Defense how the military can respond to an attack! Why won't anyone listen to me?!!?!

Nope, I just agree with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson.  The problem is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson disagrees with Bob Gates.  When it comes to determining the capabilities of our members of the special forces, I'll lean towards the opinion of the Green Beret over the opinion of the IA at Langley turned career CYA risk adverse politician.  You don't like my opinion?  Take it up with the Gibson.

So can you point me to which quote you agree with Lt. Col. Gibson on?

Sure, Hicks testified that he asked Gibson why he wasn't on the plane to Tripoli and Gibson responded that two separate times he told someone higher than him in the chain of command that he and three other members of his team were leaving to go to Benghazi and both times the response was that the four men were not to get on the airplane.  Then Gibson told Hicks that this was (paraphrase - if you want the exact quote, Google is your friend) "the first time in his career that someone in the State Department (Hicks) had more balls than the military (whoever gave him the stand-down order)."

Now ... who gave him the order?  Let's get Gibson in front of Congress and find out.  I'm sure everyone wants to know.


So, do you know what a quote is?
 
2013-05-13 12:27:54 AM

SunsetLament: Sure, Hicks testified that he asked Gibson why he wasn't on the plane to Tripoli and Gibson responded that two separate times he told someone higher than him in the chain of command that he and three other members of his team were leaving to go to Benghazi and both times the response was that the four men were not to get on the airplane. Then Gibson told Hicks that this was (paraphrase - if you want the exact quote, Google is your friend) "the first time in his career that someone in the State Department (Hicks) had more balls than the military (whoever gave him the stand-down order)."

Now ... who gave him the order? Let's get Gibson in front of Congress and find out. I'm sure everyone wants to know.


And this one time, Jackie Chan told me that I was better at kung-fu then any white man alive.  And then this random huge black guy complemented me on the size of my penis.
 
2013-05-13 12:28:19 AM
As a curious observer, was serving during Medina Ridge more or less dangerous than replacing helicopter parts?
 
2013-05-13 12:28:34 AM

19 Kilo: You are, apparently, incapable of distinguishing training accidents from actual combat.


You cited some "major tank battle" and I responded by pointing out the details of the attack. It wasn't a major battle, it was shooting fish in a barrel. By the way, my former unit lost two Blackhawks full of soldiers when they were mistakenly shot down by F-15's. 26 dead.
 
2013-05-13 12:29:26 AM

Radioactive Ass: Like we said in the Navy, Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. That's what this sounds like to me, a lack of prior planning. We did and had a lot of things that never got used for real life problems, that doesn't mean that it was a bad idea to do them. I've shot somewhere around 60 exercise torpedoes and countless waterslugs yet never shot a warshot at anyone in anger (nobody in the USN has in a very long time). Therefore the Navy should stop carrying torpedoes on their submarines.

The job of the military is to be ready in the event of something happening and then figuring out where those things are most likely to happen. Is Northern Italy a current hot spot or is the Middle East, especially on that date, the best place to have men and equipment available?


Did the Navy teach you that crap or did you shiat that out yourself?  Dude, that makes no sense.  And if you were in the Navy, you'd know that there is no way in hell you can keep shuttling around forces all throughout the planet to respond on a moment's notice, especially in the  Middle East.  Just basing troops there is inviting something to happen...to them.  And who the F knows where something will happen?  The intelligence services prolly come up with a 1000 credible threats a week WORLDWIDE, and where do you suppose we keep a battalion of Marines to send out a platoon or company ready to respond within a couple of hours? In orbit on the ISS?!?

This isn't Nintendo.  We don't have timewarp capabilities.  BTW, suppose shiat went down hard in Egypt and they decided to storm the embassy?  You send your react force there. Then..OOPS.  Libya jumps.  YOu are basically plum short of troops, aircraft, materiel, and plans to do anything.

Your argument doesn't make sense.  Besides, there is no way I can keep a platoon of Marines sitting on the apron ready to go on 1 hour NTM EVERYDAY.  You are seriously kidding yourself if you think that will happen.
 
2013-05-13 12:29:47 AM

dlp211: SunsetLament: dlp211: SunsetLament: Gyrfalcon: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ...

...because I know much better than the former Secretary of Defense how the military can respond to an attack! Why won't anyone listen to me?!!?!

Nope, I just agree with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson.  The problem is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson disagrees with Bob Gates.  When it comes to determining the capabilities of our members of the special forces, I'll lean towards the opinion of the Green Beret over the opinion of the IA at Langley turned career CYA risk adverse politician.  You don't like my opinion?  Take it up with the Gibson.

So can you point me to which quote you agree with Lt. Col. Gibson on?

Sure, Hicks testified that he asked Gibson why he wasn't on the plane to Tripoli and Gibson responded that two separate times he told someone higher than him in the chain of command that he and three other members of his team were leaving to go to Benghazi and both times the response was that the four men were not to get on the airplane.  Then Gibson told Hicks that this was (paraphrase - if you want the exact quote, Google is your friend) "the first time in his career that someone in the State Department (Hicks) had more balls than the military (whoever gave him the stand-down order)."

Now ... who gave him the order?  Let's get Gibson in front of Congress and find out.  I'm sure everyone wants to know.

So, do you know what a quote is?


And of course, there's no reason why Gates might have made up what Gibson told him, right? We know that those words are the unvarnished truth from the horse's mouth to the horse's ass.
 
2013-05-13 12:30:11 AM

Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first classified report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.


I know that's a big word and you don't understand what it means, but it is significant.
 
2013-05-13 12:30:21 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Popcorn Johnny: Bootleg: Out of interest, where in Germany where you?

Giebelstadt Army Airfield.

Clearly the front lines. I bet those hausfraus were intimidating!



I still have my purple heart from the battle of Oktoberfest 92
 
2013-05-13 12:31:39 AM

Gyrfalcon: SunsetLament: Gyrfalcon: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ...

...because I know much better than the former Secretary of Defense how the military can respond to an attack! Why won't anyone listen to me?!!?!

Nope, I just agree with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson.  The problem is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson disagrees with Bob Gates.  When it comes to determining the capabilities of our members of the special forces, I'll lean towards the opinion of the Green Beret over the opinion of the IA at Langley turned career CYA risk adverse politician.  You don't like my opinion?  Take it up with the Gibson.

Ah. Last night, you were in solid with Gates. Now you agree with someone who doesn't agree with him...and what does Gibson have to say about it? Has he said anything except the hearsay quote that Gates claims he made about Gates having more balls than most politicians?


Here's the exact about of times I can ever remember typing Robert Gates' name (or referring to something he's said or done) in the last decade before tonight ... zero.  How never mentioning him puts me "in solid" with him, I have no idea - but you're obviously a liberal and I've learned facts will never impede your narrative.  So ... sure, whatever you say.
 
2013-05-13 12:32:30 AM
One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.
 
2013-05-13 12:32:42 AM

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: You are, apparently, incapable of distinguishing training accidents from actual combat.

You cited some "major tank battle" and I responded by pointing out the details of the attack. It wasn't a major battle, it was shooting fish in a barrel. By the way, my former unit lost two Blackhawks full of soldiers when they were mistakenly shot down by F-15's. 26 dead.


And now you're marked as this:

(favorite: Chairborne Ranger Extraordinaire.)

My former units did lots of things and lost lots of people too.  Heck, the company I work for now is a multi-billion dollar company!  Clearly I should go your route and claim those billions are mine, because I was in some way associated with it.  Stop trying to be hard pogue.
 
2013-05-13 12:32:51 AM

dlp211: I know that's a big word and you don't understand what it means, but it is significant.


It has absolutely nothing to do with how the administration chose to classify the attack. Nice try but I suspect that you know you're attempting to make a point that's irrelevant to what was and wasn't disclosed about the attack.
 
2013-05-13 12:35:54 AM

19 Kilo: My former units did lots of things and lost lots of people too.


Yeah, but in your arrogance, you were implying that aviation was somehow incapable of being dangerous.
 
2013-05-13 12:36:05 AM

Gyrfalcon: dlp211: SunsetLament: dlp211: SunsetLament: Gyrfalcon: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ...

...because I know much better than the former Secretary of Defense how the military can respond to an attack! Why won't anyone listen to me?!!?!

Nope, I just agree with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson.  The problem is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson disagrees with Bob Gates.  When it comes to determining the capabilities of our members of the special forces, I'll lean towards the opinion of the Green Beret over the opinion of the IA at Langley turned career CYA risk adverse politician.  You don't like my opinion?  Take it up with the Gibson.

So can you point me to which quote you agree with Lt. Col. Gibson on?

Sure, Hicks testified that he asked Gibson why he wasn't on the plane to Tripoli and Gibson responded that two separate times he told someone higher than him in the chain of command that he and three other members of his team were leaving to go to Benghazi and both times the response was that the four men were not to get on the airplane.  Then Gibson told Hicks that this was (paraphrase - if you want the exact quote, Google is your friend) "the first time in his career that someone in the State Department (Hicks) had more balls than the military (whoever gave him the stand-down order)."

Now ... who gave him the order?  Let's get Gibson in front of Congress and find out.  I'm sure everyone wants to know.

So, do you know what a quote is?

And of course, there's no reason why Gates might have made up what Gibson told him, right? We know that those words are the unvarnished truth from the horse's mouth to the horse's ass.


First of all, you mean Hicks, not Gates.  Second, Hicks is a liberal Democrat who voted for Obama twice (and Hillary in the primaries).  So ... removing politics from the equation ... no, I can't think of a reasonable explanation why Hicks would perjure himself in front of Congress.  But, surely, since you believe he has ... let's get Gibson in there under oath and let him either (a) call Hicks a liar, or (b) confirm his testimony.
 
2013-05-13 12:36:36 AM

Popcorn Johnny: MustangFive: 11C & 11B, 22 years (so far), SFC, CIB, EIB.

