Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Benghazi, Special Forced, Bob Schieffer  
•       •       •

6899 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 May 2013 at 6:11 PM (3 years 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
 
2013-05-13 01:21:10 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes their priority is to protect US citizens, NOT to recklessly get themselves killed in a useless gesture.

Your understanding of fire fighting is pretty cartoonish too. There are circumstances where fire fighters will not enter a burning building if the risk to themselves is too great. Their lives, like those in the military, have actual value and should not be thrown away for no purpose. You aren't that damned special, snowflake. Sacrificing a dozens lives in a futile effort to save yours is not a good idea.


I've been entering burning buildings for 15 years.  Several of those years have been in a command position where I sent others.  As such, I've got an outstanding idea under what circumstances firefighters will and will not enter a burning building.  Now, tell me about your experience in making those decisions.

Reading is clearly hard for a lot on fark.  My beef isn't with what was or wasn't done that night, it is with what Gates said he would have done if circumstances were different - and he said he wouldn't have done anything.  If that's the case, he should be ashamed of himself.
 
2013-05-13 01:24:11 PM  

scut207: Johnny popcorns 6in6 is nothing to brag about, I got 7 in 4

/infantry for four years,left as an e-4. CO said I was too damn wild for the rear.

/1st article 15 was swiss seating girls up to the 3rd floor because they wouldn't allow them in the infantry barracks, second was for modifying my ID to make me 21.
Forgot to switch out my fake for a piss test. Drug&alcohol NCO didn't like me much.

That's all I've got to say about that.


Oh yeah? Well, how many times did you make E-1?

I might have set a record that stands to this day
 
2013-05-13 01:25:39 PM  

DarwiOdrade: scut207: Johnny popcorns 6in6 is nothing to brag about, I got 7 in 4

/infantry for four years,left as an e-4. CO said I was too damn wild for the rear.

Go on.


Damn it I knew that would get the wrong type of attention...

Support gay rights, but I'm a straight shooter sorry :/
 
2013-05-13 01:26:12 PM  

vygramul: SunsetLament: vygramul: 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.

That's in the State Department's report dipshiat.

Oh, and linky, if you please. I can find an unofficial book called "Benghazi: The Definitive Report" that asserts it, but not the DoS.


According to the Pentagon the rescue was impossible anyway.  I guess they're lying too.
 
2013-05-13 01:26:19 PM  
Damn it I knew that would get the wrong type of attention...

Support gay rights, but I'm a straight shooter sorry :/
 
2013-05-13 01:31:42 PM  
link to the House report, Benghazi timeline starts on page 38
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress -R eport-Final-1.pdf


"the Annex security team arrived, under enemy fire, within 25 minutes of the 
beginning of the initial assault."

However, I'm pretty sure there were edits to this report before it was finalized and released, so can somebody please impeach the House of Representatives, it's a scandal. What was the House covering up?
 
2013-05-13 01:33:34 PM  

scut207: DarwiOdrade: scut207: Johnny popcorns 6in6 is nothing to brag about, I got 7 in 4

/infantry for four years,left as an e-4. CO said I was too damn wild for the rear.

Go on.

Damn it I knew that would get the wrong type of attention...

Support gay rights, but I'm a straight shooter sorry :/


Ha just 3x as an e-1, On the flip side I got promoted every day I was eligible.

Was good in the field but a horrible trouble finder in the barracks.

Helped save a dudes life with a field by buolding a expedient 292 in panama when we had no comms. As close to danger as I ever got was the hookers in Colon near ft Davis ...

/double post earlier was due to shoddy coverage.
 
2013-05-13 01:41:54 PM  

scut207: As close to danger as I ever got was the hookers in Colon

...

That DOES sound like it could pose a real danger without the proper precautions of lube and an easy to understand safeword.
 
2013-05-13 01:42:18 PM  

Fart_Machine: vygramul: SunsetLament: vygramul: 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.

That's in the State Department's report dipshiat.

