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 184
    More: Interesting, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Benghazi, Special Forced, Bob Schieffer  
•       •       •

6893 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-12 06:18:12 PM
21 votes:
fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net
2013-05-12 05:49:36 PM
15 votes:

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


upload.wikimedia.org
www.blogcdn.com
media.salon.com
webprobuddy.com
/p.s. Inouye had a goddamn Medal of Honor
2013-05-12 05:29:09 PM
13 votes:
Well, he's right. Folks seem to think that their military is sitting in a room waiting to be unleashed like a video game. You have X amount of units, and they can respond immediately to any threat within their area of operations at a moment's notice. That we have everyone on alert, 24 hours a day, and that units are just waiting to be sent out, planes and helicopters gassed up and ready, and already armed with various payloads, and pilots just pick the plane or chopper that is right for the mission like it's some kind of game.

Sh*t ain't like that. And that we have folks on the Armed Services Committee without any working knowledge of how our military works, is damn frightening.
2013-05-12 06:33:45 PM
12 votes:
When Obama *does* take a calculated risk and carry out a successful surgical strike (killing bin Laden), he's taking credit not due him, and using it for political gain.

When he doesn't take an insane risk, he's deliberately throwing away American lives for political gain.
2013-05-12 06:20:59 PM
11 votes:

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


Another lie Republicans spout to make themselves feel better.

Like, "Republicans are fiscally responsible," or "We're tough on terrorism," or "I'm not gay."
2013-05-12 05:16:56 PM
10 votes:
Gates: Benghazi-obsessed Republicans have 'cartoonish' view of military capability reality.

Fixed that for everyone.
2013-05-12 03:54:26 PM
9 votes:

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

/ripped from RPool


Well, if the nearest fire truck was 5 hours away then yeah, I'd agree that is a cartoonish view of the fire department's capabilities.
2013-05-12 07:30:13 PM
6 votes:
That would explain the thought behind $2.8 billion dollars allocated for improved Abrams tanks... when we have two thousand mission-capable tanks (and thousands of other tracked vehicles like these 113-series) sitting unused in the Nevada desert:

www.tacomlcmccommunityreport.com

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

The Abrams, great system that it is, has been all but useless in the more mountainous regions of Afghanistan. It would be no different in the Balkans, Alps, Himalayas, or Taebaeks. Nor is it useful in any kind of swampy marshland. And in urban settings - which are definitely the conflicts of the future - a platoon of tanks is nothing but collateral damage that can be used as enemy propaganda.
2013-05-12 07:26:52 PM
6 votes:

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

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


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

Please. Do go on. Were ALL embassies across the globe supposed to go on high alert, with air assets ready to buzz the tower? Was it just the ones where there might be some brown people, or the ones with a LOT of brown people near? What about those where there were dirty Commies? What about areas where ethnic cleansing had occurred? Was it just the ones where there were Muslim populations?  Please, break down who was supposed to be on high alert, with Special Forces teams ready to extract, and which bases should have been covering who, and how the Embassies were supposed to coordinate with the military, and visa versa, especially in the face of cuts to their security staff, and likewise, please show your work on how the Department of State supersedes the command structure of the Defense Department's personnel.
2013-05-12 07:08:49 PM
6 votes:

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


fasteddie9318.files.wordpress.com

"And, again, I don't know where [Osama Bin Laden] is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
2013-05-12 05:06:38 PM
6 votes:
These are people who think 24 is a documentary. Shocker.
2013-05-12 06:12:39 PM
5 votes:

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

/ripped from RPool


That's stupid and doesn't make sense. The person that came up with should feel bad and you should feel worse for cribbing it. Then again you're a troll so what's it matter?
2013-05-13 07:58:43 AM
4 votes:
Physicists at MIT report that this thread has given them new insight into the way the universe works.  "We saw goalposts move so fast, that they appeared to exceed the speed of light.  The goalposts actually achieved quantum entanglement, which meant that any two goalposts could occupy any two points in the universe. In fact, we theorize that they occupied every point in the universe simultaneously."  The research resulted in the discovery of a new quantum entity, the derpon.
2013-05-12 09:54:10 PM
4 votes:

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

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


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

img196.imageshack.us
2013-05-12 08:37:44 PM
4 votes:

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 07:09:04 PM
4 votes:
Considering most Republicans have never served a day in our military this is no surprise. Fantasize is what chickenhawks do best.
2013-05-12 07:08:43 PM
4 votes:

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

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

I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

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

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

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


Thank you for illustrating exactly the mental deficiency and willful and proud ignorance that our Congresscritters are displaying. It was a brave choice to make yourself the example, and I commend you for your selflessness...
2013-05-12 07:03:40 PM
4 votes:

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


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

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

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

The military command knows what they can and can't do. The rest of us do not. If they say they couldn't have done it without killing more personnel, I'm inclined to believe them.
2013-05-12 06:44:09 PM
4 votes:

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


You shut your whore mouth, chickenhawk.
2013-05-12 06:00:12 PM
4 votes:
In this thread: A lot of Fark Independents with cartoonish impressions of US military capability.
2013-05-13 01:29:02 AM
3 votes:

SunsetLament: The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.


Wow, there's so much wrong with that it's hard to figure out where to begin.

First, "economy's been dog-shiat" is a less than accurate portrayal of a weak recovery from a swirling-the-bowl type depression Obama inherited.

Second, "at least I killed Bin Laden"? I'm torn here between thumping you over the nose with a rolled up newspaper for your weak attempt to minimize what a BFD that was and is to a lot of people and being marginally happy that you finally recognize that there is some credit due there.

"and took care of terrorism" meaning what? Ended it? Forever? You can't be that naive, right?

And then "the country Obama chose to destabilize"? You imagine the place was stable before that call was made? Now, I know you're trolling.