22 years and a SFC? Your career seems to have stalled a bit, wouldn't you say? I was throwing a packet together for the SFC board when I decided to get out after 8 years.

So which of your infantry badges are you more proud of, the one given to all grunts who put boots on the ground in a combat zone or the one that requires you to do some half assed course that required such challenging tasks as applying a field dressing and throwing a hand grenade?


Yeah, 22 years and an SFC. I could have been promoted years ago. I don't want to be a MSG or 1SG. I like working directly with Soldiers, with infantrymen. I am privileged to have the distinct honor of doing so. Someone has to teach and train them what to do when shiat goes sideways.

Since you decided to make an issue of ASVAB scores, my AFQT(overall ASVAB score) is 99, my GT is 134 and my MM is 136. Why, oh why, I'm sure you'll cry, would I choose the infantry? Cuz I'm not a pussy.

I'm far happier and much prefer to work with young men who, unlike some people, have the balls to say "give me the hard job, the one with actual risk," than to play pencil-pusher in an office surrounded by PX Rangers and fobbit types whose only fears are paper cuts, a bad OER/NCOER & the mess hall not serving steak & seafood on Friday.

Now, I know that I can't possibly measure up in your eyes. I know kicking down doors and getting in firefights pales in comparison to the dangers posed by low fluid levels and using the wrong size of cotter pin. Screw up a 2404 and the war will be lost! (BTW, a 4-man stack IS NOT "a line at the shoppette that indicates the need to open a second checkout register"). I know that the Army relies heavily on the support MOS's, so much so that they created the CAB to recognize their sacrifices in combat theaters (Cotton Absorbent Badge). Without you self-appointed life-takers and heartbreakers, I'm sure us lowly grunts (AKA, the ones doing the actual fighting and making actual sacrifices) would have no one to look to as sources of inspiration when lead starts flying.

So, thanks for doing what you did while you served. I'm sure you changed the world and made the PX safe for democracy.

Or, in other words:

For those who know, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, none is possible.
 
2013-05-13 12:36:48 AM

SunsetLament: Here's the exact about of times I can ever remember typing Robert Gates' name (or referring to something he's said or done) in the last decade before tonight ... zero. How never mentioning him puts me "in solid" with him, I have no idea - but you're obviously a liberal and I've learned facts will never impede your narrative. So ... sure, whatever you say.


Shiat, you're right. I confused Gates' name with Hicks. Silly me. And it was Friday, not last night.

I bow my head in shame.
 
2013-05-13 12:37:05 AM

Gyrfalcon: dlp211: SunsetLament: dlp211: SunsetLament: Gyrfalcon: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ...

...because I know much better than the former Secretary of Defense how the military can respond to an attack! Why won't anyone listen to me?!!?!

Nope, I just agree with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson.  The problem is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson disagrees with Bob Gates.  When it comes to determining the capabilities of our members of the special forces, I'll lean towards the opinion of the Green Beret over the opinion of the IA at Langley turned career CYA risk adverse politician.  You don't like my opinion?  Take it up with the Gibson.

So can you point me to which quote you agree with Lt. Col. Gibson on?

Sure, Hicks testified that he asked Gibson why he wasn't on the plane to Tripoli and Gibson responded that two separate times he told someone higher than him in the chain of command that he and three other members of his team were leaving to go to Benghazi and both times the response was that the four men were not to get on the airplane.  Then Gibson told Hicks that this was (paraphrase - if you want the exact quote, Google is your friend) "the first time in his career that someone in the State Department (Hicks) had more balls than the military (whoever gave him the stand-down order)."

Now ... who gave him the order?  Let's get Gibson in front of Congress and find out.  I'm sure everyone wants to know.

So, do you know what a quote is?

And of course, there's no reason why Gates might have made up what Gibson told him, right? We know that those words are the unvarnished truth from the horse's mouth to the horse's ass.


I'm not quoting Gates quoting Gibson.  What Gates can testify to is the actual capabilities of the military.  Believe it or not, we don't just send our troops anywhere on a whim.  The amount of intelligence needed to put a Delta, SeAL, or Ranger team on the ground is huge.  The assets required to do so is beyond most civilian's and fellow military personell's comprehension

This idea, that 4 guys were going to fly in like cowboys and save the day is pure fantasy no matter who they are or what training they have.  They would have wound up dead too.
 
2013-05-13 12:37:27 AM

Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.


That's unfair.  I was deployed on active duty and when I was in the Guard.  Can I be both?
 
2013-05-13 12:39:27 AM

Popcorn Johnny: dlp211: I know that's a big word and you don't understand what it means, but it is significant.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how the administration chose to classify the attack. Nice try but I suspect that you know you're attempting to make a point that's irrelevant to what was and wasn't disclosed about the attack.


You are not the sole arbiter of what is and is not relevant. People much smarter than you with much more important positions in the military and state department get to make those decisions. Your opinion matters very little since it is not based on fact but upon pre-existing political bias.
 
2013-05-13 12:39:51 AM

MustangFive: I could have been promoted years ago. I don't want to be a MSG or 1SG.


And with that little nugget of BS, I'm out of this thread. It's been fun trading barbs with some of you.
 
2013-05-13 12:41:21 AM

19 Kilo: Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.

That's unfair.  I was deployed on active duty and when I was in the Guard.  Can I be both?


You....are a lunatic and I'm proud to know you.
 
2013-05-13 12:42:46 AM

Popcorn Johnny: You cited some "major tank battle" and I responded by pointing out the details of the attack. It wasn't a major battle, it was shooting fish in a barrel. By the way, my former unit lost two Blackhawks full of soldiers when they were mistakenly shot down by F-15's. 26 dead.


So you're claiming to be from 6th Battalion, 159th Aviation Regiment.
 
2013-05-13 12:44:48 AM

Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.


Then why did he lie? What was the point of it?
 
2013-05-13 12:46:03 AM

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: My former units did lots of things and lost lots of people too.

Yeah, but in your arrogance, you were implying that aviation was somehow incapable of being dangerous.


No, you, in your arrogance were downplaying a combat mission with a high ratio of kills as "not a major tank battle".  Gulf War I was incredibly important in showing that the US had armor and the tactics developed around it that were wildly successful.  You, being a dildo, intimated that training was more dangerous.  You were doing this, I suspect, because your (thank you for your service) military career as a pogue and faux-tactical expert on Fark has been  roundly shat upon by many people, from many MOSs in many posts.

And I do concede your point that aviation is dangerous.  That's what happens when you fight physics.  I would counter that you, as a ground based wrench monkey, were not exposed to the same level as say, pilots or 11B soldiers engaged in air assault training.  You know why?  Because you were a ground based wrench monkey.

Meh.  Enough with you.  Makin' my agent orange flare up.  Again, stop trying to act hard REMF.  You're just making yourself look silly.
 
2013-05-13 12:48:48 AM
Is Benghazi a scandal yet?
 
2013-05-13 12:50:07 AM

dlp211: Gyrfalcon: dlp211: SunsetLament: dlp211: SunsetLament: Gyrfalcon: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ...

...because I know much better than the former Secretary of Defense how the military can respond to an attack! Why won't anyone listen to me?!!?!

Nope, I just agree with Lieutenant Colonel Gibson.  The problem is Lieutenant Colonel Gibson disagrees with Bob Gates.  When it comes to determining the capabilities of our members of the special forces, I'll lean towards the opinion of the Green Beret over the opinion of the IA at Langley turned career CYA risk adverse politician.  You don't like my opinion?  Take it up with the Gibson.

So can you point me to which quote you agree with Lt. Col. Gibson on?

Sure, Hicks testified that he asked Gibson why he wasn't on the plane to Tripoli and Gibson responded that two separate times he told someone higher than him in the chain of command that he and three other members of his team were leaving to go to Benghazi and both times the response was that the four men were not to get on the airplane.  Then Gibson told Hicks that this was (paraphrase - if you want the exact quote, Google is your friend) "the first time in his career that someone in the State Department (Hicks) had more balls than the military (whoever gave him the stand-down order)."

Now ... who gave him the order?  Let's get Gibson in front of Congress and find out.  I'm sure everyone wants to know.

So, do you know what a quote is?

And of course, there's no reason why Gates might have made up what Gibson told him, right? We know that those words are the unvarnished truth from the horse's mouth to the horse's ass.

I'm not quoting Gates quoting Gibson.  What Gates can testify to is the actual capabilities of the military.  Believe it or not, we don't just send our troops anywhere on a whim.  The amount of intelligence needed to put a Delta, SeAL, or Ranger team on the ground is huge.  The assets required to do so is beyond most civilian ...


That's amazing since seven guys flew in like cowboys and saved the thirty-something people in the annex.  Two of them lost their lives - Doherty and Woods.  Oh, and they killed about one hundred attacking terrorists.  So, yes, four may have made a difference.
 
2013-05-13 12:51:17 AM

tripleseven: Is Benghazi a scandal yet?


Well we've had another thread and few hundred more posts but still no explanation of what the scandal is so I'm going to with no Benghazi is not a scandal yet.
 
2013-05-13 12:54:41 AM

ongbok: Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.

Then why did he lie? What was the point of it?


Why would Obama lie?  Is that seriously your question?

The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.
 
2013-05-13 12:55:08 AM

max_pooper: tripleseven: Is Benghazi a scandal yet?

Well we've had another thread and few hundred more posts but still no explanation of what the scandal is so I'm going to with no Benghazi is not a scandal yet.


Thanks for the cliff notes, these are tl;dr
 
2013-05-13 12:55:53 AM

max_pooper: tripleseven: Is Benghazi a scandal yet?

Well we've had another thread and few hundred more posts but still no explanation of what the scandal is so I'm going to with no Benghazi is not a scandal yet.


The scandal is that Obama downplayed the role of terrorism in the Benghazi attack for political purposes.