Oh, and linky, if you please. I can find an unofficial book called "Benghazi: The Definitive Report" that asserts it, but not the DoS.

According to the Pentagon the rescue was impossible anyway.  I guess they're lying too.


Of course - they're just part of the coverup. Anything that tends goes against the conspiracy theories is clearly an attempt to bury the truth, just as any hare-brained, improbable nuttery that incriminates the president is gospel.
 
2013-05-13 01:42:57 PM  

Heron: 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.

Yup. Unless you're willing to level the city with artillery first, and even then ruined cities are great tank-traps.


Plus, apparently, there's this little round or core of a bigger round that goes through one side of an Abrams, through the crew's space and buries itself halfway through the other side of the Abrams, wounding one tank crew member while disabling the tank.

One little pinky sized round that ignites probably due to depleted uranium.

http://rense.com/general44/what.htm

I would link to the original Army Times article but they've since pulled that article off their website. Doodoodleydoodoo.
 
2013-05-13 01:44:41 PM  

JustGetItRight: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes their priority is to protect US citizens, NOT to recklessly get themselves killed in a useless gesture.

Your understanding of fire fighting is pretty cartoonish too. There are circumstances where fire fighters will not enter a burning building if the risk to themselves is too great. Their lives, like those in the military, have actual value and should not be thrown away for no purpose. You aren't that damned special, snowflake. Sacrificing a dozens lives in a futile effort to save yours is not a good idea.

I've been entering burning buildings for 15 years.  Several of those years have been in a command position where I sent others.  As such, I've got an outstanding idea under what circumstances firefighters will and will not enter a burning building.  Now, tell me about your experience in making those decisions.

Reading is clearly hard for a lot on fark.  My beef isn't with what was or wasn't done that night, it is with what Gates said he would have done if circumstances were different - and he said he wouldn't have done anything.  If that's the case, he should be ashamed of himself.


Yep, I'm sure you are ashamed every time you don't order you fire fighters into a burning in building in imminent danger of collapse with little or no chance of saving anyone. I am sure you are haunted every time you see those men alive. UIb bet you8 are deeply distressed that you weren't killed for no purpose in the last 15 years and lament deeply to cowardice of your superiors in not recklessly throwing your life away.
 
2013-05-13 01:45:39 PM  

JustGetItRight: I've been entering burning buildings for 15 years. Several of those years have been in a command position where I sent others. As such, I've got an outstanding idea under what circumstances firefighters will and will not enter a burning building. Now, tell me about your experience in making those decisions.


Under your logic, every cop, EMT, and fire fighter should just randomly rush into a burning building as soon as they get on the scene.  Their job is to protect the public.  They don't protect the public by NOT going inside like a bunch of pussies.

Sounds like your fire unit is a bunch of pussy wimps.
 
2013-05-13 01:46:37 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.


If Fark has taught me anything, no matter how seriously a subject is being argued by those involved, you can generally count on any metaphors etc. coming from the Right Wing (especially if it is "ripped from" another site) to completely misrepresent the situation almost intentionally. And in some cases not even "almost".
 
2013-05-13 01:55:53 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: 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.

If Fark has taught me anything, no matter how seriously a subject is being argued by those involved, you can generally count on any metaphors etc. coming from the Right Wing (especially if it is "ripped from" another site) to completely misrepresent the situation almost intentionally. And in some cases not even "almost".


You need to study it out.
 
2013-05-13 02:06:39 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: ep, I'm sure you are ashamed every time you don't order you fire fighters into a burning in building in imminent danger of collapse with little or no chance of saving anyone. I am sure you are haunted every time you see those men alive. UIb bet you8 are deeply distressed that you weren't killed for no purpose in the last 15 years and lament deeply to cowardice of your superiors in not recklessly throwing your life away.


Yep, exactly what I thought.  You've never had to make that type of decision.  Oh, and Gates said he probably wouldn't have sent them even if they could have saved someone.  Notice the difference?