"...were told no"? Now, you're mad that more lives weren't tossed into the mix (and possibly lost) by going in unprepared and practically unarmed? And if they had been ordered in and gotten themselves killed needlessly that would be the "scandal" you'd be in here bleating about here, no doubt.

If you are just trolling then you are truly a dope.

/Albeit marginally successful in that ya got me.

If you actually believe that narrative then you are beyond help, indeed
2013-05-13 12:36:36 AM
3 votes:

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

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

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


Yeah, 22 years and an SFC. I could have been promoted years ago. I don't want to be a MSG or 1SG. I like working directly with Soldiers, with infantrymen. I am privileged to have the distinct honor of doing so. Someone has to teach and train them what to do when shiat goes sideways.

Since you decided to make an issue of ASVAB scores, my AFQT(overall ASVAB score) is 99, my GT is 134 and my MM is 136. Why, oh why, I'm sure you'll cry, would I choose the infantry? Cuz I'm not a pussy.

I'm far happier and much prefer to work with young men who, unlike some people, have the balls to say "give me the hard job, the one with actual risk," than to play pencil-pusher in an office surrounded by PX Rangers and fobbit types whose only fears are paper cuts, a bad OER/NCOER & the mess hall not serving steak & seafood on Friday.

Now, I know that I can't possibly measure up in your eyes. I know kicking down doors and getting in firefights pales in comparison to the dangers posed by low fluid levels and using the wrong size of cotter pin. Screw up a 2404 and the war will be lost! (BTW, a 4-man stack IS NOT "a line at the shoppette that indicates the need to open a second checkout register"). I know that the Army relies heavily on the support MOS's, so much so that they created the CAB to recognize their sacrifices in combat theaters (Cotton Absorbent Badge). Without you self-appointed life-takers and heartbreakers, I'm sure us lowly grunts (AKA, the ones doing the actual fighting and making actual sacrifices) would have no one to look to as sources of inspiration when lead starts flying.

So, thanks for doing what you did while you served. I'm sure you changed the world and made the PX safe for democracy.

Or, in other words:

For those who know, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, none is possible.
2013-05-13 12:21:22 AM
3 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: No it's not falling back on anything. It is a legitimate question. The same thing happened several times in the past, why didn't any of those times require hearing after hearing? What is different about this time? And while you are trying to think up an answer for that, also explain exactly what was the scandal?

Did the Bush administration blatantly lie about what took place during those attacks?


I don't know, he never said much about them. But Obama never lied lied either, he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA, and later corrected it when it was realized it was incorrect information.

And answer this, what exactly did he have to gain by lying about what happened? Because that is a very important question, unless you think he just lied to be lying. So your claim that he lied and tried to coverup what happened just doesn't make sense because their wasn't any reason for him to lie in that situation..
2013-05-12 11:58:33 PM
3 votes:

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 10:09:19 PM
3 votes:

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

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

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


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

Decisions, decisions...
2013-05-12 10:08:08 PM
3 votes:

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

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

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


So you think that when a consulate is attacked the proper response would be disarm the embassy?
2013-05-12 09:35:32 PM
3 votes:

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

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


Yes: Seeing as you've been a helicopter mechanic, why don't you have any clue about the unrefueled range of the machines and whether pilots would be in any shape to run a mission in a hostile environment without ground spotters, SAM suppression, or andy logistics on the ground there? Did you farking sleep through BNCOC?
2013-05-12 09:01:37 PM
3 votes:

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 08:37:56 PM
3 votes:

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 08:35:05 PM
3 votes:

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 08:15:13 PM
3 votes:

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

Embarrassing.


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

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

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

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

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

It seems like the people in power could figure out how to do it, if they would only surrender their little fiefdoms and put some time and effort into it.
2013-05-12 08:11:56 PM
3 votes:

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


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

"So Obama just sends underarmed, unprepared teams into the middle of a freaking bloodbath without any regard for the fact that he is essentially sending people off to die?  And F-16s?  A fast-attack dogfighter without the turning radius to provide adequate ground support?  What, did he think that hardened terrorists were just going to run in fear at a loud noise?  What should have been a tragedy that lost us 4 people cost us dozens and did nothing but embolden terrorists all over the middle east that even the best of the best the US has are fish in a barrel so long as Zero McEars commands them"
2013-05-12 08:01:03 PM
3 votes:

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

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


Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. Any Democrat willing to actively enter a combat role is, by definition, not a coward. Your original statement fails.
2013-05-12 08:00:41 PM
3 votes:

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


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

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

And now it's just obvious that the feds should have been watching the Tsarnaevs.
2013-05-12 07:11:40 PM
3 votes:

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


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

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

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

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

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


Hicks asked for planes stationed in Italy to do a flyby and somehow scare the Libyans off like Native Americans scared by loud iron horses.  The military decided it was too far away to help, and a plane flying that low would most likely be shot at by surface to air missiles left over from Quadaffi and the civil war.
2013-05-12 06:50:48 PM
3 votes:

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

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


i56.tinypic.com
2013-05-12 06:48:30 PM
3 votes:

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

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

I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

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

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

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


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

January 1st
February 26th
April  18th
June 14th
June 25th
July 4th
August 7th
September 5th
September 11th
October 12th
November 17th
December 25th
The start of Ramadan
The end of Ramadan
Eid Al-Fitr
Eid Al-Adha
The start of Hanukkah
the end of Hannukah
And every other major Jewish holiday
Etc.
2013-05-12 06:33:46 PM
3 votes:

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

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

I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

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

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

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


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

Did we need them? What the hell makes you think this year was going to be different?
2013-05-12 06:22:52 PM
3 votes:

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


You should see the Intelligence Committee.
2013-05-12 06:20:31 PM
3 votes:

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


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

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

That's part of what's broken with the whole goddamn system, the people making the rules have zero concept of what they're making rules about.  (Then again, the military itself has that problem to a lesser extent, judging from the number of officers I've dealt with who know jack and shiat about the business end of how their unit does their mission).
2013-05-12 05:53:37 PM
3 votes:

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


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

FAIL.
2013-05-13 03:06:03 PM
2 votes:

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 08:05:09 AM
2 votes:

Animatronik: Its definitely better to send forces when the ambasador asks for security,
but mostly this just demonstrates an inability to understand the significance of what happened.  A U.S. ambassadors life was at stake and there was no response of any kind for many hours.  Why did we send those guys I'm there if they could not be protected????

