US ambassador 'killed in Libya'. US consulate Benghazi stormed. 4 US officials "dead"

Gipper, Texas and Cruela. I have been to South Korea and while there is much material prosperity there are still problems. Koreans do not want to be an American pupett or a Chinese or Russian pupett. The Americans are not popular in South Korea anymore than any other foreign army. Even to suggest USA saved Australia is factually incorrect. By the time the American arrived the Japanese had decided not to invade Australia. We are grateful for American help but do not want American bases here. Most countries want to be independent of foreign armies.

First, SK WANTS American soldiers on their soil because they fear commie invasion, if we leave. SK is not nor was it ever, a puppet state of the US, but NK is and has been a puppet state of China and USSR...you got that ONE thing right.

Secondly, it is very likely you would be speaking Japanese or never been born because your ancestors were killed by Japanese, if not for the sacrifices of American boys. Had we not entered the war when we did, had FDR not pushed the Japanese into an intolerable situation leading to Pearl Harbor, or had we not pursued the Pacific war as aggressively and effectively as we did, Imperial Japan very likely overruns Aussieland just as they did all of SE Asia.

Many Americans want ALL our troops to come home. I am among them. I think America should end this constant interventionist policy we have been following for decades. So, should the Chinese come knocking down your door and I am in charge, don't expect American help.
 
Werbung:
First, SK WANTS American soldiers on their soil because they fear commie invasion, if we leave. SK is not nor was it ever, a puppet state of the US, but NK is and has been a puppet state of China and USSR...you got that ONE thing right.

Secondly, it is very likely you would be speaking Japanese or never been born because your ancestors were killed by Japanese, if not for the sacrifices of American boys. Had we not entered the war when we did, had FDR not pushed the Japanese into an intolerable situation leading to Pearl Harbor, or had we not pursued the Pacific war as aggressively and effectively as we did, Imperial Japan very likely overruns Aussieland just as they did all of SE Asia.

Many Americans want ALL our troops to come home. I am among them. I think America should end this constant interventionist policy we have been following for decades. So, should the Chinese come knocking down your door and I am in charge, don't expect American help.



Agreed--100%.
Fortress America--with an astounding and massive offensive capability to deter even a smart-aleck remark from enemies. Like we did after WW2 and it worked out well.

Weakness invites and virtually guarantees attack.
Forbid it--Almighty God.

The greatest enemy today is the democrat/socialist/communist/gay-only party.
Either they--or the Nation--will be destroyed very soon.
 
Gipper, Texas and Cruela. I have been to South Korea and while there is much material prosperity there are still problems. Koreans do not want to be an American pupett or a Chinese or Russian pupett. The Americans are not popular in South Korea anymore than any other foreign army. Even to suggest Australia saved Australia is factually incorrect. By the time the American arrived the Japanese had decided not to invade Australia. We are grateful for American help but do not want American bases here. Most countries want to be independent of foreign armies.

It is not that you guys are really against having a US presence in Australia, you give the US good access to your bases -- but your government has to hedge between support of the US and its relationship with China (who is Australia's largest trading partner I believe).
 
Many Americans want ALL our troops to come home. I am among them. I think America should end this constant interventionist policy we have been following for decades. So, should the Chinese come knocking down your door and I am in charge, don't expect American help.

I think bringing all our troops home would the single biggest mistake we could ever make -- and would end American hegemony in very short order.
 
I think bringing all our troops home would the single biggest mistake we could ever make -- and would end American hegemony in very short order.

My first reaction is to bring them all home, but if we leave you know the Chinese and Russia will move in and take over. They already are there and they are just as much a threat to us as the middle east. It's a tough call.
I do think that Israel must start making some contingency plans for vacating their people. That situation isn't going to turn out well.
 
I think bringing all our troops home would the single biggest mistake we could ever make -- and would end American hegemony in very short order.

I do not want American hegemony. It creates unforeseen consequences and leads to interventions we have no business being involved in. It benefits the multinational corporations and the banking cabal at the cost of American lives. I do not want Americans dying in god awful places all over the world. If we mind our own business and return to the policy outlined by our Founders, we will be much better off.

However, we do aggressively pursue world peace in all our dealings and refrain from meddling in other nation's affairs as Wilson, FDR, and LBJ did resulting in thousands of American dead and wounded only to benefit the military-industrial-big government complex.
 
South Korea did a better job than North Korea in adopting Western technologies as Samsung has become one of the largest cell phone manufacturers in the world since it copied Apple's iPhone through reverse engineering and North Korea should follow China's lead to become a benign Communist state and catch up with South Korea. But as long as economic sanctions are in place, North Korea is barred from importing certain sensitive technologies, which is the key obstacle to North Korea's future.