See, he had promised the world that he had defeated terrorism for good. But this attack proved that to be a lie. So he blamed it on some video, which covered his ass and opened the door for clamping down on freedom of speech. Also, he's Satan.

So...scandal. Duh.
 
2013-05-13 01:01:46 AM

SunsetLament: ongbok: Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.

Then why did he lie? What was the point of it?

Why would Obama lie?  Is that seriously your question?

The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.


This is the kind of shiatty trolling that only a mother could love. Except she wouldn't. Actually she'd probably be deeply ashamed of this little game you play.

Christ man, why don't you just start posting sparkly pictures of crying bald eagles with your shiat. It would actually add to the credibility.
 
2013-05-13 01:03:17 AM

SunsetLament: ongbok: Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.

Then why did he lie? What was the point of it?

Why would Obama lie?  Is that seriously your question?

The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.


I don't know how any of that makes him look like an incompetent dope when there weren't any military assets that could get there in time. Every military expert says the same thing.

Now again what did he have to gain about lying about how the attack started or who attacked like Popcorn claims?

By the way, Libya was already destabilized. They were already in the middle of a civil war. Obama had nothing to do with that.
 
2013-05-13 01:03:44 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Yeah, but in your arrogance, you were implying that aviation was somehow incapable of being dangerous.


When did he do that?

I don't mind debating politics with you - every Farker who votes in elections is entitled to their opinions. But stop trying to act like spending a whopping eight years pulling the trigger on your torque wrench has made you an expert on current Marine and JSOC capabilities or response times.

The pilots and door gunners in your time wore the same BDUs as the Army's cooks, the Air Force's band, and the clerks on a Navy Seabees base. And it looked exactly the same on servicemembers whether they voted Democrat or Republican. Your "coward" comment, combined with your political talking points, makes it pretty clear that you consider Fox News to be a source of journalistic integrity and unbiased information. Let us know when you climb down from the peak of Bullshiat Mountain and decide to see the real world.
 
2013-05-13 01:06:39 AM

Satanic_Hamster: So you're claiming to be from 6th Battalion, 159th Aviation Regiment.


The 159th didn't exist when I was in, it's the unit that was formed by my old unit when they reorganized the units at Giebelstat Army Airfield in the early 1990's.
 
2013-05-13 01:07:03 AM

GhostFish: SunsetLament: ongbok: Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.

Then why did he lie? What was the point of it?

Why would Obama lie?  Is that seriously your question?

The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.

This is the kind of shiatty trolling that only a mother could love. Except she wouldn't. Actually she'd probably be deeply ashamed of this little game you play.

Christ man, why don't you just start posting sparkly pictures of crying bald eagles with your shiat. It would actually add to the credibility.


That may be the best explanation of why the Republicans' derp won't stick I've yet seen. It is the most concise collection of idiotic talking points anyone has accumulated in one place. It's got the economy, Libya (which was good, then bad, then good, then bad again even before Benghazi), the election, Obama's being a ruthless, malevolent thug and a useless dolt at the same time, AND the magical time machine--all in one tidy paragraph.

Kudos to a troll well done. He can crawl under his slimy bridge in triumph, or whatever trolls do instead. Unctiousness?
 
2013-05-13 01:09:47 AM

Popcorn Johnny: The 159th didn't exist when I was in, it's the unit that was formed by my old unit when they reorganized the units at Giebelstat Army Airfield in the early 1990's.


I should say, it didn't exist when I was at GAAF. The unit reorganized soon after I left.
 
2013-05-13 01:16:50 AM

SunsetLament: ongbok: Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.

Then why did he lie? What was the point of it?

Why would Obama lie?  Is that seriously your question?

The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.


The conspiracy is so deep even the Pentagon is involved apparently since they discounted Hicks account of what happened.  Meanwhile in alternate-reality land saying our security forces couldn't handle a bunch of yahoo protesters sounds better than a well-coordinated and planned attack and Gadaffi was a stable and well-loved leader before Obama came along.
 
2013-05-13 01:19:20 AM
"No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."
 
2013-05-13 01:25:47 AM
ongbok:

I don't know how any of that makes him look like an incompetent dope when there weren't any military assets that could get there in time. Every military expert says the same thing.


That's just factually inaccurate.  There was US military personnel in Tripoli and that's a two hour plane flight; that's how Doherty and Woods got to the annex in the first place.  A decision was made not to send military.  You're not even on the right liberal talking points anymore; the current set of talking points is that they couldn't be sent because there wasn't enough time to plan and prepare ... of course, the CIA was able to get reinforcements there from Tripoli (Doherty and Woods and five other guys), but hey that's the stupid argument they are currently going with.
 
2013-05-13 01:26:15 AM
I've been out of the thread for a while...has Johnny gotten around to telling us about his ginormous cock yet?
 
2013-05-13 01:26:43 AM

MustangFive: Angry looking rant removed.


Dude (or SFC, whichever you prefer), calm down. Not all us Fobbits think we're the greatest thing to grace the Army. Yes, I choose to take the less dangerous job (Mostly 'cause I was and am a fatass who doesn't like running), but I would like to think that my small contribution helped your troops achieve something a little safer then if I hadn't been there. We might not be out there kicking doors, but we're still doing good work.
 
2013-05-13 01:26:58 AM

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: My former units did lots of things and lost lots of people too.

Yeah, but in your arrogance, you were implying that aviation was somehow incapable of being dangerous.


No, folks continue to imply that serving in an air unit near Wurzburg was a bit less than a combat heavy role. Cripes, I was in Wertheim in the early 80s, and probably saw more live fire, and I was 11 at the time. (On a serious note: farmers out there did tend to send buckshot if you crossed their fields and picked from them. And at the time, there were still a few odd bunkers with unexploded munitions. I got a serious chewing out for not reporting the one that we kept as a "fort" despite the boxes of potato mashers in the far end.) Your arrogance was suggesting that the "grunts" in combat roles, which you didn't share in, were lesser than your own bad-ass REMF self...

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-05-13 01:27:54 AM

SunsetLament: Kibbler: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?

I suppose it would depend.  In how many of them did continuing attacks occur seven hours after the initial assault (including the death of Americans fighting back) and the military decided sending available personnel to try and protect/evacuate them just wasn't worth it?


We have been over this. It was two separate attacks. This is not something that is a question. It is a known fact that is not in dispute.
 
2013-05-13 01:28:30 AM
 
2013-05-13 01:29:02 AM

SunsetLament: The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.


Wow, there's so much wrong with that it's hard to figure out where to begin.

First, "economy's been dog-shiat" is a less than accurate portrayal of a weak recovery from a swirling-the-bowl type depression Obama inherited.

Second, "at least I killed Bin Laden"? I'm torn here between thumping you over the nose with a rolled up newspaper for your weak attempt to minimize what a BFD that was and is to a lot of people and being marginally happy that you finally recognize that there is some credit due there.

"and took care of terrorism" meaning what? Ended it? Forever? You can't be that naive, right?

And then "the country Obama chose to destabilize"? You imagine the place was stable before that call was made? Now, I know you're trolling.

"...were told no"? Now, you're mad that more lives weren't tossed into the mix (and possibly lost) by going in unprepared and practically unarmed? And if they had been ordered in and gotten themselves killed needlessly that would be the "scandal" you'd be in here bleating about here, no doubt.

If you are just trolling then you are truly a dope.

/Albeit marginally successful in that ya got me.

If you actually believe that narrative then you are beyond help, indeed
 
2013-05-13 01:32:20 AM

Fart_Machine: SunsetLament: ongbok: Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.

Then why did he lie? What was the point of it?

Why would Obama lie?  Is that seriously your question?

The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.

The conspiracy is so deep even the Pentagon is involved apparently since they discounted Hicks account of what happened.  Meanwhile in alternate-reality land saying our security forces couldn't handle a bunch of yahoo protesters sounds better than a well-coordinated and planned attack and Gadaffi was a stable and well-loved leader before Obama came along.


Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane.  There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).
 
2013-05-13 01:35:21 AM

Zeppelininthesky: SunsetLament: Kibbler: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?

I suppose it would depend.  In how many of them did continuing attacks occur seven hours after the initial assault (including the death of Americans fighting back) and the military decided sending available personnel to try and protect/evacuate them just wasn't worth it?

We have been over this. It was two separate attacks. This is not something that is a question. It is a known fact that is not in dispute.


How long did the second one last and how long after the first attack started did the second one end?

DIFFICULTY: These are also known facts.
 
2013-05-13 01:40:39 AM

SunsetLament: ongbok:

I don't know how any of that makes him look like an incompetent dope when there weren't any military assets that could get there in time. Every military expert says the same thing.


That's just factually inaccurate.  There was US military personnel in Tripoli and that's a two hour plane flight; that's how Doherty and Woods got to the annex in the first place.  A decision was made not to send military.  You're not even on the right liberal talking points anymore; the current set of talking points is that they couldn't be sent because there wasn't enough time to plan and prepare ... of course, the CIA was able to get reinforcements there from Tripoli (Doherty and Woods and five other guys), but hey that's the stupid argument they are currently going with.


How many times can you be proven wrong, and yet bring out the same debunked talking points that are still wrong?
 
2013-05-13 01:47:17 AM

SunsetLament: Fart_Machine: SunsetLament: ongbok: Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.

Then why did he lie? What was the point of it?

Why would Obama lie?  Is that seriously your question?

The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.

The conspiracy is so deep even the Pentagon is involved apparently since they discounted Hicks account of what happened.  Meanwhile in alternate-reality land saying our security forces couldn't handle a bunch of yahoo protesters sounds better than a well-coordinated and planned attack and Gadaffi was a stable and well-loved leader before Obama came along.

Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane.  There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).