Incompetence in the State Department.

Hilary has always been an incompetent.  She finally inserted herself into a job where pols lives depended on her competence.

 And if they'd sent under-prepared forces into the riot, leading to more injuries and deaths, you'd be attacking that, too. Or if we sent the Marines in Tripoli, leaving the actual embassy unguarded.
There is no scenario in which you shiatheads WOULDN'T have attacked Obama and Hillary for this.
2013-05-13 01:03:44 AM
2 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: Yeah, but in your arrogance, you were implying that aviation was somehow incapable of being dangerous.


When did he do that?

I don't mind debating politics with you - every Farker who votes in elections is entitled to their opinions. But stop trying to act like spending a whopping eight years pulling the trigger on your torque wrench has made you an expert on current Marine and JSOC capabilities or response times.

The pilots and door gunners in your time wore the same BDUs as the Army's cooks, the Air Force's band, and the clerks on a Navy Seabees base. And it looked exactly the same on servicemembers whether they voted Democrat or Republican. Your "coward" comment, combined with your political talking points, makes it pretty clear that you consider Fox News to be a source of journalistic integrity and unbiased information. Let us know when you climb down from the peak of Bullshiat Mountain and decide to see the real world.
2013-05-13 12:46:03 AM
2 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: My former units did lots of things and lost lots of people too.

Yeah, but in your arrogance, you were implying that aviation was somehow incapable of being dangerous.


No, you, in your arrogance were downplaying a combat mission with a high ratio of kills as "not a major tank battle".  Gulf War I was incredibly important in showing that the US had armor and the tactics developed around it that were wildly successful.  You, being a dildo, intimated that training was more dangerous.  You were doing this, I suspect, because your (thank you for your service) military career as a pogue and faux-tactical expert on Fark has been  roundly shat upon by many people, from many MOSs in many posts.

And I do concede your point that aviation is dangerous.  That's what happens when you fight physics.  I would counter that you, as a ground based wrench monkey, were not exposed to the same level as say, pilots or 11B soldiers engaged in air assault training.  You know why?  Because you were a ground based wrench monkey.

Meh.  Enough with you.  Makin' my agent orange flare up.  Again, stop trying to act hard REMF.  You're just making yourself look silly.
2013-05-13 12:07:02 AM
2 votes:

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 12:05:49 AM
2 votes:

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 12:03:57 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-05-12 11:16:19 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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


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

It's always the support MOS's with the big mouths that think that we can do anything and everything.  It was always the support blabbing about how badass they are and then letting the infantry guys clean up your mess.
2013-05-12 11:01:21 PM
2 votes:

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


fark you, asshole.

My Dad was a Democrat and he volunteered to serve in Vietnam.
2013-05-12 10:59:04 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


So, in your head, EVERY Embassy where there are Muslims near--you do realize that Islam IS indeed a world wide religion with adherents across the globe, and even in China and Europe, we should have had teams mobilized and ready to drop boots, just in case, when they had regular security--and in fact had that security downsized a bit thanks to budget cuts--on the possibility that there might be extra trouble on that particular day, as opposed to staff trying to assess the situation on the ground?  I just want to be clear on this vision that you have. Because, as I stated from the get go: you exemplify the exact cartoonish thought process that was being discussed, and again, I congratulate you on sticking to it, because some folks might realize the enormity of the task that they figure is just "good thinking" after the fact, but you Sir, you have abandoned any pretense of rational thought process, and are hard charging of the "just asking the questions" hill. Kudos. It takes a brave man to fly in the face of facts with such reckless abandon, and still posit such ponderous "questions"...
2013-05-12 10:46:43 PM
2 votes:
67V? A friggin' helicopter mechanic??? Really out there on the sharp end, huh?

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

/11C & 11B, 22 years (so far), SFC, CIB, EIB.
//Let's not get into an ASVAB score dick measuring contest. A 105 Mechanical Maintenance sub-score ain't exactly indicative of a rocket surgeon, ITG.
///Next up, JohnnyPopcorn talks about how he's "been there and done that"
////Did what exactly? Checked that bolts were tightened to proper torque specs? What a badass!
2013-05-12 10:35:23 PM
2 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: clkeagle: And in urban settings

Tanks are very effective in urban settings.


Sometimes . . .

stevenhomartialarts.com
2013-05-12 10:27:27 PM
2 votes:
Republicans have a cartoonish impression of everything. Nothing in their worldview is based on reality.
2013-05-12 10:07:43 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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


Too bad the attack didn't happen at the embassy, it happened at the consulate which because it was a consulate, isn't as heavily guarded.
2013-05-12 10:01:42 PM
2 votes:
COME on gung-ho right wing themed troll accounts, answer!