I think ANYTHING manufactured in China--as ALL, every single diode--of Apple Products are--is subject to be sold to the highest bidder by Chinese opportunists. If you make ANYTHING in China--the entire thing will be sold to anyone who wants it.
China's morality on copyrights and patents is NON-EXISTENT.
 
I do not want American hegemony. It creates unforeseen consequences and leads to interventions we have no business being involved in. It benefits the multinational corporations and the banking cabal at the cost of American lives.

Being a superpower benefits all of us. We derive far more benefit by being a superpower than not.

I do not want Americans dying in god awful places all over the world.

No one wants to send Americans to needlessly die in god awful places around the world -- but there are times when American interests are more important than a some American lives.

If we mind our own business and return to the policy outlined by our Founders, we will be much better off.

The Founders certainly did not have the idea that we would simply sit in our bubble and never engage with the world. History clearly bears this out.

However, we do aggressively pursue world peace in all our dealings and refrain from meddling in other nation's affairs as Wilson, FDR, and LBJ did resulting in thousands of American dead and wounded only to benefit the military-industrial-big government complex.

You seem to be implying that we should have stayed out of World War II. That seems like quite an argument considering we were attacked.
 
WWII is the last time the USA was attacked by a nation that had declared war on us, and the last time we declared war on another nation. Subsequent "wars" have not really been wars at all, but have cost the lives of many brave soldiers without yielding a scintilla more liberty than we would have had without those wars.
 
WWII is the last time the USA was attacked by a nation that had declared war on us, and the last time we declared war on another nation.
Nice liberal PC play on words there PCL1.

In February of 1998 Usama Bin Laden arranged for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish an article claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the "individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." Not exactly a "nation" declaring war but clearly a declaration of war.

So, technically, since there is not officially one nation declaring war on another, according to American law, Al Qaeda hasn't declared war on the US even though any normal thinking American knows otherwise.

And, by this same definition, the 9/11 attacks were not an act of war by a nation who had declared war on the US. Even, though 2998 people were killed on 9/11 and 2402 were killed at Pearl Harbor. All normal thinking Americans know Al Qaeda declared war on the US, both at home and abroad and made good on that declaration with the attacks of the USS Cole, the bombing of the US Embassy in Tanzania and the attack of the Twin Towers.

Subsequent "wars" have not really been wars at all, but have cost the lives of many brave soldiers without yielding a scintilla more liberty than we would have had without those wars.

Again, more kool-aid laced *********. You don't know what the results of the events would have been had Bush not entered Iraq and Afghanistan. One thing is for sure, there were 8 years of zero successful terror attacks on this Country and on our interest abroad. Today, American flags are burning all over the Middle East along with protest, the burning of our Embassies and the killing of American officials and dragging their bodies through the streets.
 
This is exactly what Obama wants.
The buck stops with the president. It was President Obama's administration's policies and performance that left the US ambassador to Libya vulnerable to the terrorist attacks which killed him. So yes, the president is responsible for that failure of his administration.

One must presume that the president wants his administration's policies and he wants the US officials which serve at his pleasure to remain in office because he assumes they were and are performing their duties and implementing his policies well enough not to be dismissed for failures or incompetence.

I prefer to assume that no US president wants a US ambassador dead. I prefer to think President Obama wanted Ambassador Stevens secure, alive and well but his administration's policies and officials that he wanted failed to provide for the security of the US ambassador that he wanted.

It will continue to go on
Well let's take a look at what was going on and then consider what alternative policies could go on instead.

First a couple of links to explain the nature of the terrorist attack that Ambassador Stevens faced.

CBS News video: WH declares consulate assault "a terrorist attack"

CBS News webpage: Military-style tactics seen in US Consulate siege

So with those well-armed terrorist groups in Libya and the threat that they posed, what exactly was going on to secure US diplomats?

According to this report -

Arutz Sheva, IsraelNationalNews.com 9/16/2012,

Col. Hunt: Libya Embassy Guards had No Bullets
"The State Department just allowed our guys to get killed," says Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt.

Colonel Hunt said Thursday that the American mission at Benghazi "was like a cardboard building, there wasn't even bullet proof glass." In addition, Hunt said the security guards inside the mission were private security guards who were not allowed to have bullets n their guns.

"What’s happened in Libya is the final straw of political correctness," he told Breitbart. "We allowed a contractor to hire local nationals as security guards, but said they can't have bullets. This was all part of the point of not having a high profile in Libya."

"The policy of the Obama administration led to this," he said. "It was the policy of the Obama administration to have a low profile in Libya. That's why the rules of engagement were approved by the Secretary of State to have no Marines at Benghazi, and to have an American contractor hire Libyan nationals to provide security there. The rules were they couldn't have ammunition."

"Obama may not have known the details of the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, but his Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor would have. The Secretary of State absolutely would have."