You do realize that the plane this team was going to ride in was just going to the Benghazi airport to pick up the remaining people on the ground there and leave, right? And it was flying out of Tripoli about an hour after Woods and Doherty had already died.
 
2013-05-13 01:47:20 AM

19 Kilo: demaL-demaL-yeH: 19 Kilo: That fine crunchy (hah!) upthread pointed out a couple more recent ones.  For someone who's pretending to have served, you'd think you'd be a little more up on combat actions.

I'd break track with you any day, bro.*

/*As long as I don't have to put it back together or pull those big, nasty plates out of the way.

Skirts.  The armor around the hull/roadwheels/track is called skirts.

/Tanks are totes manly tho.


Sorry. Howitzers don't wear skirts.
/It's a kilt!
//Not really. Howitzers don't wear skirts.
 
2013-05-13 01:49:39 AM

SunsetLament: Zeppelininthesky: SunsetLament: Kibbler: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?

I suppose it would depend.  In how many of them did continuing attacks occur seven hours after the initial assault (including the death of Americans fighting back) and the military decided sending available personnel to try and protect/evacuate them just wasn't worth it?

We have been over this. It was two separate attacks. This is not something that is a question. It is a known fact that is not in dispute.

How long did the second one last and how long after the first attack started did the second one end?

DIFFICULTY: These are also known facts.


Here is the timeline:  http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/africa/libya-benghazi-timeline

The first attack started around 9:42 PM. Everyone was evacuated from the consulate by 11:30 PM. They were evacuated to the local hospital. A team from Tripoli arrived in Benghazi around 1:30 AM. The attack that killed the 2 Navy SEALs started at 5:15 AM. Not a single person who testified, or a single witness said anything about a sustained firefight for 7 hours. Stop lying.
 
2013-05-13 01:56:05 AM

SunsetLament: Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane. There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).


So US military units as small as four men are just flying around foreign countries kicking whichever asses they deem appropriate until someone says, "Hey, stand down."? Cuz that just sounds, I dunno, like a cartoon.
 
2013-05-13 01:58:47 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: SunsetLament: Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane. There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).

So US military units as small as four men are just flying around foreign countries kicking whichever asses they deem appropriate until someone says, "Hey, stand down."? Cuz that just sounds, I dunno, like a cartoon.


All made of Chuck Norris.
 
2013-05-13 02:00:12 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: SunsetLament: Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane. There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).

So US military units as small as four men are just flying around foreign countries kicking whichever asses they deem appropriate until someone says, "Hey, stand down."? Cuz that just sounds, I dunno, like a cartoon.


It sounds worse than that. It sounds like a horrifying, unchecked, self-appointed world police force.

So more like marionettes than cartoons.
 
2013-05-13 02:03:00 AM

Sgt Otter: Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: So, you were a pogue-ass pouge who served during the coldest point in the cold war?  Man, I hope when I need a rotary wing mechanic to explain force on force conflict to me, you're around.

What's wrong, test scores not high enough for aviation?

You actually pulled the elitist card for an MOS with a 105 Mechanical Maintenance minimum score?  That has to the saddest attempt at an OH SNAP I've ever seen.


I picked aviation because it had the shortest AIT and let me sit in the air conditioning all day.
 
2013-05-13 02:04:53 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Sgt Otter: You actually pulled the elitist card for an MOS with a 105 Mechanical Maintenance minimum score?  That has to the saddest attempt at an OH SNAP I've ever seen.

The test score requirements for my MOS were certainly higher than yours.


I can assure you my test scores are higher than yours.

/Democrat currently deployed.
 
2013-05-13 02:05:51 AM

SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.


Plans are one thing. Paying for adequate security is quite another. Hasn't the State Dept been asking for money for years now? Who's in charge of alloting money again? The blah guy or the orange guy? I forget..
 
2013-05-13 02:08:01 AM
Our military is so awesome that it only took a menacing sneer to make Iraq back down, a steely eyed sneer (Eastwood style) to make the Taliban in Afghanistan end their plans, and with a sneeze Assad stopped killing Syrians.

Why are demorats such chickens when it comes to sending our super-soliders everywhere that they want? Don't they realize that the world is ours for the taking? Why would the de-facto world dictator just sit and laugh/sleep while Americans are dieing? Clearly it is because the super-duper high-grade military should only be used for preventing turkey sandwiches, not stopping rampagin muslins on the loose.
 
2013-05-13 02:10:53 AM

pornopose: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Plans are one thing. Paying for adequate security is quite another. Hasn't the State Dept been asking for money for years now? Who's in charge of alloting money again? The blah guy or the orange guy? I forget..


Just throwing people into a battle without planning gets people killed. If 4 more people gets killed because they were just thrown into a full scale attack, you would be screaming and crying that Obama got 4 people dead for nothing.
 
2013-05-13 02:12:06 AM

DeArmondVI: Our military is so awesome that it only took a menacing sneer to make Iraq back down, a steely eyed sneer (Eastwood style) to make the Taliban in Afghanistan end their plans, and with a sneeze Assad stopped killing Syrians.

Why are demorats such chickens when it comes to sending our super-soliders everywhere that they want? Don't they realize that the world is ours for the taking? Why would the de-facto world dictator just sit and laugh/sleep while Americans are dieing? Clearly it is because the super-duper high-grade military should only be used for preventing turkey sandwiches, not stopping rampagin muslins on the loose.


Only if the sandwiches have arugula!
 
2013-05-13 02:14:22 AM

Zeppelininthesky: DeArmondVI: Our military is so awesome that it only took a menacing sneer to make Iraq back down, a steely eyed sneer (Eastwood style) to make the Taliban in Afghanistan end their plans, and with a sneeze Assad stopped killing Syrians.

Why are demorats such chickens when it comes to sending our super-soliders everywhere that they want? Don't they realize that the world is ours for the taking? Why would the de-facto world dictator just sit and laugh/sleep while Americans are dieing? Clearly it is because the super-duper high-grade military should only be used for preventing turkey sandwiches, not stopping rampagin muslins on the loose.

Only if the sandwiches have arugula!


But mega-ton bombed when combined with paper-clipped dijon mustard!
 
2013-05-13 02:23:47 AM

Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.


Hey now. Some of us in the National Guard are very professional and do our jobs well.

\Aviation guy who respects infantry guys.
 
2013-05-13 02:32:53 AM

GhostFish: So more like marionettes than cartoons.


F*ck yeah!
 
2013-05-13 02:35:53 AM

pornopose: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Plans are one thing. Paying for adequate security is quite another. Hasn't the State Dept been asking for money for years now? Who's in charge of alloting money again? The blah guy or the orange guy? I forget..



"But would more money have prevented the attacks?  Apparently not, at least according to one senior State Department official who would certainly seem to know.  In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, "Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"  Lamb responded, "No, sir."  Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats."
 
2013-05-13 02:46:14 AM
Zeppelininthesky:

Just throwing people into a battle without planning gets people killed. If 4 more people gets killed because they were just thrown into a full scale attack, you would be screaming and crying that Obama got 4 people dead for nothing.

No, that's what liberals do.  Conservatives expect their military's civilian leadership to use everything at their disposal to make sure nobody (military or civilian) gets left behind when they are attacked by a bunch of savages.  The seven CIA personnel (including Doherty and Woods, who lost their lives) that ignored orders and went to the annex anyway, fought for hours, killed approximately 100 attackers and saved the lives of over thirty Americans.  Don't pretend adding four more Green Berets would only have them running in to get slaughtered.  At the time they were told to stand down, nobody knew how long the fighting would have continued, or how many Americans would have been killed, wounded or captured at the annex.  And that's just the available forces in country; we had a whole team in Italy that were denied permission to cross the Libyan border.
 
2013-05-13 02:51:19 AM

SunsetLament: Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security


What's she doing these days?
 
2013-05-13 02:57:24 AM

SunsetLament: Conservatives expect their military's civilian leadership to use everything at their disposal to make sure nobody (military or civilian) gets left behind when they are attacked by a bunch of savages.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-13 03:06:24 AM

SunsetLament: Zeppelininthesky:

Just throwing people into a battle without planning gets people killed. If 4 more people gets killed because they were just thrown into a full scale attack, you would be screaming and crying that Obama got 4 people dead for nothing.

No, that's what liberals do.  Conservatives expect their military's civilian leadership to use everything at their disposal to make sure nobody (military or civilian) gets left behind when they are attacked by a bunch of savages.  The seven CIA personnel (including Doherty and Woods, who lost their lives) that ignored orders and went to the annex anyway, fought for hours, killed approximately 100 attackers and saved the lives of over thirty Americans.  Don't pretend adding four more Green Berets would only have them running in to get slaughtered.  At the time they were told to stand down, nobody knew how long the fighting would have continued, or how many Americans would have been killed, wounded or captured at the annex.  And that's just the available forces in country; we had a whole team in Italy that were denied permission to cross the Libyan border.


Face it, by the time they arrivedat the airport from Tripoli, fought their way to the consulate with just sidearms, facing a heavily armed crowd of hundreds with small arms and RPGs, they would havebeen killed before they could even get there. Plus, they would have been too late to do much good because Stevens was already dead. I don't care how much of a badass you are, risking 4 more guys in an unknown situation is not a smart move. There is not a commander in the armed forces who would of gave hem the go ahead.
 
2013-05-13 03:07:02 AM

SunsetLament: The seven CIA personnel (including Doherty and Woods, who lost their lives) that ignored orders and went to the annex anyway


Sticking with the FOXNEWS/Bachmann version, eh?
 
2013-05-13 03:10:22 AM

Zeppelininthesky: SunsetLament: Zeppelininthesky:

Just throwing people into a battle without planning gets people killed. If 4 more people gets killed because they were just thrown into a full scale attack, you would be screaming and crying that Obama got 4 people dead for nothing.