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

Please, give me your honest answers on that.
2013-05-12 09:54:36 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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


Feh.....Rank amateurs compared:

1.bp.blogspot.com

/Fark yeah!
2013-05-12 09:42:48 PM
2 votes:

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

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


Herr  Otter schools you a couple posts down, so I'll just content myself with knowing you were one of those dudes who talked about banging wives and TA50 while real soldiers were deployed to combat zones.
2013-05-12 09:29:04 PM
2 votes:

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

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


You actually pulled the elitist card for an MOS with a 105 Mechanical Maintenance minimum score?  That has to the saddest attempt at an OH SNAP I've ever seen.
2013-05-12 09:03:14 PM
2 votes:

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 08:59:57 PM
2 votes:

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 08:48:21 PM
2 votes:

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 08:33:58 PM
2 votes:

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 08:33:56 PM
2 votes:
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 08:31:14 PM
2 votes:

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 08:25:14 PM
2 votes:

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 08:22:36 PM
2 votes:

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

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


Because that was easily identifiable in your original statement. Keep moving those goalposts.
2013-05-12 08:20:54 PM
2 votes:

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


And what seldom gets mentioned is that the four Special Forces guys in Tripoli weren't equipped for combat. They were on a fact-finding mission, and armed only with 9mm sidearms.  No rifles, no body armor, no grenades, no comm equipment. Dropping off four officers armed with pistols to fight their way through a crowd armed with AKs - gee, what could possibly go wrong?
2013-05-12 08:07:29 PM
2 votes:
Pffft Popcornn Johhny is trying to come across as some hard core warrior, dbag was a scout helicopter mechanic, probably wasn't even rated as aircrew. Must have really seen the elephant in peace time Korea, Germany,Texas and the 72 in the Gulf, huh Johnny? And after in 8 years in a technical field you only made SSgt.? Total loser by an services standards.
2013-05-12 07:43:41 PM
2 votes:

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


Given that conservatives never back any of their statements with facts, you are in the clear.
2013-05-12 07:39:54 PM
2 votes:

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


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

That's not incapable buffoonery. That's math.
2013-05-12 07:16:47 PM
2 votes:

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


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

abcnews.go.com
2013-05-12 06:57:41 PM
2 votes:

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

[global.fncstatic.com image 660x371]


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
Who cares? What difference does it make?
2013-05-12 06:48:03 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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


Where exactly would you have them based? Its not like there are countries beating down our doors to get US troops stationed in their territory. And supposing we did have some sort of rapid-reaction force stationed within an hour of anywhere in the world we have people -because that's what it'd take - those troops would be just as much a target as the Benghazi consulate was. Remember USS Cole? Remember Khobar Towers? Unless you're planning on invading half the countries in the world just so we can station troops there to be the world's policeman, it is simply not feasible to have a base everywhere we might want it.
2013-05-12 06:38:46 PM
2 votes:

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


A large percentage of people who claim to be Democrats also believe that fairy tale and vice versa.  When are we going to start talking about that?  It's not "Guns and Religion" vs "Unions and Secularism", there is quite a lot of overlap.  We never talk about the things that truly separate the left from the right because it isn't that easy and it changes from topic to topic.  I bet if we did, it would probably really scare the crap out of those in charge.  United We Stand...
2013-05-12 06:38:42 PM
2 votes:

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


Budget cuts. And ask yourself who was responsible for those.
2013-05-12 06:22:29 PM
2 votes:

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


Or like how Michele Bachmann is on the Intelligence Committee.
2013-05-12 06:21:22 PM
2 votes:
Considering these are many of the same folks who believe that a 2,000-year-old fairy tale is scientific and that The Flintstones is historically accurate, yea... I'm not surprised they don't know sh*t about how the military operates. I mean, I don't either, but I don't pretend to and then get all uppity when they do or do not do something in a way that contradicts my delusional view of the world.
2013-05-12 06:18:36 PM
2 votes:
Obvious tag gone AWOL like GWB?
2013-05-12 06:17:43 PM
2 votes:

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


and Popcorn Johnny is an idiot, so I guess reality is in everyone else's favor?
2013-05-12 05:59:17 PM
2 votes:

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

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


I wonder what the percentage of people on any congress committee have any working knowledge of anything other than how to win a reelection?
2013-05-12 03:41:48 PM
2 votes:

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

/ripped from RPool


Why would rip that? Other than to shreads, that is.
2013-05-13 04:38:09 PM
1 votes:

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 03:42:58 PM
1 votes:

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 02:36:54 PM
1 votes:

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 02:32:08 PM
1 votes:

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 01:45:39 PM
1 votes:

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 01:31:42 PM
1 votes:
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 01:08:20 PM
1 votes:

JustGetItRight: Philip Francis Queeg: Nope, not bothered at all. Tell us, how would recklessly getting air crew killed have made the situation better? Are larger body counts more heroic and noble?

Job #1 of the US Military is to protect US citizens.  Sometimes that means taking a risk.

To use a prior analogy, it is no different than when the first arriving engine company from a fire department enters a building to rescue a trapped civilian.  Any number of bad things might go wrong, they don't know when backup units will arrive, but they do it anyhow because that's what they signed up to do.

What bothers me isn't that they didn't send aircraft because they weren't in a position to do any good.  What bothers me is that Gates' statement is that he wouldn't have sent a plane or two because he wouldn't have had time to plan against any possible threat even if those couple of aircraft could have done some good and that is plain and simply wrong.


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.
2013-05-13 11:58:43 AM
1 votes:

Vodka Zombie: spawn73: 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

The firedepartment would send a truck even if they think they'll be to late. The consequences of being to late wouldn´t be the death of the men on the firetruck.

The analogy is stupid.

You don't just send in millitary to see what's going to happen.

I was told, by a Farker who coincidentally claimed to have served in the "Air Force" no less, that low-flying, super-sonic, fighter jets out of Italy should have been used to frighten the angry villagers into running for the hills, thus saving the people who had already been killed from getting killed again.

Our military is THAT powerful, you know.


