Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Flintlocker, May 12, 2013.
True, so true. It must be perilous being in the BHO admin.
Nice of you to go off on a 7 paragraph tangent, but the point of my post was that there were fully trained personnel on site complete with a laser, and the communication gear who begged for air support for 5+ hours.
Comrade Zero had no problem killing 25 Navy SEALs +13 others in a single Chinook crash in Kablamistan, had no problem using our jets and weapons to destabilize Libya, and make it ripe for the Muslim brotherhood picking, but somehow this tiny band of peaceful Muslim protesters are deemed invulnerable to every weapon in our arsenal.
As I said, good thing 1st Lt O'Bannon didn't have a POS like Comrade Zero as CinC.
Talk about tangents.
Your little novella on what we can't do reminded me of my first CinC--Jimmuh Cahtuh--that little peanut-flecked turd of a Democrat had limitless excuses as to why he was impotent against our nation's enemies. He stood around doing nothing while our ambassador to Kablamistan was killed; did nothing for 444 days when peaceful Muslim "students" took our embassy and its staff in Tehran; but he sure showed those Russkies! LMAO While it is true that he let them roll right in to Kablamistan, he knew that banning America from participating in the Olympics would break the Russians' spirit.
He'd even sit on TV in a fruity little sweater, and tell us we would have to get used to the idea of just being cold all winter. LOL!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmlcLNA8Zhc"]President Jimmy Carter - Report to the Nation on Energy - YouTube[/ame]
Then (thank God) Ronald Reagan became president, and we were able to tell the Soviets that America wasn't putting up with their bull**** anymore, and that their days as the CCCP, were numbered. Excuses and fruity little sweaters be damned.
My point was he knows their capabilities, the limitations due to logistics as far as how quickly they can be deployed. Speaking in general here.
Obviously he's not in the loop, being out of office for a while. You may have missed where I posted earlier asking what assets were in the area, how far away are they. How were they equipped.
That's the news I was referring to that is the critical piece missing.
Gates understands the process better than any of us. He has no more specifics on this particular situation than we do. That still adds up to his opinion having more weight than anyone here. He also has no axe to grind, no ass to cover, no reason to lie. Most everyone else talking has an agenda biasing their point of view. They're either covering for Obama at all costs, or hate his guts. Neither is particularly interested in the truth, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Once again, we find liberals and conservatives, have completely different ideas on a very important issue.
I think we can put this down as just one more area where we are very different people.
Maybe before a government employee or soldier goes into dangerous places, they should start asking the question, "If things turn to ****, are you coming in to get me or not?"
At least then, you wouldn't have to waste time making calls for help that wasn't going to come, when you could be trying to shoot or evade your way out of the problem instead.
There's something that doesn't add up in this story. Calling it protestors vs terrorists to avoid campaign issues, and then calling off a rescue and leaving them to die.
An overrun embassy, compound is bad for your campaign no matter who does it. Even a failed rescue attempt leaves valiant heroes behind to rally behind and plays better than not bothering to try. And a successful rescue is a great campaign booster. There is no political upside to stopping the attempt.
Something is wrong with the picture you're trying to paint. Those two stories are incompatible.
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Obama told us "Bin Laden is Dead" so he took credit for taking the head off the snake and the threat of Muslim terrorists was over. Once the White House decided that it wasn't and organized attack, it couldn't be Bin Laden was dead, they couldn't admit that there was any organization left in the terrorist world. That is why the "talking points" were scoured and scrubbed clean of any reference to "terrorists". The line was that they were just peaceful Muslims at heart that were greatly incensed by a (old) video that had mocked their prophet. "They were righteously indignant" was how the WH wanted it played. Hence they sent Susan Rice around to spread the lie.
I wasn't clear, I get that part, the part that doesn't work is the part about calling off the rescue for some nefarious reason. The two stories are incompatible, doesn't mean both are false.
Well, there is no good reason for calling off the rescue, if they believed the story they tried to sell about the video and it being a "protest'. That pretty much brings us back to a nefarious lie.
Then we have the problem of the Ambassador requesting more security and being denied, especially with 9/11 coming up, of course to beef up security might be admitting there was still terrorism afoot, so risking the Embassy in the face of warnings seems nefarious to me.