No, that's what liberals do.  Conservatives expect their military's civilian leadership to use everything at their disposal to make sure nobody (military or civilian) gets left behind when they are attacked by a bunch of savages.  The seven CIA personnel (including Doherty and Woods, who lost their lives) that ignored orders and went to the annex anyway, fought for hours, killed approximately 100 attackers and saved the lives of over thirty Americans.  Don't pretend adding four more Green Berets would only have them running in to get slaughtered.  At the time they were told to stand down, nobody knew how long the fighting would have continued, or how many Americans would have been killed, wounded or captured at the annex.  And that's just the available forces in country; we had a whole team in Italy that were denied permission to cross the Libyan border.

Face it, by the time they arrived at the airport from Tripoli, fought their way to the consulate with just sidearms, facing a heavily armed crowd of hundreds with small arms and RPGs, they would have been killed before they could even get there. Plus, they would have been too late to do much good because Stevens was already dead. I don't care how much of a badass you are, risking 4 more guys in an unknown situation is not a smart move. There is not a commander in the armed forces who would have gave them the go ahead.

I will use proper grammar and spelling one of these days, I just know it.

 
2013-05-13 03:26:05 AM

Zeppelininthesky: SunsetLament: Zeppelininthesky:

Just throwing people into a battle without planning gets people killed. If 4 more people gets killed because they were just thrown into a full scale attack, you would be screaming and crying that Obama got 4 people dead for nothing.

No, that's what liberals do.  Conservatives expect their military's civilian leadership to use everything at their disposal to make sure nobody (military or civilian) gets left behind when they are attacked by a bunch of savages.  The seven CIA personnel (including Doherty and Woods, who lost their lives) that ignored orders and went to the annex anyway, fought for hours, killed approximately 100 attackers and saved the lives of over thirty Americans.  Don't pretend adding four more Green Berets would only have them running in to get slaughtered.  At the time they were told to stand down, nobody knew how long the fighting would have continued, or how many Americans would have been killed, wounded or captured at the annex.  And that's just the available forces in country; we had a whole team in Italy that were denied permission to cross the Libyan border.

Face it, by the time they arrivedat the airport from Tripoli, fought their way to the consulate with just sidearms, facing a heavily armed crowd of hundreds with small arms and RPGs, they would havebeen killed before they could even get there. Plus, they would have been too late to do much good because Stevens was already dead. I don't care how much of a badass you are, risking 4 more guys in an unknown situation is not a smart move. There is not a commander in the armed forces who would of gave hem the go ahead.


Yeah, the whole "just sidearms" remark is bullshiat too.  Just because you say it doesn't make it true.  Hicks testified that the medic on Gibson's team was carrying an automatic rifle on his shoulder when he was having the "Why the fark aren't you getting on the plane?" discussion with Gibson.  And, as has been explained, ad nauseam, the embassy in Tripoli would have had an armory (for the Marines stationed there) and Gibson's team was in Tripoli training the Libyan army (the same Libyan army supplying the plane they were about to go on to get to Benghazi).  Any suggestion that these four were going to walk into Benghazi with a Glock in one hand and their dicks in the other is just liberal obfuscation.
 
2013-05-13 03:28:54 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: SunsetLament: Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security

What's she doing these days?


Last I heard, she was suspended with pay for incompetence.  But that was back in December.

Still doesn't change the fact that she was the one making the call on what security to authorize (or deny) regarding the Benghazi consulate and, further, that she said her decision to deny the security request from Stevens had nothing to do with funding issues or a lack of money.
 
2013-05-13 03:39:01 AM

SunsetLament: the embassy in Tripoli would have had an armory (for the Marines stationed there)


Cite?
For the Marines, not the weapons.
 
2013-05-13 03:43:01 AM

SunsetLament: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: SunsetLament: Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security

What's she doing these days?

Last I heard, she was suspended with pay for incompetence.  But that was back in December.

Still doesn't change the fact that she was the one making the call on what security to authorize (or deny) regarding the Benghazi consulate and, further, that she said her decision to deny the security request from Stevens had nothing to do with funding issues or a lack of money.


Oh, well then...
 
2013-05-13 03:46:57 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Radioactive Ass: BSABSVR: It's not a football play where Obama makes a call, and terrorists make a call, and they both run at the same time and see who executes better, nor is there anything that requires terrorists to put their mortar shells away for 12 months if they see increased security in Tripoli. If the ultimate goal is "destroy American Embassy in Libya", they wait until the security levels decrease. If the ultimate goal is do something on 9/11, they (for example) drop a bomb in the streets and hope that the security detail starts shooting civilians up.

Sure. But when it's the 4th down in the last quarter with 5 seconds to go and the team with the ball is behind by 1 point (to use your football analogy) you keep an eye out for the team with the ball to try and win. You don't treat it like you've already won and walk off of the field.

Philip Francis Queeg: To be on scene within one hour so that they can actually intervene. List every deployment needed

That was never my criteria. Never said it was. That's your requirement and it actually is cartoonish.

well then tell us exactly what response time you think should  been in place throughout the mid east. two hours? 4? 12?


Every square foot of the planet needs to be under house arrest just like in Boston during the FBI's last false flag operation, otherwise Fartbongo hates America.

PROVE ME WRONG!
 
2013-05-13 04:01:35 AM
isn't it weird how like one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it said something really really dumb? Then you start seeing that name more and more, and it's saying even dumber things, things like "democrats are cowards". Then the name, that you never seen until just very recently, is suddenly shiatting all over threads day after day with crap like how his mechanics job "was so much better than those pussy grunts cause they were stoopid lol".
 
2013-05-13 04:08:24 AM

log_jammin: isn't it weird how like one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it said something really really dumb? Then you start seeing that name more and more, and it's saying even dumber things, things like "democrats are cowards". Then the name, that you never seen until just very recently, is suddenly shiatting all over threads day after day with crap like how his mechanics job "was so much better than those pussy grunts cause they were stoopid lol".


That is weird. I wonder what causes it.
 
2013-05-13 04:11:40 AM

Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.


Not sure if you meant it as such, but that is kind of a slap in the face to the vast majority of those in the military.
 
2013-05-13 04:11:44 AM

log_jammin: isn't it weird how like one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it said something really really dumb? Then you start seeing that name more and more, and it's saying even dumber things, things like "democrats are cowards". Then the name, that you never seen until just very recently, is suddenly shiatting all over threads day after day with crap like how his mechanics job "was so much better than those pussy grunts cause they were stoopid lol".


I was just thinking how weird it was that one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it is so desperately trying to make you believe a version of events that simply cannot be true, does not jibe with reality in any way, shape or form; has been debunked by real experts from virtually every angle over and over again; and yet this name is suddenly shaitting all over threads day after day and literally jumping on the furniture and swinging from chandeliers insisting you believe its version of events because only IT knows the One True Version of Reality because some guy it heard on TV swears it's true and if you don't believe it you're just a libby lib in denial.

Like if only it says it often enough the meanies with their inconvenient timelines and realistic deployment schedules will suddenly agree.
 
2013-05-13 04:16:35 AM

log_jammin: isn't it weird how like one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it said something really really dumb? Then you start seeing that name more and more, and it's saying even dumber things, things like "democrats are cowards". Then the name, that you never seen until just very recently, is suddenly shiatting all over threads day after day with crap like how his mechanics job "was so much better than those pussy grunts cause they were stoopid lol".


Show some respect. He crossed the 38th Penzoil (after his lunch hour, of course) to raise the flag at the Battle of Crankshaft. More than six sets of coveralls were stained that day, and Molly Hatchet played "Flirting with Disaster" twice in a row on the shop radio, even though Rock Block Weekend clearly stipulates artists play at least 3 different songs.

"Sweet land of lib-er-ty....."
 
2013-05-13 04:16:46 AM

powhound: Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.

Not sure if you meant it as such, but that is kind of a slap in the face to the vast majority of those in the military.


I didn't mean it as such, except as a slap in the face to someone around here who was touting his valorous service in an airbase in the wilds of West Germany as if it was tantamount to having CARs all over his wall.
 
2013-05-13 04:32:04 AM

log_jammin: isn't it weird how like one day you see a name you've never seen before, and you notice it because it said something really really dumb? Then you start seeing that name more and more, and it's saying even dumber things, things like "democrats are cowards". Then the name, that you never seen until just very recently, is suddenly shiatting all over threads day after day with crap like how his mechanics job "was so much better than those pussy grunts cause they were stoopid lol".


In fairness, the one nice thing about the Ignore feature, is that it drives up the number of accounts, as folks burn through them with an increasingly short half life. Folks figure, if the account is a burner, they'd best get the most out their time and effort...
 
2013-05-13 04:37:27 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Did the Bush administration blatantly lie about what took place during those attacks?


Well damn, PJ, don't you ask the tough questions!
 
2013-05-13 04:46:34 AM

Gyrfalcon: powhound: Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.

Not sure if you meant it as such, but that is kind of a slap in the face to the vast majority of those in the military.

I didn't mean it as such, except as a slap in the face to someone around here who was touting his valorous service in an airbase in the wilds of West Germany as if it was tantamount to having CARs all over his wall.


You have to remember that there is a large majority in the military who were not the sharpest tool in the shed to begin with, transcending all branches and specialties. So, these idiots, like Johnny and Radioactive Ass....while I don't consider them worthy of listening to...I try not to discredit their service (if in fact they actually served).

On my sub...you know the jokes they play....one idiot sailor had been sent on a task to find some fallopian tubing. Everyone he asked said they didn't know where it was kept. I told him to talk to the doc. Never found out if it helped him any.
 
2013-05-13 05:06:58 AM

powhound: On my sub...you know the jokes they play....one idiot sailor had been sent on a task to find some fallopian tubing. Everyone he asked said they didn't know where it was kept. I told him to talk to the doc. Never found out if it helped him any.


Later on, that idiot decides to try the same prank on the new person. But the new person is a female and doesn't fall for it and makes the idiot look like an even bigger idiot.
 