Satanic_Hamster: Under your logic, every cop, EMT, and fire fighter should just randomly rush into a burning building as soon as they get on the scene. Their job is to protect the public. They don't protect the public by NOT going inside like a bunch of pussies.

Sounds like your fire unit is a bunch of pussy wimps.


Who said randomly rushing into anything?  We're talking about taking risk appropriate to the situation.  See above.  Gates said even if they could have done some good he probably wouldn't have sent them because they might have faced a risk.  Too bad for those people on the ground.
 
2013-05-13 02:14:17 PM  

JustGetItRight: Philip Francis Queeg: ep, I'm sure you are ashamed every time you don't order you fire fighters into a burning in building in imminent danger of collapse with little or no chance of saving anyone. I am sure you are haunted every time you see those men alive. UIb bet you8 are deeply distressed that you weren't killed for no purpose in the last 15 years and lament deeply to cowardice of your superiors in not recklessly throwing your life away.

Yep, exactly what I thought.  You've never had to make that type of decision.  Oh, and Gates said he probably wouldn't have sent them even if they could have saved someone.  Notice the difference?

Satanic_Hamster: Under your logic, every cop, EMT, and fire fighter should just randomly rush into a burning building as soon as they get on the scene. Their job is to protect the public. They don't protect the public by NOT going inside like a bunch of pussies.

Sounds like your fire unit is a bunch of pussy wimps.

Who said randomly rushing into anything?  We're talking about taking risk appropriate to the situation.  See above.  Gates said even if they could have done some good he probably wouldn't have sent them because they might have faced a risk.  Too bad for those people on the ground.


Tell us champ, when you attend the funeral of those who were killed when you ordered them into a burning building near collapse with little hope iof saving anyone, do you tell the family of the deceased  "That's what they signed up for"? Or is that just what you tell yourself to absolve yourself from your failure?
 
2013-05-13 02:15:24 PM  

JustGetItRight: Gates said even if they could have done some good he probably wouldn't have sent them because they might have faced a risk.


Where did he say that?
 
2013-05-13 02:21:28 PM  

JustGetItRight: Philip Francis Queeg: ep, I'm sure you are ashamed every time you don't order you fire fighters into a burning in building in imminent danger of collapse with little or no chance of saving anyone. I am sure you are haunted every time you see those men alive. UIb bet you8 are deeply distressed that you weren't killed for no purpose in the last 15 years and lament deeply to cowardice of your superiors in not recklessly throwing your life away.

Yep, exactly what I thought.  You've never had to make that type of decision.  Oh, and Gates said he probably wouldn't have sent them even if they could have saved someone.  Notice the difference?

Satanic_Hamster: Under your logic, every cop, EMT, and fire fighter should just randomly rush into a burning building as soon as they get on the scene. Their job is to protect the public. They don't protect the public by NOT going inside like a bunch of pussies.

Sounds like your fire unit is a bunch of pussy wimps.

Who said randomly rushing into anything?  We're talking about taking risk appropriate to the situation.  See above.  Gates said even if they could have done some good he probably wouldn't have sent them because they might have faced a risk.  Too bad for those people on the ground.


You mean the 4 already dead people? Or the ones who were still alive and stayed that way until the attack ended? Which group do you suppose would have been helped more by those fighter jets? And would that help have been worth risking the lives of those airmen?
 
2013-05-13 02:24:03 PM  

aug3: link to the House report, Benghazi timeline starts on page 38
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress -R eport-Final-1.pdf


"the Annex security team arrived, under enemy fire, within 25 minutes of the 
beginning of the initial assault."

However, I'm pretty sure there were edits to this report before it was finalized and released, so can somebody please impeach the House of Representatives, it's a scandal. What was the House covering up?


"Within 25 minutes of the initial assault, a security team at the Annex was notified and 
departed for the Benghazi Mission "

From your link. If you are going to lie, don't post a link that contradicts your lie. They did not arrive in 25 minutes, they departed within 25 minutes.
 