Of course one might look at the fact that they had been provided a laser designator, with no intention of having assets to back up that capability, as being nefarious.
Now there does exist the possibility that it was all sheer incompetence .
"An overrun embassy, compound is bad for your campaign no matter who does it. Even a failed rescue attempt leaves valiant heroes behind to rally behind and plays better than not bothering to try. And a successful rescue is a great campaign booster. There is no political upside to stopping the attempt."
Allow me to point out that having an Embassy overrun is not good but, then again a failed rescue attempt did not save Carter. Dead "valiant heroes" didn't get him reelected.
The fact that everything coming from the WH has been in error or a flat out lie, and still nobody is being held responsible for the stand down.
Now all of that may not spell "nefarious" to you, but it doesn't spell "Good and on the Up-and-Up" to me.
Your article is misleading and it further illustrates the OP of this thread. People have a cartoonish understanding of our military's capabilities.
The guys at the compound had this on their weapon:
that does not and will not designate jack _____.
FYI a laser designator that can guide in bombs or missles looks something like this:
Don't forget for one second that there is misinformation coming from both sides of the isle on this issue
Our gear is top-notch.
And yet peaceful Muslim protesters are invulnerable to them.
What a curious thing.
Yah, and look who it's coming from
I'm not following your line of reasoning, protest or terrorists, I'm not sure what difference that makes in deciding whether to call off the rescue, whether they believed it or not, which one it was?
This is where we ought to be looking, the preparations were inadequate. I think you're reaching on the "admitting terrorism is still afoot", nobody to my knowlege has declared the war on terrorism was over when Bin Laden got the first few of his promised 72 raisins in the noggin courtesy of Seal Team 6.
Incompetence covers a multitude of scenarios... Leaving embassies purposely inadequately protected in the run up to an election in an attempt to pretend terrorism doesn't exist? That doesn't really make any sense, nobody knows how much security is in place, they can beef it up to actually prevent or prevail in attacks, nobody would know, and the outcome would be a courtyard of dead terrorists instead of ambassadors. That would help if embassy security were really all about electoral politics.
Carter did squat for 400 some odd days prior to that, that failed attempt was the icing on the cake, the coup de grace to his incompetence, and failing so spectacularly without even any contact with the enemy really put a bow on it. There would likely be a wholly different perception to a failed attempt in this case. Assuming the rescue effort didn't self destruct in a similar manner. Those are really apples and oranges.
Nefarious is a conclusion jumped to at this point. It doesn't sound good to me either, but early reports on a situation like that are always wrong. People have a lot of guesswork, and calling the early reports lies are pretty thin.
Do we even know who called the stand down yet? I haven't seen that info out there yet? How far up the chain was that decision made? What assets were they going to send, and how were they equipped when they were told to stand down, and how far away were they?
These are pertinent questions that need to be looked at to evaluate the decision. Gates doesn't seem to think its necessarily an outlandish decision from his attitude.
Curious indeed . . . . . . .
Gates is a professional bureaucrat and currently this Administration is in power. He even admitted he got his facts from the Administration-fed newspaper, so is that what he based his conclusion on like he said?
Again, the main lesson of this entire incident, to those who will go in harm's way.
Make sure you know the person sending you in will actually try to get you out, if things go south, as opposed to saying, "Getting you out just seems like it would be a lot of trouble or impossible, and we think working on our political explanation of what happened would just be a better use of our time and efforts."
I'm glad a lot of people here, were never on my surveillance/rescue team when I worked undercover. "Oh, no! Series 1811 is getting the **** kicked out of him in there. It seems so hopeless, I don't think we should even try to get him out. He would understand. Let's go back to the office and start figuring how to make sure we don't get blamed for this one."
Prior vetting of people you will have to depend on later, is essential. Otherwise you get this, and Benghazi.
Something else that doesn't get much consideration in light of the loss of the four men in Bengahzi is that there was around 35 personnel there.
Obama didn't just leave four Americans to die.
He left 35 Americans to die.
Thankfully the three of the four who perished were able to put up enough resistance to dissuade the terrorists from accomplishing their aim.