2013-05-13 05:19:03 AM
And this might happen in the Down Periscope Navy!
 
2013-05-13 06:07:04 AM
Its definitely better to send forces when the ambasador asks for security,
but mostly this just demonstrates an inability to understand the significance of what happened.  A U.S. ambassadors life was at stake and there was no response of any kind for many hours.  Why did we send those guys I'm there if they could not be protected????

Incompetence in the State Department.

Hilary has always been an incompetent.  She finally inserted herself into a job where pols lives depended on her competence.
 
2013-05-13 06:14:13 AM

StinkyFiddlewinks: Obvious tag gone AWOL like GWB?


I have it on good word from a Teabagger that GWB never went AWOL. He was recruited as an American James Bond to infiltrate the Soviet Union and help set in motion its fall. Dude speaks over 30 languages and has an IQ over 250. He only acts like a complete moran to throw everyone off the trail. Like I said, source is a Teabagger.
 
2013-05-13 07:04:41 AM

spcMike: I can assure you my test scores are higher than yours.


Nah
 
2013-05-13 07:08:35 AM

Popcorn Johnny: spcMike: I can assure you my test scores are higher than yours.

Nah


That's precious. Is your GT score higher than 135?
 
2013-05-13 07:19:09 AM

spcMike: That's precious. Is your GT score higher than 135?


Under the new standard, it maxes out at 160 so not sure why you're so impressed with a 135. When I was in, the max was 130 and I scored a 124.

Boom!
 
2013-05-13 07:24:46 AM

thamike: Is Benghazi a cartoon yet?

[oilersnation.com image 304x400]

Everything's comin' up Milhouse.


Brilliant, thank you.
 
2013-05-13 07:33:11 AM
Gates has a cartoonish view of Republicans if he thinks they view war as anything other than a chance to make some serious money.

It isn't about victory; it's about not sending your kids to war and making money off of the Americans who do.
 
2013-05-13 07:40:06 AM

Popcorn Johnny: spcMike: That's precious. Is your GT score higher than 135?

Under the new standard, it maxes out at 160 so not sure why you're so impressed with a 135. When I was in, the max was 130 and I scored a 124.

Boom!


After seeing your responses here in various posts, I'm actually impressed that you managed an 80, so yes, a 135 or more for you would be quite remarkable.
 
2013-05-13 07:41:11 AM
Listen people. I personally fought along side of Popcorn Johnny in 'Nam. 131st Fighting Chicken Hawks (Go Hawks, BOOYA!!) and I can vouch for him.There has never been a finer Boatswain in the history of the USAF.
 
2013-05-13 07:48:33 AM

Whiskey Pete: Listen people. I personally fought along side of Popcorn Johnny in 'Nam. 131st Fighting Chicken Hawks (Go Hawks, BOOYA!!) and I can vouch for him.There has never been a finer Boatswain in the history of the USAF.


Was that at da nang? with the waterslide?
 
2013-05-13 07:49:05 AM

stoli n coke: While the first was a good movie exploring the shabby treatment of our veterans and lack of help for PTSD, the second was just a ra-ra circle jerk for Reaganites and Cold War paranoids.


uh go back and watch First Blood again, the central message is basically "the liberals are bad"
 
2013-05-13 07:51:01 AM

gaspode: Was that at da nang? with the waterslide?


Well, we saw Da Nang in the brochure but we didn't really stop there.
 
2013-05-13 07:51:28 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: SunsetLament: Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane. There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).

So US military units as small as four men are just flying around foreign countries kicking whichever asses they deem appropriate until someone says, "Hey, stand down."? Cuz that just sounds, I dunno, like a cartoon.

All made of Chuck Norris.


1) Chuck Norris is a Republican
2) Chuck Norris could have roundhouse kicked all the terrorists before the attack started

therefore

Republicans are to blame for the deaths at Benghazi
 
2013-05-13 07:54:24 AM
Interesting?  More like Obvious.
 
2013-05-13 07:58:09 AM

Animatronik: Its definitely better to send forces when the ambasador asks for security,
but mostly this just demonstrates an inability to understand the significance of what happened.  A U.S. ambassadors life was at stake and there was no response of any kind for many hours.  Why did we send those guys I'm there if they could not be protected????

Incompetence in the State Department.

Hilary has always been an incompetent.  She finally inserted herself into a job where pols lives depended on her competence.


how many hours did it take for the first quick response team to evacuate all surviving US personnel?
 
2013-05-13 07:58:10 AM
Looking at this thread, Popcorn Johnny literally stayed up all night to argue.


Lol what a waste of time.
 
2013-05-13 07:58:41 AM
Wow, lots of pwnage on the land-of-make-believe right-wingers.

Damn, and they wonder why Romney lost...
 
2013-05-13 07:58:43 AM
Physicists at MIT report that this thread has given them new insight into the way the universe works.  "We saw goalposts move so fast, that they appeared to exceed the speed of light.  The goalposts actually achieved quantum entanglement, which meant that any two goalposts could occupy any two points in the universe. In fact, we theorize that they occupied every point in the universe simultaneously."  The research resulted in the discovery of a new quantum entity, the derpon.
 
2013-05-13 08:01:26 AM
Dumbasses should have just called me.

I would have jumped on a diving board over and over getting higher with each bounce until I went into space.  I would have held my breath while I orbited the earth 10 times just because I'm such a badass.  Then I would have plummeted down toward bengazi like a meteor.  The flames would have enveloped me and took the form of a flaming eagle as I dropped down on them screaming.

I would have reached them in only five minutes.  Then I would have hefted a M2 HB .50 cal HMG with just one arm with 5,000,000 rounds draped over me firing one handed while screaming the whole time killing every rag head in sight.  Those .50 cal rounds would have been Ruafus rounds meaning each time I hit a rag head they would have vaporized into a red mist.  Walking down to the compound firing non stop screaming while eagles circled above me crying their tears of freedom on the rag heads as they exploded one after another.  The rag heads would have been laying down a murderous volume of fire as rounds grazed my flesh as I closed in on them firing non stop.  Then with my free hand I would have ripped a 20 mm cannon from the carriage mount nearby and racked it like Sarah Conner did with the shotgun in T2 to chamber a round and fire with both the .50 cal and 20 mm cannon into the rag heads.  I would have wiped out all the rag heads only if they bothered to call me.

Yep,  So it's all Obama's fault.  The eagles flying over me are crying tears of freedom right now because they know what could have been if only he called me instead of sleeping in at 3 AM.
 
2013-05-13 08:04:30 AM

digistil: StinkyFiddlewinks: Obvious tag gone AWOL like GWB?

I have it on good word from a Teabagger that GWB never went AWOL. He was recruited as an American James Bond to infiltrate the Soviet Union and help set in motion its fall. Dude speaks over 30 languages and has an IQ over 250. He only acts like a complete moran to throw everyone off the trail. Like I said, source is a Teabagger.


Damn..He is GOOD!
 
2013-05-13 08:05:09 AM

Animatronik: Its definitely better to send forces when the ambasador asks for security,
but mostly this just demonstrates an inability to understand the significance of what happened.  A U.S. ambassadors life was at stake and there was no response of any kind for many hours.  Why did we send those guys I'm there if they could not be protected????

Incompetence in the State Department.

Hilary has always been an incompetent.  She finally inserted herself into a job where pols lives depended on her competence.

 And if they'd sent under-prepared forces into the riot, leading to more injuries and deaths, you'd be attacking that, too. Or if we sent the Marines in Tripoli, leaving the actual embassy unguarded.
There is no scenario in which you shiatheads WOULDN'T have attacked Obama and Hillary for this.
 
2013-05-13 08:07:11 AM

FullMetalPanda: Dumbasses should have just called me.

I would have jumped on a diving board over and over getting higher with each bounce until I went into space.  I would have held my breath while I orbited the earth 10 times just because I'm such a badass.  Then I would have plummeted down toward bengazi like a meteor.  The flames would have enveloped me and took the form of a flaming eagle as I dropped down on them screaming.

I would have reached them in only five minutes.  Then I would have hefted a M2 HB .50 cal HMG with just one arm with 5,000,000 rounds draped over me firing one handed while screaming the whole time killing every rag head in sight.  Those .50 cal rounds would have been Ruafus rounds meaning each time I hit a rag head they would have vaporized into a red mist.  Walking down to the compound firing non stop screaming while eagles circled above me crying their tears of freedom on the rag heads as they exploded one after another.  The rag heads would have been laying down a murderous volume of fire as rounds grazed my flesh as I closed in on them firing non stop.  Then with my free hand I would have ripped a 20 mm cannon from the carriage mount nearby and racked it like Sarah Conner did with the shotgun in T2 to chamber a round and fire with both the .50 cal and 20 mm cannon into the rag heads.  I would have wiped out all the rag heads only if they bothered to call me.

Yep,  So it's all Obama's fault.  The eagles flying over me are crying tears of freedom right now because they know what could have been if only he called me instead of sleeping in at 3 AM.



W...would you autograph my boner?
 
2013-05-13 08:11:21 AM
well it's obvious that fartbama should have invaded Belize on Sept 12th, that's what Ronald would have done.
 
2013-05-13 08:23:09 AM

MustangFive: 67V? A friggin' helicopter mechanic??? Really out there on the sharp end, huh?

Well, I know who to turn to when I need advice on ground combat-related matters.

/11C & 11B, 22 years (so far), SFC, CIB, EIB.
//Let's not get into an ASVAB score dick measuring contest. A 105 Mechanical Maintenance sub-score ain't exactly indicative of a rocket surgeon, ITG.
///Next up, JohnnyPopcorn talks about how he's "been there and done that"
////Did what exactly? Checked that bolts were tightened to proper torque specs? What a badass!