2013-05-13 02:27:13 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JustGetItRight: Gates said even if they could have done some good he probably wouldn't have sent them because they might have faced a risk.

Where did he say that?


" Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libya dictator Muammar] Gaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

Followed by

"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."

The unwillingness to consider operations that aren't meticulously planned is simply unacceptable.

I'm done responding to the dipshaits that think I'm saying anything could have been done to help Benghazi.  They clearly can't grasp the conceptual differences in discussing the idea that there are times when you must take action despite the lack of planning vs being critical of one particular incident.  I'm doing the former, not the later.
 
2013-05-13 02:31:35 PM  

JustGetItRight: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JustGetItRight: Gates said even if they could have done some good he probably wouldn't have sent them because they might have faced a risk.

Where did he say that?

" Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libya dictator Muammar] Gaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

Followed by

"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."

The unwillingness to consider operations that aren't meticulously planned is simply unacceptable.

I'm done responding to the dipshaits that think I'm saying anything could have been done to help Benghazi.  They clearly can't grasp the conceptual differences in discussing the idea that there are times when you must take action despite the lack of planning vs being critical of one particular incident.  I'm doing the former, not the later.


So some noise would have scared of the terrorists in Benghazi? I noticed you edited that part out since they weren't going to be dropping bombs.
 
2013-05-13 02:32:08 PM  

JustGetItRight: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JustGetItRight: Gates said even if they could have done some good he probably wouldn't have sent them because they might have faced a risk.

Where did he say that?

" Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libya dictator Muammar] Gaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

Followed by

"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."

The unwillingness to consider operations that aren't meticulously planned is simply unacceptable.

I'm done responding to the dipshaits that think I'm saying anything could have been done to help Benghazi.  They clearly can't grasp the conceptual differences in discussing the idea that there are times when you must take action despite the lack of planning vs being critical of one particular incident.  I'm doing the former, not the later.


So under what circumstance would you send your firefighters into a deadly situation without planning or considering the risks? Do you  generally just arrive at the site and start issuing orders willy nilly? Do you act first and then think later? Do you get there and say "Run into the building boys, I'll figure out what to do later?"
 
2013-05-13 02:36:54 PM  

JustGetItRight: Who said randomly rushing into anything?


JustGetItRight: The unwillingness to consider operations that aren't meticulously planned is simply unacceptable.


So you recommend what? Partial planning? Definitive, directed rushing in instead of random rushing? Becasue it sounds like you're just arguing against yourself at this point
 
2013-05-13 02:49:58 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Under your logic, every cop, EMT, and fire fighter should just randomly rush into a burning building as soon as they get on the scene.  Their job is to protect the public.  They don't protect the public by NOT going inside like a bunch of pussies.

Sounds like your fire unit is a bunch of pussy wimps.


Sounds like yours has never heard of meth labs.
 
2013-05-13 02:53:10 PM  

vygramul: So it's only significant if you lose? I would say it's one of the most significant tank battles in history because of what it demonstrated about US military capability compared to Soviet satellites.


No, it's significant based on the capabilities of the enemy. There are more casualties and equipment damage in your average large scale training exercise than there were in the above mentioned tank "battle".
 
2013-05-13 02:57:33 PM  

JustGetItRight: I'm done responding to the dipshaits that think I'm saying anything could have been done to help Benghazi. They clearly can't grasp the conceptual differences in discussing the idea that there are times when you must take action despite the lack of planning vs being critical of one particular incident. I'm doing the former, not the later.


Sounds like you're tired of people second-guessing your motives and activity here.
 
2013-05-13 03:06:03 PM  

JustGetItRight: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JustGetItRight: Gates said even if they could have done some good he probably wouldn't have sent them because they might have faced a risk.

Where did he say that?

" Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libya dictator Muammar] Gaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

Followed by

"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."