"The Department of State Security are the people in charge of diplomatic security. They enforce the rules of engagement, which are set at Clinton’s level at State. The Department of Defense was told we’re not going to have Marines at Benghazi. Whether it goes higher than the Secretary of State to the President, I don't know."

- shockingly, the Benghazi consulate on the night of the attack had -

  • No Marine Security Guards.
  • No bullets for the guns carried by the hired Libyan "security"
  • No fortifications.

50 Marine Security Guards would have helped had they been there on the night of the attack to defend Ambassador Stevens but from Colonel Hunt's description of the American consulate building at Benghazi - "was like a cardboard building, there wasn't even bullet proof glass" - it was not an appropriate strong building to choose to stand and fight against a terrorist attack with enemies using infantry weapons such as assault rifles, rocket propelled grenades and mortars.

Had Ambassador Chris Steven's possible Marine Security Guard detail been blessed with leadership from a good military officer of the quality of Colonel Hunt they ought to have been able to assess that Benghazi building as unsuitable for use as a fort against attackers and would have recommended moving to somewhere more secure.

At least with real marines with real bullets in their guns they could have provided a strong armed escort for the diplomatic team on the move.

However, we need to be honest with ourselves folks and admit that really good military officers are a rare breed these days. Just sending in the soldiers to defend against an enemy does no good if the soldiers you send are not well led, properly deployed, able to do the job.

In the worst cases of military incompetence, more soldiers, even more brave US Marines, setting up in a poorly defended building can just mean more targets for the enemy to attack and to kill.

We need to remember the very painful lesson of -

Wikipedia: 1983 Beirut barracks bombing

The Beirut Barracks Bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War, when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. The organization Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing.

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the American Marines barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.

So I think we ought to be more demanding than just welcoming any US president sending in some marines. We ought to demand a plan that will deploy the marines well so that they can defend themselves and the embassy or consulate and the ambassador very well indeed.

The US and allied western countries ought to

  • Close all vulnerable diplomatic embassies and consulates in host countries with a war-on-terror connection, with an armed jihadi terrorist groups threat. So that would be not only Libya, but it could be a list of 10 or more dangerous countries, such as Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen - anywhere US embassies have come under fire from jihadi terrorists before.
  • Establish new secure embassies and consulates within new or existing military bases where the dangerous host country agrees. If the host country does not agree then withdraw our ambassadors from the country altogether.
 
My plan for a secure diplomatic military base for Libya

In my following diagram, the US and allied embassies would be situated in the central base, the green zone.

The features of the diagram are similar for any kind of military base whatever you are defending inside.


Click for LARGER image

This diagram shows my suggested layout for the perimeter defences for a military base.

Explanation of the diagram features.

Base - the green area in the diagram represents the central well-defended area of the military base, where various buildings, vehicles and personnel of the base are normally situated.

Machine-gun emplacements - the red and pink dots which encircle the base at a distance of about 6 miles or 10 kilometres from the edge of the central Base, represent static, armoured fortifications or "pillboxes" for one machine gun and its 3-man team of gunners. The spacing between adjacent pillboxes is about 333 metres or 333 yards.

The plan calls for one team of gunners per pillbox serving on base. The gunners are organised into 3 duty shifts of at least 8 hours and so normally only 1 in 3 of the pillboxes will be manned at any one time. The gunners spend their off-duty time in the central Base where their quarters are situated.

If, when and where the perimeter defences are attacked by the enemy, the off-duty gunners can be called back on emergency duty as required by their officers.

Infantry barriers - barbed wire and anti-personnel mines to stop enemy infantry from advancing into the centre of the base.

Vehicle barriers - obstacles and anti-tank mines which prevent enemy vehicles from advancing into the centre of the base.

Reaction Force Zone - Quick reaction forces deploy in armoured vehicles from the central base into the Reaction Force Zone to fire at enemy attacking forces.

Threat Zone - A circumferential military zone around the perimeter defences where the base defenders may assume a hostile intent on the part of uninvited intruders into the Threat Zone and from where locals are forbidden and variously warned off from intruding upon. This land is occupied or leased to the military base and is closely watched using surveillance technology. Warning shots or sub-lethal rounds may be fired upon suspected innocent intruders and identified enemy forces can be fired upon to kill without warning.

The diagram represents a Threat Zone which extends to 10 miles / 16 kilometres from the edge of the central Base. The plan therefore recommends that it is inappropriate to site a well-defended base within 10 miles of an urban area or a public highway which would cause local people and local traffic to enter into the defined Threat Zone routinely making the early detection of real threats difficult to distinguish.

A large Threat Zone is desirable for security purposes because it makes for a safer perimeter defence but does add significantly to the land requirements of the base therefore the availability of a wide area of undeveloped land is ideal when choosing a location for the construction of a new military base.