The folks with the serious good ASVAB scores almost always got the important technical slots.
I shot a 97 on the ASVAB in 1980 and took Fire Control Technician, Missiles as my MOS, wound up
servicing a 1960's era missile fire control computer system. Looked like this:

www.vintagecomputer.net

Also cross trained in Radar.

None the less, Weapons types are considered top siders and participate in in Underway replenishment, ship security, in-port guard duty
and have top side general quarters duties. All of which have dangers and risks associated with them.

I was on the roving patrol one night, carrying a .45 and 3 full clips when a noted a drunken snipe with a chip on his shoulder looking to beat up a twidget or two wandering into Weapons berthing at 3am. I halted him and he immediately lunged at me, actually trying to get the weapon. Took 4 or 5 of us to subdue the idiot.

USN...good times man!
 
2013-05-13 08:26:34 AM

SunsetLament: The seven CIA personnel (including Doherty and Woods, who lost their lives) that ignored orders and went to the annex anyway, fought for hours, killed approximately 100 attackers and saved the lives of over thirty Americans.


Uh-huh. And they were all 7 feet tall and fired lightning bolts from their eyes and fireballs from their asses.
 
2013-05-13 08:30:41 AM
My many hours commanding a squad of crack troops has demonstrated that I can deploy six soldiers (or five soldiers and a robot) anywhere in the world within three hours. These soldiers can then fight their way through forces with more advanced equipment and superior numbers, thanks to their enhanced abilities and my strategic leadership. There's no excuse for our government- which is only battling poor terrorists armed with improvised bombs and AK-47s, not Beserkers and Mutons with plasma rifles- to do anything less.

//Wait till you hear what Civilization has taught me about foreign policy
 
2013-05-13 08:39:55 AM

Whiskey Pete: gaspode: Was that at da nang? with the waterslide?

Well, we saw Da Nang in the brochure but we didn't really stop there.


It's cool. The campsites are shaped like teepees!
 
2013-05-13 08:41:40 AM

t3knomanser: My many hours commanding a squad of crack troops has demonstrated that I can deploy six soldiers (or five soldiers and a robot) anywhere in the world within three hours. These soldiers can then fight their way through forces with more advanced equipment and superior numbers, thanks to their enhanced abilities and my strategic leadership. There's no excuse for our government- which is only battling poor terrorists armed with improvised bombs and AK-47s, not Beserkers and Mutons with plasma rifles- to do anything less


If you bothered to group with a bard rather than go the easy route and bot, your group would have all gotten a significant bump to both to hit and damage. Alternately you could have gone with a paladin for the aura buffs and debuff cleansing.

If you're gonna run American military strategy, lrn2group noob.
 
2013-05-13 08:47:39 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Popcorn Johnny: cameroncrazy1984: Oh no, I'm not bragging about any military service.

Can't brag about what you don't have, right?

You seem to.


Holy shiat, this is hilarious. You're on my favorites.
 
2013-05-13 08:56:41 AM

t3knomanser: My many hours commanding a squad of crack troops has demonstrated that I can deploy six soldiers (or five soldiers and a robot) anywhere in the world within three hours. These soldiers can then fight their way through forces with more advanced equipment and superior numbers, thanks to their enhanced abilities and my strategic leadership. There's no excuse for our government- which is only battling poor terrorists armed with improvised bombs and AK-47s, not Beserkers and Mutons with plasma rifles- to do anything less.

//Wait till you hear what Civilization has taught me about foreign policy


Oh yeah? Just wait until your tank comes across a goddamned spearman.
 
2013-05-13 08:59:48 AM

SunsetLament: pornopose: SunsetLament: Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.

Plans are one thing. Paying for adequate security is quite another. Hasn't the State Dept been asking for money for years now? Who's in charge of alloting money again? The blah guy or the orange guy? I forget..


"But would more money have prevented the attacks?  Apparently not, at least according to one senior State Department official who would certainly seem to know.  In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, "Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"  Lamb responded, "No, sir."  Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats."


umm more money isn't necessarily just limited to more security personnel. I think that an underground bunker or escape tunnels might have came in handy
 
2013-05-13 09:04:05 AM

Hobodeluxe: I think that an underground bunker or escape tunnels might have came in handy


They always do...
 
2013-05-13 09:14:26 AM
There's a reason HubieStubert is the only farker on my color-coded "favorites" list. . . .
 
2013-05-13 09:15:21 AM

powhound: Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.

Not sure if you meant it as such, but that is kind of a slap in the face to the vast majority of those in the military.


A Marine I used to know spent most of his service in Hawaii on a project to map out radar and radio dead spots in the island chain.  The Marines had him and another guy driving around with little adult supervision the country side of Hawaii.  A lot of drinking was done during this.

I really don't see a need to thank him for that.

LordJiro: And if they'd sent under-prepared forces into the riot, leading to more injuries and deaths, you'd be attacking that, too. Or if we sent the Marines in Tripoli, leaving the actual embassy unguarded.
There is no scenario in which you shiatheads WOULDN'T have attacked Obama and Hillary for this.


NO NO.  THEY PROMISE THAT IF SOME LOW OR MIDLEVEL PERSON AUTHORIZED THOSE FOUR GUYS AS REINFORCEMENTS THEY WOULD NEVER EVER EVER BLAME THOSE DEATHS ON OBAMA.  THE DEATHS OF PEOPLE ON RESCUE MISSIONS OR ACTING AS SOLDIERS NEVER COUNT AGAINST THE BLACK GUY.

Have a few right wingnuts/derpers/TRUE CONSERVATIVES in my office.  Morning after the Bin Laden announcement they spent 45 minutes biatching about Obama and how arrogant he was and how he kept saying "me" and "I" and etc etc and how it's completely immoral for him to take any credit for it because it was all the military.
Eventually I decided to ask them:
"If all 36 (?) sailors and two airmen on that mission had died, would you have blamed Obama for those deaths?"

They didn't mention anything about Bin Laden dying after that.  Ever.
 
2013-05-13 09:17:54 AM

EnviroDude: Gates: 911, please send the fire department to my house - I see flames.
911: I´m sorry, they couldn´t possibly get there in time.
Gates: How do you know? Please, please.
911: You have a cartoonish view of fire department capability.

/ripped from RPool


You didn't read the article, did you? Or maybe you "read" it, but just didn't understand all the big words in it. Or maybe you can't fit the words together into something that fits in your brain. Regardless, the article itself is what takes what you wrote and laughs at it.

Go back to watching TV and movies.
 
2013-05-13 09:18:42 AM

X-boxershorts: MustangFive: 67V? A friggin' helicopter mechanic??? Really out there on the sharp end, huh?

Well, I know who to turn to when I need advice on ground combat-related matters.

/11C & 11B, 22 years (so far), SFC, CIB, EIB.
//Let's not get into an ASVAB score dick measuring contest. A 105 Mechanical Maintenance sub-score ain't exactly indicative of a rocket surgeon, ITG.
///Next up, JohnnyPopcorn talks about how he's "been there and done that"
////Did what exactly? Checked that bolts were tightened to proper torque specs? What a badass!

The folks with the serious good ASVAB scores almost always got the important technical slots.
I shot a 97 on the ASVAB in 1980 and took Fire Control Technician, Missiles as my MOS, wound up
servicing a 1960's era missile fire control computer system. Looked like this:

[www.vintagecomputer.net image 350x454]

Also cross trained in Radar.

None the less, Weapons types are considered top siders and participate in in Underway replenishment, ship security, in-port guard duty
and have top side general quarters duties. All of which have dangers and risks associated with them.

I was on the roving patrol one night, carrying a .45 and 3 full clips when a noted a drunken snipe with a chip on his shoulder looking to beat up a twidget or two wandering into Weapons berthing at 3am. I halted him and he immediately lunged at me, actually trying to get the weapon. Took 4 or 5 of us to subdue the idiot.

USN...good times man!


Same here.  Scored 96 on the ASVAB.  Went FC after the AETC (formerly B double E) then on to CIWS.  Granted, I was born the year before you joined.  But none of what you said has really changed much, lol.  Still serve the same underway functions for the most part, still have to deal with engineers with chips on their shoulders, they switched out the .45s for 9mm Berettas.  Dealt with a few inebriated shipmates on roving patrol.  Usually in the Gulf, as you had the intense heat coupled with all day drinking benders.

Now I work as a biomedical field engineer.  I spend all day in the car alone, and when I am at a hospital to work, I can't haze the crap out of the employees there or talk shiat like we did on the SPPs during midwatch underway.  Never thought I'd say it when I left, but I definitely miss it.
 
2013-05-13 09:22:01 AM

buckler: Whiskey Pete: gaspode: Was that at da nang? with the waterslide?

Well, we saw Da Nang in the brochure but we didn't really stop there.

It's cool. The campsites are shaped like teepees!


i1162.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-13 09:24:54 AM

vygramul: Oh yeah? Just wait until your tank comes across a goddamned spearman.


You know, that was one of the nice fixes in CiV5.
 
2013-05-13 09:25:45 AM
Knowledge -based opinions have never bothered the GOP, they seem to prefer opinions pulled out of asses. See age of earth for fun example
 
2013-05-13 09:33:14 AM

Satanic_Hamster: vygramul: Oh yeah? Just wait until your tank comes across a goddamned spearman.

You know, that was one of the nice fixes in CiV5.


It's funny - a bunch of the changes, individually, in Civ5 are really good. But the game just doesn't cut it for me. I think it's due to a slow mid-game and few early wars, the lack of a penalty for settling across the map (and it's really irritating when the AI does it), and how the culture/policies drive so much that you end up optimizing for it.

That, and the map is a memory hog, so "huge" maps are really not all that large and the modding isn't as easy.
 
2013-05-13 09:42:06 AM

The Lone Gunman: draa: Considering most Republicans have never served a day in our military this is no surprise. Fantasize is what chickenhawks do best.