The unwillingness to consider operations that aren't meticulously planned is simply unacceptable.

I'm done responding to the dipshaits that think I'm saying anything could have been done to help Benghazi.  They clearly can't grasp the conceptual differences in discussing the idea that there are times when you must take action despite the lack of planning vs being critical of one particular incident.  I'm doing the former, not the later.


What you are doing is taking a what-if statement he was forced to make because of the stupidity of this "scandal" in the first place and then you are tweaking his "ifs" to the point where they are worthless.

Everyone is reading gates as saying something like this (I think): 'I wouldn't go in because firstly, we couldn't have saved anyone in the best of conditions, but also even if we might have saved someone, it was still TOO risky and most likely would have been a failed mission'

You seem to be reading as this: 'if there is any risk or chance whatsoever, lets never save lives'.  That is what I get from your posts anyways, and that is what others seem to be reading your statements as too.  Perhaps you are the one being unclear here?

To me what you've done is taken someone saying "I still wouldn't have rolled the dice and hoped for a six" and reinterpreted to also mean "I wouldn't take a bet with even odds that a die would come up 1-5".  In this case, the other aspects, BOTH not having a plan in place and knowing details on the ground, AND the surface to air missiles and lack of support to prevent an easy attack on any incoming air support, are what makes gates' statement seem more like the former, and a lot less like the latter.

There is a point in heroics where it turns into stupidity. You are welcome to disagree with Gates about whether or not his hypothetical situation crossed that line (as he seems to think it would have), but it is a false to claim to extrapolate that he therefore would never take risks.
 
2013-05-13 03:10:57 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Sounds like you're tired of people second-guessing your motives and activity here.


That or he's been exposed of being part of the biggest bunch of pussy fire fighters in the United States.
 
2013-05-13 03:12:25 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Sounds like you're tired of people second-guessing your motives and activity here.

That or he's been exposed of being part of the biggest bunch of pussy fire fighters in the United States.


Pussy fire??? I don't my hose will reach.
 
2013-05-13 03:15:02 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Satanic_Hamster: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Sounds like you're tired of people second-guessing your motives and activity here.

That or he's been exposed of being part of the biggest bunch of pussy fire fighters in the United States.

Pussy fire??? I don't my hose will reach.


Fire crotch?
 
2013-05-13 03:20:32 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Satanic_Hamster: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Sounds like you're tired of people second-guessing your motives and activity here.

That or he's been exposed of being part of the biggest bunch of pussy fire fighters in the United States.

Pussy fire??? I don't my hose will reach.


You accidentally a word there
 
2013-05-13 03:42:58 PM  

JustGetItRight: "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."

The unwillingness to consider operations that aren't meticulously planned is simply unacceptable.


That's a word you've put in Gates' mouth - "planning and preparation" suggests something a tad different than "meticulously planned".
 
2013-05-13 03:47:28 PM  

themindiswatching: So when is the GOP going to show the military how to teleport?


Contrary to popular belief Republicans cannot teleport. They meerly flip-flop to all positions in the universe at once and are only pereived to have substance of any kind.
 
2013-05-13 03:53:16 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Satanic_Hamster: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Sounds like you're tired of people second-guessing your motives and activity here.

That or he's been exposed of being part of the biggest bunch of pussy fire fighters in the United States.

Pussy fire??? I don't my hose will reach.


You have the English skills of a lolcat.
 
2013-05-13 04:06:26 PM  
LOL @ the idiots that still think Benghazi is a scandal.

Your Kool Aid is spiked with crystal meth.
 
2013-05-13 04:18:34 PM  

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.


Half the NAVY people and all the nukes in the thread are laughing at him I expect.
 
2013-05-13 04:38:09 PM  

JustGetItRight: "Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from Gaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

Didn't read the whole thread, but am I the only one severely bothered by this statement?

On 9/11, unarmed fighters launched intending to RAM an airliner and Gates says that even had one been available he wouldn't have sent an armed fighter to support a US embassy under attack because the enemy might have MANPADs?

