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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 596 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report