I'm trying to find the exact quote and who said it, but...

War is a grand adventure to those who've never been in one.


This. In frustrated political discussions with my conservative neighbors, I can always tell who's a veteran and who isn't.
 
2013-05-13 09:44:37 AM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Well, I don't know what was the final straw that broke the camels back, but whatever it was, it was so bad that he wasn't just banned, he was nuked from orbit -- every single thing he ever posted on Fark was unpublished, and his account was deleted.


It's all right. I'm sure he's still with us, in dozens of new alt-spawn sock-puppets.

Er, spirit. I meant with us in spirit.
 
2013-05-13 09:45:01 AM

readymix: Now I work as a biomedical field engineer. I spend all day in the car alone, and when I am at a hospital to work, I can't haze the crap out of the employees there or talk shiat like we did on the SPPs during midwatch underway. Never thought I'd say it when I left, but I definitely miss it.


I've now spent my entire adult life in IT or High Tech... joining the Navy was the smartest thing I think I've ever done. I was a field engineer building and servicing X-Ray rooms myself for a few years....that was different. Enjoying life now as a lead Engineer on a new research and education network....

Combat billet or not, if you served honorably, THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE!
 
2013-05-13 09:50:10 AM

TheGregiss: Looking at this thread, Popcorn Johnny literally stayed up all night to argue.


Lol what a waste of time.


To where he will claim that he is the real winner.

'HA! I stayed up all night and wasted several hours to look like an idiot to random people on an internet message forum. I trolled you all soooooo bad. Suck on that, I win!'
 
2013-05-13 09:55:48 AM

NeverDrunk23: TheGregiss: Looking at this thread, Popcorn Johnny literally stayed up all night to argue.


Lol what a waste of time.

To where he will claim that he is the real winner.

'HA! I stayed up all night and wasted several hours to look like an idiot to random people on an internet message forum. I trolled you all soooooo bad. Suck on that, I win!'


Unless, of course, he's not actually real. One way to find out....quick! Someone ask him about turtles.
 
2013-05-13 09:57:24 AM

clkeagle: That would explain the thought behind $2.8 billion dollars allocated for improved Abrams tanks... when we have two thousand mission-capable tanks (and thousands of other tracked vehicles like these 113-series) sitting unused in the Nevada desert:

[www.tacomlcmccommunityreport.com image 580x387]

Somewhere deep in the minds of Republicans is a fantasy. In that fantasy, we are lining up divisions of tanks and storming across the fields, deserts, or woods in a major symmetrical conflict. When in reality, the future will consist of very small skirmishes in who-knows-what terrain.

The Abrams, great system that it is, has been all but useless in the more mountainous regions of Afghanistan. It would be no different in the Balkans, Alps, Himalayas, or Taebaeks. Nor is it useful in any kind of swampy marshland. And in urban settings - which are definitely the conflicts of the future - a platoon of tanks is nothing but collateral damage that can be used as enemy propaganda.


As a Canadian, all those tanks in the US makes me nervous.  Just saying.
 
2013-05-13 10:00:25 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Popcorn Johnny: cameroncrazy1984: Oh no, I'm not bragging about any military service.

Can't brag about what you don't have, right?

You seem to.


www.anbaric.com
 
2013-05-13 10:01:29 AM

mrshowrules: As a Canadian, all those tanks in the US makes me nervous.  Just saying.


Well just don't ship your oil to China and we won't be forced to annex you...

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-05-13 10:01:47 AM

Popcorn Johnny: Kibbler: Were the 60 deaths in attacks on American diplomatic facilities during the Bush years 15 times as embarrassing?

That's it, Obama supporters officially have nothing to fall back on and are pulling the "but...but...Bush" card. The same pathetic move Jay Carney pulled the other day when being questioned on the IRS targeting conservative groups.


WAHHHHHHHHHH! POINTING OUT THE OBVIOUS IS BAD FOR MY ARGUMENT! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH~!
 
2013-05-13 10:02:53 AM
That matches the cartoonish impression democrats have of our society.
 
2013-05-13 10:03:08 AM

Popcorn Johnny: buckler: Tell me, Johnny, when and where did you serve, and in what branch?

US Army 1986 to 1994. Rank: SSG MOS: 67V

Served in Korea, Germany, Texas and Iraq.

Any other questions?


SEMPER FIB!
 
2013-05-13 10:08:36 AM

Popcorn Johnny: And democrats are cowards so I guess it all evens out.


Republicans have a "cartoonish impression" of US military capability everything.
 
2013-05-13 10:13:55 AM

Proteios1: That matches the cartoonish impression democrats have of our society.


Wait, Glen Beck, Rand Paul, Wayne LaPierre and Alex Jones are democrats?
 
2013-05-13 10:15:31 AM

Animatronik: Its definitely better to send forces when the ambasador asks for security,
but mostly this just demonstrates an inability to understand the significance of what happened.  A U.S. ambassadors life was at stake and there was no response of any kind for many hours.  Why did we send those guys I'm there if they could not be protected????

Incompetence in the State Department.

Hilary has always been an incompetent.  She finally inserted herself into a job where pols lives depended on her competence.


Yes, she was so incompetent, that none of her womanly whining and moaning even came close to allowing the GOP dominated House from radically cutting the budget to protect consulate staff. Why is Hillary so useless? If she can't even get the most partisan congress, who hate everything about her and sole purpose now seems to be stopping her running in 2016 from changing their mind and allotting the proper amount of money to protect the ambassadors and their staff, she needs firing in disgrace, shot, and replaced with the next person who will be totally blocked on all funding requests too.
 
2013-05-13 10:16:57 AM

Popcorn Johnny: This thread reminds me of my time in the Army, jealous grunts angry over not being able to qualify for an aviation MOS. I'll leave you guys to your growing circle jerk, much like when I was serving, we tried to keep away from the unwashed masses in combat arms.


You know, I spent most of my time in Saigon in the '60s piloting a typewriter (in the days before every ten-year-old was expert with a keyboard). Even though I'm an army brat, the son of an army brat, I didn't want to be in VN, thought the whole damn war was politically stupid and a waste of lives, and couldn't wait to get home and back to being a civilian.

And yet, I never sat around in the barracks making fun of infantrymen in the field.

Oh, yeah: My father and grandfather, both career officers with combat experience running from the Mexican Expedition in 1916 through early Vietnam, were lifelong Democrats.
 
2013-05-13 10:24:38 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Have a few right wingnuts/derpers/TRUE CONSERVATIVES in my office.  Morning after the Bin Laden announcement they spent 45 minutes biatching about Obama and how arrogant he was and how he kept saying "me" and "I" and etc etc and how it's completely immoral for him to take any credit for it because it was all the military.
Eventually I decided to ask them:
"If all 36 (?) sailors and two airmen on that mission had died, would you have blamed Obama for those deaths?"

They didn't mention anything about Bin Laden dying after that.  Ever.


In front of you, anyway.
 
2013-05-13 10:29:57 AM

X-boxershorts: readymix: Now I work as a biomedical field engineer. I spend all day in the car alone, and when I am at a hospital to work, I can't haze the crap out of the employees there or talk shiat like we did on the SPPs during midwatch underway. Never thought I'd say it when I left, but I definitely miss it.

I've now spent my entire adult life in IT or High Tech... joining the Navy was the smartest thing I think I've ever done. I was a field engineer building and servicing X-Ray rooms myself for a few years....that was different. Enjoying life now as a lead Engineer on a new research and education network....

Combat billet or not, if you served honorably, THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE!


Same to you, fella!  And I totally agree.  The Navy got my shiat together, then taught me a marketable skill set.  My only payment to them for that education was time served.  I work on Ultrasound equipment and have some rudimentary X-Ray basics from my company from a time when they thought they were going to cross train me and have me work two modalities.  Though, I wouldn't mind getting into something else at this point, the travel is killing me.
 
Bf+
2013-05-13 10:35:15 AM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-05-13 10:37:06 AM

Apos: Gergesa: Hobodeluxe: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 580x270]

GI Joe is full of pussies.  Now Chuck Norris knows where its at:

[www.the-other-view.com image 500x375]

Feh.....Rank amateurs compared:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

/Fark yeah!


So much brilliance in Team America; just noticed the pink camo for the ladeez
 
2013-05-13 10:38:03 AM

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: Man, for someone without the beans to serve in a front line unit, you sure do know how to dig and keep digging.

When was the last significant tank battle, WWII?


Are you frikkin' retarded?
You are definitely a rear area puke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting
 
2013-05-13 10:39:20 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: Man, for someone without the beans to serve in a front line unit, you sure do know how to dig and keep digging.

When was the last significant tank battle, WWII?

Well, there was Najaf and Basra in 2003.
There was also these tiny little dust-ups in the middle of bumfark nowhere like Medina Ridge and 73 Easting in '91.


Damnit so much.
 
2013-05-13 10:44:34 AM
Things I've learned:

IRL: Private in the Army.

On the internet: Retired Five Star General.
 
2013-05-13 10:44:58 AM

Kibbler: Physicists at MIT report that this thread has given them new insight into the way the universe works.  "We saw goalposts move so fast, that they appeared to exceed the speed of light.  The goalposts actually achieved quantum entanglement, which meant that any two goalposts could occupy any two points in the universe. In fact, we theorize that they occupied every point in the universe simultaneously."  The research resulted in the discovery of a new quantum entity, the derpon.


HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*wheeeeeeze*

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

*dies*

That, sir or madam, was grand.
 
2013-05-13 10:46:03 AM

Maud Dib: Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: Man, for someone without the beans to serve in a front line unit, you sure do know how to dig and keep digging.

When was the last significant tank battle, WWII?

Are you frikkin' retarded?
You are definitely a rear area puke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting


Wow.  Popcorn Johnny's faker than fake.