Some existing military bases are located close to urban areas where a large Threat Zone cannot be defined and this is likely to make such bases much less secure.

Access road Road to access the base from the surrounding road network.

STOP police control barrier Military police stop traffic wishing to enter the base and perform final checks that visitors and loads are authorised to proceed. The control barriers prevent terrorists driving off the road and prevent vehicles proceeding without permission.

The control barrier fortifications need to be very robust so as to survive an enemy truck bomb.

Trust Zone People, vehicles or buildings in the Trust Zone which is everywhere outside of the Threat Zone are assumed to be trustworthy and non-threatening in so far as the base defenders are concerned.

People in the Trust Zone are assumed to be respecting the base's security and the base defenders treat people in the Trust Zone with the same mutual respect for their own security.

Protestors
Protestors who wish to demonstrate for whatever reason their political viewpoints are allowed to approach the base as far as the Warning Line which surrounds the Threat Zone but it is the responsibility of the local authorities to ensure that protestors do not intrude into the Threat Zone without invitation otherwise a hostile intent may be assumed and defensive actions taken.

Defence force For the smallest bases, this plan calls for a defence force of three serving companies of gunners - one company for each of the 3 shifts.

One company needs at least 200 gunners and their officers so 3 companies total at least 600 gunners and their officers. In addition, military and support personnel are needed for other duties such as policing visitors, cooking, vehicle and plant maintenance engineers, medical, supplies storage & management, camp tidying up, latrine digging, reserves etc.

The defence force required would be of an infantry battalion size of perhaps of about 800 soldiers / marines and support personnel in total and so the base defence force commander would likely be ranked at Lieutenant Colonel or higher.

For larger bases with central Base areas that could be miles wide, such as military air bases that require aircraft runways, the lines of perimeter defences would need to be longer and so more gunners etc would be required.

Low profile

A military base like the one I describe can still be reasonably low profile if it is situated somewhere out of sight and out of mind, such as in the Libyan desert somewhere south of the coastal road between Tripoli and Benghazi.



as long as this anti-American tyrant is in office!
Well one can be anti-Tea Party without being anti-American. Congress doesn't think President Obama is a tyrant otherwise they'd impeach and remove his ass. :LOL:
 
See what happens when you help liberate a county?
My grandfather used to say that "fools and bairns (children) should not see things half done".

The liberation of Libya is only half done. It's a country in flux in a region in flux.

Wiser would be to suspend final judgement on the Libyan revolution to remove Gaddafi and suspend final judgement on the Arab Spring and the West's part in helping it along.

If you want to draw general lessons on liberating countries then take a more historical perspective.

  • See what happened to the USA when the American colonies were liberated from the Kingdom of Great Britain?
  • See what happened to Germany and Japan when they were liberated after World War 2?

The truth about liberating countries is marching on and thanks are due to our American friends and the leadership of their presidents.


I hope the voters will reconize just what kind of president Barrack Obama is. I want Mitt Romney add this part of negitive advertising. Obama doesnt know how to communicate with the world. All he does is apologize to the world and liberate it.
When you liberate the world, no apology is necessary! :LOL:
 
My plan for a secure diplomatic military base for Libya

In my following diagram, the US and allied embassies would be situated in the central base, the green zone.

You are missing the point of an embassy with your argument here. The embassy in Libya is already well secured -- it is the consulate that was not. The idea that we are going to build a military base (complete with airfields) and call it an "embassy" is not going to fly almost anywhere in the world.
 
Werbung:
Well one can be anti-Tea Party without being anti-American.

Peter, the TEA Party supports returning this Country back to smaller Constitutional government. The Constitution is the heart of America, it is America and if you support any other agenda, which I understand the Constitution gives you the right to do, then I in my humble opinion, say you are anti-American, as in what America originally stood for.

Any thing else is an agenda to fundamentally change the original fabric of this Country.

TEA Party 15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.

2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.

3. A strong military is essential.

4. Special interests must be eliminated.

5. Gun ownership is sacred.

6. Government must be downsized.

7. The national budget must be balanced.

8. Deficit spending must end.

9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.

10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.

11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.

12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.

13. Intrusive government must be stopped.

14. English as our core language is required.

15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

Congress doesn't think President Obama is a tyrant otherwise they'd impeach and remove his ass. :LOL:

How can you even believe that. Congress is for the most part corrupt. The federal government is the problem in this Country. Our checks and balances have failed because of this corruption.

I think, regardless of what Congress or the White House does, Bill Clinton will be the last president to ever be impeached in this Country. The tyrant B. Hussein Obama has a free pass to do whatever the hell he wants and you can bet that is not to better America, "the Great Oppressor".

You watch and see, when Obama steals the election once again this year, his true agenda will be revealed and it will be far from Constitutional!
 
Back
Top