Note that later on, one of our armchair generals asserted that those same cowards who flee at the sound of a jet withstood 100 dead (and Allah knows how many wounded) at the hands of 7 CIA agents but the horde just kept coming.
2013-05-13 11:40:56 AM
1 votes:

spawn73: 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

The firedepartment would send a truck even if they think they'll be to late. The consequences of being to late wouldn´t be the death of the men on the firetruck.

The analogy is stupid.

You don't just send in millitary to see what's going to happen.


I was told, by a Farker who coincidentally claimed to have served in the "Air Force" no less, that low-flying, super-sonic, fighter jets out of Italy should have been used to frighten the angry villagers into running for the hills, thus saving the people who had already been killed from getting killed again.

Our military is THAT powerful, you know.
2013-05-13 11:31:36 AM
1 votes:

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

/ripped from RPool

Well, if the nearest fire truck was 5 hours away then yeah, I'd agree that is a cartoonish view of the fire department's capabilities.


If it were 5 hours away, down a road potentially lined with anti-Fire Fighter bandits armed with rpgs, and if it wasn't clear if Gates' house fire had started spontaneously, or had been set by those bandits specifically to draw out the fire-fighters.
2013-05-13 11:29:26 AM
1 votes:

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


The firedepartment would send a truck even if they think they'll be to late. The consequences of being to late wouldn´t be the death of the men on the firetruck.

The analogy is stupid.

You don't just send in millitary to see what's going to happen.
2013-05-13 11:07:39 AM
1 votes:

Ctrl-Alt-Del: In front of you, anyway.


Anywhere; they're not the type of quiet their derp just because of someone being around.  And they're not idiots, just highly partisan.  They know Obama did a good thing and that's what they can't stand.  If the facts aren't muddy enough for them to bullshiat about it, the only honorable solution is to ignore it.
2013-05-13 10:52:59 AM
1 votes:

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.


Oh. you mean the "internet video" that caused the large riots in Cairo, Tunis, Yemen for several days? That "internet video"?
Do a little research on the reaction to that "video" and you'll look like less of a fool.
2013-05-13 10:16:57 AM
1 votes:

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


You know, I spent most of my time in Saigon in the '60s piloting a typewriter (in the days before every ten-year-old was expert with a keyboard). Even though I'm an army brat, the son of an army brat, I didn't want to be in VN, thought the whole damn war was politically stupid and a waste of lives, and couldn't wait to get home and back to being a civilian.

And yet, I never sat around in the barracks making fun of infantrymen in the field.

Oh, yeah: My father and grandfather, both career officers with combat experience running from the Mexican Expedition in 1916 through early Vietnam, were lifelong Democrats.
2013-05-13 10:15:31 AM
1 votes:

Animatronik: Its definitely better to send forces when the ambasador asks for security,
but mostly this just demonstrates an inability to understand the significance of what happened.  A U.S. ambassadors life was at stake and there was no response of any kind for many hours.  Why did we send those guys I'm there if they could not be protected????

Incompetence in the State Department.

Hilary has always been an incompetent.  She finally inserted herself into a job where pols lives depended on her competence.


Yes, she was so incompetent, that none of her womanly whining and moaning even came close to allowing the GOP dominated House from radically cutting the budget to protect consulate staff. Why is Hillary so useless? If she can't even get the most partisan congress, who hate everything about her and sole purpose now seems to be stopping her running in 2016 from changing their mind and allotting the proper amount of money to protect the ambassadors and their staff, she needs firing in disgrace, shot, and replaced with the next person who will be totally blocked on all funding requests too.
2013-05-13 09:15:21 AM
1 votes:

powhound: Gyrfalcon: One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.

Not sure if you meant it as such, but that is kind of a slap in the face to the vast majority of those in the military.


A Marine I used to know spent most of his service in Hawaii on a project to map out radar and radio dead spots in the island chain.  The Marines had him and another guy driving around with little adult supervision the country side of Hawaii.  A lot of drinking was done during this.

I really don't see a need to thank him for that.

LordJiro: And if they'd sent under-prepared forces into the riot, leading to more injuries and deaths, you'd be attacking that, too. Or if we sent the Marines in Tripoli, leaving the actual embassy unguarded.
There is no scenario in which you shiatheads WOULDN'T have attacked Obama and Hillary for this.


NO NO.  THEY PROMISE THAT IF SOME LOW OR MIDLEVEL PERSON AUTHORIZED THOSE FOUR GUYS AS REINFORCEMENTS THEY WOULD NEVER EVER EVER BLAME THOSE DEATHS ON OBAMA.  THE DEATHS OF PEOPLE ON RESCUE MISSIONS OR ACTING AS SOLDIERS NEVER COUNT AGAINST THE BLACK GUY.

Have a few right wingnuts/derpers/TRUE CONSERVATIVES in my office.  Morning after the Bin Laden announcement they spent 45 minutes biatching about Obama and how arrogant he was and how he kept saying "me" and "I" and etc etc and how it's completely immoral for him to take any credit for it because it was all the military.
Eventually I decided to ask them:
"If all 36 (?) sailors and two airmen on that mission had died, would you have blamed Obama for those deaths?"

They didn't mention anything about Bin Laden dying after that.  Ever.
2013-05-13 09:14:26 AM
1 votes:
There's a reason HubieStubert is the only farker on my color-coded "favorites" list. . . .
2013-05-13 07:58:41 AM
1 votes:
Wow, lots of pwnage on the land-of-make-believe right-wingers.

Damn, and they wonder why Romney lost...
2013-05-13 02:57:24 AM
1 votes:

SunsetLament: Conservatives expect their military's civilian leadership to use everything at their disposal to make sure nobody (military or civilian) gets left behind when they are attacked by a bunch of savages.


3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-05-13 02:05:51 AM
1 votes:

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

Embarrassing.