I don't think our military could have done anything that night, that pooch was screwed in the previous days and weeks, but if that statement is indicative of his true feelings then he is a damned disgrace.


Why? Because he thinks sending soldiers and equipment into a combat situation blind is a bad idea and a good way to get more people killed? What Gates said is sound judgement; sending soldiers into a combat without adequate knowledge of the lay of the land or the enemy is how you get Little Big Horns.
 
2013-05-13 04:44:55 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: vygramul: Don't feel too bad. Apparently, the largest tank battle in U.S. history is insignificant in his estimation, but smaller ones in WWII were.

4 tanks damaged, one soldier killed by friendly fire. The horror, the horror.


And yet, your own rear end service is somehow equal to front line troops'?

At this point, you're not just moving the goal posts, you're reaching for entirely different sports to compare...
 
2013-05-13 04:48:33 PM  

Heron: Why? Because he thinks sending soldiers and equipment into a combat situation blind is a bad idea and a good way to get more people killed? What Gates said is sound judgement; sending soldiers into a combat without adequate knowledge of the lay of the land or the enemy is how you get Little Big Horns.


And, most importantly, we have the right wing shrills and trolls ASSURANCES that if OBAMA did send in troops unprepared (both then and in the future) they PROMISE they won't criticize him for that if they die.
 
2013-05-13 05:15:47 PM  

hubiestubert: And yet, your own rear end service is somehow equal to front line troops'?


I was a crewmember, in addition to being a mechanic. We were in a hell of a lot more danger in Iraq than the guys sitting in an Abrams.
 
2013-05-13 05:41:15 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: hubiestubert: And yet, your own rear end service is somehow equal to front line troops'?

I was a crewmember, in addition to being a mechanic. We were in a hell of a lot more danger in Iraq than the guys sitting in an Abrams.


In Germany. I reiterate: I suspect I saw more live fire than you did in my time in Germany, and I was 12 at the time...

Of course, that was during the Reforger years, so pretty much there was a LOT of exercises going on every summer...
 
2013-05-13 05:51:50 PM  

hubiestubert: In Germany.


I was in Desert Storm, pay attention.
 
2013-05-13 06:20:48 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: aug3: link to the House report, Benghazi timeline starts on page 38
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress -R eport-Final-1.pdf


"the Annex security team arrived, under enemy fire, within 25 minutes of the 
beginning of the initial assault."

However, I'm pretty sure there were edits to this report before it was finalized and released, so can somebody please impeach the House of Representatives, it's a scandal. What was the House covering up?

"Within 25 minutes of the initial assault, a security team at the Annex was notified and 
departed for the Benghazi Mission "

From your link. If you are going to lie, don't post a link that contradicts your lie. They did not arrive in 25 minutes, they departed within 25 minutes.


the quote is from the link, thats what " " means
 
2013-05-13 06:24:53 PM  
~10:07 p.m. A U.S. security team departed the Annex for the TMF. The security team tried to secure heavy weapons from militia members encountered along the route, and
39faced some resistance in getting to the TMF.Even in the face of those obstacles,the Annex security team arrived, under enemy fire, within 25 minutes of the beginning of the initial assault. Over the course of the following hour, the Annex security team joined the TMF security officers in searching for Ambassador Stevens and Mr. Smith. Together, they repelled sporadic gunfire and RPG fire and assembled all other U.S. personnel at the facility. Officers retrieved the body of Mr. Smith, but did not find Ambassador Stevens.
 
2013-05-14 12:49:40 AM  

Ed Grubermann: FlyNavy: 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.

Someone's a sore loser.


nice
 
2013-05-14 12:51:11 AM  

Popcorn Johnny: I was a crewmember, in addition to being a mechanic. We were in a hell of a lot more danger in Iraq than the guys sitting in an Abrams.


probably because you weren't working on an Abrams.
 
Displayed 46 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 »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report