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  
•       •       •

6895 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 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)
 
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