Plans are one thing. Paying for adequate security is quite another. Hasn't the State Dept been asking for money for years now? Who's in charge of alloting money again? The blah guy or the orange guy? I forget..
2013-05-13 01:47:17 AM
1 votes:

SunsetLament: Fart_Machine: SunsetLament: ongbok: Popcorn Johnny: ongbok: he repeated the information that was given to him by the CIA,

No he didn't, that's the entire point here. The CIA's first report on the incident indicated that it was an organized terrorist attack. The administration chose to not report that and said it was a demonstration over an internet video that got out of control.

Then why did he lie? What was the point of it?

Why would Obama lie?  Is that seriously your question?

The foundation of his entire campaign was "sure, the whole country's economy has been dogshiat since I took over, but at least I killed Bin Laden and took care of terrorism."  Then two months before the election, we had an Ambassador killed in the country Obama himself chose to de-stabilize.  Then you find out that we had military personnel begging to go there and try and save them and they were told "no."  If you can't tell why that makes him look like an incompetent dope and why he might want to hide it (for as long as he could, but at least until the election was over) then you're beyond help.

The conspiracy is so deep even the Pentagon is involved apparently since they discounted Hicks account of what happened.  Meanwhile in alternate-reality land saying our security forces couldn't handle a bunch of yahoo protesters sounds better than a well-coordinated and planned attack and Gadaffi was a stable and well-loved leader before Obama came along.

Nope, the Pentagon has already backtracked on the "no stand down order" ... now they are trying to say that the words "stand down" were never used, instead they simply told Gibson he couldn't get on the plane.  There is absolutely no facts at issue whether or not someone above Gibson told him not to leave Tripoli (Hicks says it's what Gibson told him, NBC News confirmed it with their Pentagon sources ... and then the Pentagon yesterday came out and confirmed it).


You do realize that the plane this team was going to ride in was just going to the Benghazi airport to pick up the remaining people on the ground there and leave, right? And it was flying out of Tripoli about an hour after Woods and Doherty had already died.
2013-05-13 12:35:54 AM
1 votes:

19 Kilo: My former units did lots of things and lost lots of people too.


Yeah, but in your arrogance, you were implying that aviation was somehow incapable of being dangerous.
2013-05-13 12:32:30 AM
1 votes:
One thing I do love about these threads is they let me update my "Farkers who actually served in the military" list vs. "poseurs who got their lingo from 2 years in the National Guard and a lot of video games."

For you guys who did serve and were in combat--thanks again.
2013-05-13 12:29:26 AM
1 votes:

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

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


Did the Navy teach you that crap or did you shiat that out yourself?  Dude, that makes no sense.  And if you were in the Navy, you'd know that there is no way in hell you can keep shuttling around forces all throughout the planet to respond on a moment's notice, especially in the  Middle East.  Just basing troops there is inviting something to happen...to them.  And who the F knows where something will happen?  The intelligence services prolly come up with a 1000 credible threats a week WORLDWIDE, and where do you suppose we keep a battalion of Marines to send out a platoon or company ready to respond within a couple of hours? In orbit on the ISS?!?

This isn't Nintendo.  We don't have timewarp capabilities.  BTW, suppose shiat went down hard in Egypt and they decided to storm the embassy?  You send your react force there. Then..OOPS.  Libya jumps.  YOu are basically plum short of troops, aircraft, materiel, and plans to do anything.

Your argument doesn't make sense.  Besides, there is no way I can keep a platoon of Marines sitting on the apron ready to go on 1 hour NTM EVERYDAY.  You are seriously kidding yourself if you think that will happen.
2013-05-13 12:24:16 AM
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: 19 Kilo: I've seen a new driver get his head torn off when he stuck it out of the driver's hole while a turret was traversing.  I've seen what was left of a 19D who was on the wrong side of a Brad round because the guy he was linking ammo with decided to use a hammer to seat it.

I saw a new Cobra pilot die after walking into his own tail rotor. He was excited after a good day of qualifying at the range. Also saw two pilots die after hitting wires while flying at night.

Is there a point you're trying to make here?


Yep.  You are, apparently, incapable of distinguishing training accidents from actual combat.  But, you're a keyboard commando and shall henceforth be relegated to the Blue 1 farky reserved for trolls.  Good on ya!  I hope your imagined faux-military expertise keeps you warm at night.  I'm also glad bigger men than you put themselves in harms way, and better men than you have supported them.  Kisses.
2013-05-13 12:15:35 AM
1 votes:

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 12:15:27 AM
1 votes:

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 12:14:08 AM
1 votes:

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 12:13:29 AM
1 votes:

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 12:09:07 AM
1 votes:

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 12:03:38 AM
1 votes:

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 12:02:29 AM
1 votes:

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 12:00:21 AM
1 votes:

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
2013-05-12 11:57:26 PM
1 votes:

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 11:54:50 PM
1 votes:

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 11:51:16 PM
1 votes:

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 11:51:13 PM
1 votes:

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 11:48:19 PM
1 votes:

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 11:48:01 PM
1 votes:

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 11:47:40 PM
1 votes:

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 11:47:11 PM
1 votes:

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 11:42:23 PM
1 votes:

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 11:40:40 PM
1 votes:

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 11:26:41 PM
1 votes:

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

I was sitting at the top of the potential candidates for SFC, even with my short time as a SSG. I was pretty mush a shoe in to make SFC in a couple of years. Only took me 5.5 to make SSG.


