Benghazi

[MAGGIO]

USS COLE - a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, creating a 40-by-40-foot gash in the ship's port side

1st WTC attack - The World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York, NY. The 1,336 lb (606 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people

OK HERE IS MY POINT

1. When they say they don't have enough intel to send in more troops (put more people in harms way) (while the attacks are occurring) then I am in 100% agreeance. There could have been a van or small vehichle waiting to level 3 city blocks killing hundreds of american reinforcements. PERIOD

2. I know those two guys were heroic, but when you are told to STAND DOWN, there is a reason.

3. Not one person on fox news will ever say that Obama acted correctly with Sandy even though he did everything RIGHT to prevent another Katrina. They just want to keep hammering on the Benghazi issue.

[Dogma]

What is wrong with sending in the AC130 that can blow the pimple off a gnats *** as 2 miles? OR sending in ARMED drone. They had the intel, they had the requests for help. So you are ok with sacrificing the lives of the ambassador and his entourage for their incompetence in Foreign affairs without even trying to help them?

[Will]

What is wrong with sending in the AC130 that can blow the pimple off a gnats *** as 2 miles? OR sending in ARMED drone. They had the intel, they had the requests for help. So you are ok with sacrificing the lives of the ambassador and his entourage for their incompetence in Foreign affairs without even trying to help them?

And you'd consider it ok to level a city in response? That is what an AC130 would do. It's a flying artillery platform, not a precsion weapon. An Apache might have been ok.

Also, this wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi.

[Dogma]

And you'd consider it ok to level a city in response? That is what an AC130 would do. It's a flying artillery platform, not a precsion weapon. An Apache might have been ok.

Also, this wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi.

Your ignorance in our military capabilities certainly shows on this one, Will. The AC130 Spectre (Spooky) can level a city, but it can also do a surgical strike and take a freckle off your face and leave your nose intact.

[Will]

Your ignorance in our military capabilities certainly shows on this one, Will. The AC130 Spectre (Spooky) can level a city, but it can also do a surgical strike and take a freckle off your face and leave your nose intact.

Well, my knowledge of it comes from a level in COD. While I suppose it could take out individual people, I doubt it's quite as precise as you claim.

[BladeEWG]

WILL! you always manage to crack me up.
This one got me
"Also, this wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi. "

[Scav]

"3. Not one person on fox news will ever say that Obama acted correctly with Sandy even though he did everything RIGHT to prevent another Katrina. They just want to keep hammering on the Benghazi issue."

the US government needs to rethink it's entire natural defence strategy. The current default natural disaster approach is just plain wrong (Wait for a disaster to happen, then send in the troops and $ to help the people and rebuild.).

Katrina and Sandy floodings were not neccessary, if folks had thought things through and made proper preparations. Yes good levy's like we have build in the netherlands cost a lot of money to build and maintain, but compared to the cost of repairing and rebuilding, not to mention the lives lost it is cheap as can be.

Next month i believe a report will be published by a few dutch university's on how to secure New York from flooding with dutch style levy's. Will be interesting to see how New York moves on in the future

[MellonColly]

good point scav. We are very reactive here in the US. Need to look ahead a bit

[L P]

As someone with 19 years of Military Service in two branches and a few hours logged with COD I would like to say that the entire issue was indeed FUBAR. I'm not going to analyse every detail from start to finish but there was horrible mistakes made before, during and after. It's a common mistake, the men in the field have a better perspective than the higher paid people not in theater. The facts point to this.

It's also a common reason for experienced enlisted troops hating officers and bureaucrats. The officer MIGHT have the big pitcher but rarely understands the task at hand. An example of this was depicted in Heartbreak Ridge (1986) when a Supply Officer tell a Veteran Sargent to stand down to which he disobeys the orders and winds up having a successful mission.

For the record, two Ex-Navy SEALS with prompt go orders and proper support really could have wiped out every attacker in the place. SEALs improvise very well, it's what they are trained for. The support they needed was indeed available and would have been there in time had it been dispatched. (Example: The C-130 or other asset could have taken out the mortar team that was targeted by embassy security.)

Honestly, even if there is a small chance of success in combat you have to make the hard choice to go in. In this case the Ambassador was simply left to die. It was 100% preventable and is obvious incompetence.

I think everyone is just mad because they are having an extremely hard time finding a way to blame George W. Bush for this.

[Will]

As someone with 19 years of Military Service in two branches and a few hours logged with COD I would like to say that the entire issue was indeed FUBAR. I'm not going to analyse every detail from start to finish but there was horrible mistakes made before, during and after. It's a common mistake, the men in the field have a better perspective than the higher paid people not in theater. The facts point to this.

It's also a common reason for experienced enlisted troops hating officers and bureaucrats. The officer MIGHT have the big pitcher but rarely understands the task at hand. An example of this was depicted in Heartbreak Ridge (1986) when a Supply Officer tell a Veteran Sargent to stand down to which he disobeys the orders and winds up having a successful mission.

For the record, two Ex-Navy SEALS with prompt go orders and proper support really could have wiped out every attacker in the place. SEALs improvise very well, it's what they are trained for. The support they needed was indeed available and would have been there in time had it been dispatched. (Example: The C-130 or other asset could have taken out the mortar team that was targeted by embassy security.)

Honestly, even if there is a small chance of success in combat you have to make the hard choice to go in. In this case the Ambassador was simply left to die. It was 100% preventable and is obvious incompetence.

I think everyone is just mad because they are having an extremely hard time finding a way to blame George W. Bush for this.

While the two SEALS may have been able to kill all of the attackers at the time, once word got out of a "massacre of libyan civilans" by US troops, all hell would break loose across not just libya but the whole middle east. It would be open season on every westerner in general and americans in particular. I seriously doubt that they could have got him out of the country alive in those circumstances.