You have no clue where you sit until you put a packet in.  The scoring for E7 changes every single year and is not MOS specific.  Stop lying to yourself.  I probably know more E7 in 7's then you know E7's total.  I know how the whole thing works.
2013-05-12 11:24:17 PM
1 votes:

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


I don't know if Popcorn Johhny realizes that everyone is laughing at him. He probably still thinks he's a badass who would have easily killed a hundred men with his bare hands if only he was given the chance. He's like the Uncle Rico of the army.
2013-05-12 11:15:29 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


So you served in a low-density MOS, could do a mean two miles in your gym shorts and running shoes, and had time to work on your degree between beers in Germany. Want a trophy?
2013-05-12 11:15:19 PM
1 votes:

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

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


I see you are not a smart person. I guess cameron should just sit back and watch you get your ass handed to you again. I know it's going to be entertaining.
2013-05-12 11:10:25 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Dude, a smart person should know when he should stop posting.
2013-05-12 11:08:14 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


I think there maybe even more epoch pwnage yet still to come.
2013-05-12 11:06:09 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


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

The US military does not have the capabilities to put QRF teams all over the world ready to save Americans, not today, not on 9/11, and not any day in the future.  It sucks that 4 Americans dies, but because people made tough decisions, it was only 4 Americans.  It sucks, but sending people to go die to say we did something is foolish.
2013-05-12 11:06:04 PM
1 votes:

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


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

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

/not one of those that do except for a passing interest...
2013-05-12 10:41:52 PM
1 votes:

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

Sir Johnny bravely ran away!


Too bad that those "jealous grunts" would have been the guys who actually carried out any rescue attempts, while the mechanics got to cheer on from the safety of the shed. I think he should keep digging. He hasn't quite hit bedrock yet, and I think that if he just pushes deeper, he can win us over with his vast reservoir of experience and daring do of battling vicious hydrolics and the vast number of hexnuts that he's personally loosened...
2013-05-12 10:41:11 PM
1 votes:

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

The guys trying to save their careers?

Or the dead guys?


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

The only groups who seem to think they have anything to lose by doing what I said:
1. Elected officials with an "R" by their names
2. Fox News' shareholders
2013-05-12 10:31:16 PM
1 votes:

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


FIFY.
2013-05-12 10:20:49 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Oh, hey, another person that has no clue about military logistics.  First of all, SF isn't hostage rescue, they aren't infantry, they aren't equipped or trained to handle this type of situation.  Those 4 guys wanted to do the right thing, but were ill equipped to do so.  Second of all, why would the Libyans have let the SF team leave when they still hadn't let the CIA/Contractor team leave?  Third, why would you shift resources away from the embassy when the embassy is on alert?
2013-05-12 10:19:01 PM
1 votes:

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


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

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


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

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

In the future, any nation that doesn't provide a swift, local response should be dealt with by losing all diplomatic relations and foreign aid, and hit with immediate trade sanctions. Either act like a 21st century government, or say goodbye.  Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Malaysia, or Indonesia would have had every pair of boots within 50 miles curb-stomping that mob into submission if it happened inside their countries.
2013-05-12 10:17:17 PM
1 votes:

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

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

Served in Korea, Germany, Texas and Iraq.

Any other questions?

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

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


I hate to defend Pat Robertson but keeping the bar stocked is a very important job.
2013-05-12 10:13:34 PM
1 votes:

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


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

War is a grand adventure to those who've never been in one.
2013-05-12 10:09:40 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


And what, exactly, do you think those four guys could have done against an unknown number of assailants with heavy weapons in a crowded city, even assuming they got there in time to do anything? And who would have taken on the mission they had already been assigned?
2013-05-12 10:02:11 PM
1 votes:
19 Kilo:
demaL-demaL-yeH: Popcorn Johnny: demaL-demaL-yeH:  Did you farking sleep through BNCOC?

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

That certainly answers my question. Thanks.

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

Did you just call me a DAT?


I was poking fun at his assumed higher ASVAB score superiority complex.
/If you're upset, call me a "crunchy" and we're even.
//Started out 8" SP ARTY.
2013-05-12 09:58:55 PM
1 votes:

ratman999: Why can't we all be adults


Because nearly half of our elected officials are retarded loons with fascist tendencies?
2013-05-12 09:58:18 PM
1 votes:

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


This was my favorite chairborne ranger retrograde maneuver ever.

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

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

That certainly answers my question. Thanks.

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


Did you just call me a DAT?
2013-05-12 09:55:41 PM
1 votes:
Popcorn Johnny: demaL-demaL-yeH:  Did you farking sleep through BNCOC?

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


That certainly answers my question. Thanks.

/I'll stick with DAT's assessment, then.
2013-05-12 09:55:40 PM
1 votes:

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

/ripped from RPool


That is a bizarre comparison.

But, attention received.  Congratulations.
2013-05-12 09:52:16 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Tread carefully, you're daring to doubt the military strategery of a REMF.
2013-05-12 09:49:47 PM
1 votes:
Wow, Popcorn Johnny's Internet Tough Guy credentials are getting shot down pretty fast.
2013-05-12 09:25:42 PM
1 votes:

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 09:21:57 PM
1 votes:
I give up, time to go get some fish tacos.
2013-05-12 09:17:26 PM
1 votes:

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 09:02:07 PM
1 votes:

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 08:46:50 PM
1 votes:

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 08:41:36 PM
1 votes:

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 08:35:34 PM
1 votes:

SunsetLament: what Gates


This summarizes the entire Benghazithon nicely.  Political agenda trumps experts.  Plus, non-experts know more than experts.
2013-05-12 08:25:33 PM
1 votes:

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


It's a pretty lazy trolling technique but effective.
2013-05-12 08:23:05 PM
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

Which would cost a huge amount of additional money.

And in the mean time, every right wing politicians, pundits, and think tank is demanding that close all overseas bases and bring those troops back to the states.
2013-05-12 08:16:01 PM
1 votes:
Looks like Gates hit a nerve, Fark Benghazimongers are in a tizzy.
2013-05-12 08:14:23 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Budget cuts don't change that, you're right. But when you cut the State Department's budget so that they can't afford to have a decent standing force of Marines at each consulate, you're sort of responsible when that lack of Marines leads to a consulate getting over run.
2013-05-12 08:04:29 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Is next week when Obama is a blood thirsty drone tyrant?
2013-05-12 07:55:10 PM
1 votes:

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

Embarrassing.


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

Yes...let's just throw more people into the situation without thinking about it. Because evaluating the pros and cons of a situation is for pussies.
2013-05-12 07:53:03 PM
1 votes:

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


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

Maybe we should have sent Laura over there with a '63 Chevy and a bottle of Night Train.
2013-05-12 07:52:09 PM
1 votes:
Listen, I don't give a fark what Gates said ... if an American Ambassador in a war zone says "We are under attack" you don't fark around and say "Oh, well, we don't have a plan in place so we can't help." - you farking send whatever you have available and improvise and do your best.  Gates' comments are embarrassing.  Anybody who believes what Gates said is too farking incompetent to be in a leadership position in our military (or federal law enforcement); end of story.  You don't leave people on the battlefield (where it may be) because you haven't farking gameplanned out all the scenarios.  And while we're at it; this was an consulate in the middle of one of the most dangerous places in the world ... why wasn't there a farking "Holy shiat we're under attack, we need to save a mass of people who have been driven out of the buildings IMMEDIATELY" plan?

Embarrassing.
2013-05-12 07:52:01 PM
1 votes:
Also, it's the bad kind of cartoon, too. Not a hip, cool cartoon like Archer, or a crude, snarky cartoon like South Park, or a classic like Loony Tunes, or even a once-great, now slowly-winding-down series like The Simpsons. No, we're talking a very, very bad cartoon, like Clutch Cargo, or one of those cut rate Japanimation pieces of crap that are more storyboard than animation and are filled with repetitive dialog like, "Now I must continue my quest to collect the seven sacred pieces of the dragon amulet because when I have collected them all I will have fulfilled my quest by finding all the pieces and then I will have the whole amulet and my quest will be completed." No, wait, it's more like the kind of cartoon a marginally talented eight-year-old would make by doodling some figures on the edge of the pages in a notebook and then flip through them really fast, only he has attention deficit disorder and gave up after only ten pages or so. Basically, what I'm saying here is that Republicans are just farking retarded, and if there's anything other than a test pattern and a monotone blaring inside their heads, I'd be pretty surprised.
2013-05-12 07:50:40 PM
1 votes:

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

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

Served in Korea, Germany, Texas and Iraq.

Any other questions?


Sure. How many Democrats were in your units, ya think?
2013-05-12 07:48:54 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Johnny doesn't even vote.
2013-05-12 07:47:48 PM
1 votes:
I blame Michael Bay.  I know that's my stock answer for a lot of things, but stick with me here.  Remember early in the first Transformers movie -- hold on, don't pretend you didn't see it.  Remember early in the movie when the soldiers are fleeing across the desert and they're attacked by Scorponok?  One of them makes a credit card call and within an minute and a half, an AC-130 begins raining fiery death and saves teh day.

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

Anyway, they seem to think this is how shiat actually works.  Which is why I blame Michael Bay.
2013-05-12 07:42:49 PM
1 votes:
Goes along well with their cartoonish view of economics, sociology, morality...pretty much everything else.
2013-05-12 07:23:43 PM
1 votes:
So, Pickering & Gates have both called BS.  Ignorant RINO's, I'm sure.

More hearings and more whistle blowers on tap...  yasss, yasss (if any of you Farkers  `claim' any of the R's on the House Oversight Committee, drop him/her a line and demand that a running total of the cost, to the taxpayer, of the `investigations', including witness transport & misc., of the Oversight Committee hearings into (insert `B' word here) be posted to his/her official website and be updated daily (only real scandal that I can fathom is the cost of this circus).
2013-05-12 07:18:57 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Tell us, what deployments would have been necessary to have US forces on alert to deploy anywhere in the middle east within one hour on that day? How many planes, ships and troops deployed in what locations. Be specific about your solution to this problem that you believe to be so simple and obvious.
2013-05-12 07:16:12 PM
1 votes:

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


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

It is a big farking planet, and unlike your hindsight psychic abilities, we can't actually predict in advance what day terrorists will attack on (would you have predicted 9/11 prior to 2001?).
2013-05-12 07:14:41 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Really?  'Cause you sure are acting like ITT.
2013-05-12 07:11:50 PM
1 votes:

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

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


What about a diplomat that never got a promotion?
2013-05-12 07:10:56 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Fascists are like that.
2013-05-12 06:58:32 PM
1 votes:

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

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

I'd just say that this comment by Gates:

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

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

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

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


Not to mention that Benghazi is about 1000 miles from Israel and the rest of the Middle East.  Were we supposed to have a carrier group standing by offshore of every embassy and consulate from Morocco to Afghanistan?
2013-05-12 06:55:11 PM
1 votes:
Rincewind53 biatchslapped Popcorn Douchebag Johnny with that post
2013-05-12 06:30:39 PM
1 votes:
Four special forces guys in God Mode could have totally spawned in and pwnd that mob.
2013-05-12 06:20:50 PM
1 votes:

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


Aren't you supposed to be out shooting illegal immigrants?
2013-05-12 06:17:03 PM
1 votes:

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

/ripped from RPool


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

Of course you do.
2013-05-12 06:15:33 PM
1 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com
2013-05-12 06:09:50 PM
1 votes:

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


I'll pass that along to George McGovern's ghost.
2013-05-12 05:40:06 PM
1 votes:

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

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


And most of the servicemen are just like Seal Team 6.
2013-05-12 05:24:35 PM
1 votes:
So when is the GOP going to show the military how to teleport?
 
Displayed 184 of 184 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report