(10-25-2012 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I just told you my cousin was in Iraq embassies during the Iraq War surrounded by protests and often with less security than Benghazi, under Bush. If he died would you have called him derelict and impeachable? Somehow I doubt it.

Less security in Iraq than Benghazi during the war? If you knew how Gdamn stupid you sound right here, you probably wouldn't have made that comment.

(10-25-2012 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  while I suppose you could send Marines in every time there's a terrorist attack in cities with an embassy, 1. they're not trained to guard embassies and their presence runs counter to the purpose of an embassy and 2. there was no specific credible threat to address at the time to justify reassigning them. You had remote attacks in the city and a pro-Gaddhafi Facebook page, from what I gather. That doesn't sound like enough of an alarm to go outside the State Dept security budget and send in the Marines, as much fun as it is for you to play Monday morning quarterback and score cheap political points over a national tragedy.

And then I read this. Good God, you are completely military-ignorant.

Or maybe it's just stupidity.

(10-25-2012 11:45 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:13 AM)dcCid Wrote:  We are getting out of Afg and Irq. Obama did not put us there to begin with.

Do libertarians believe that if someone attacks us we should buy them a condo in South Beach?

Wow. I give extensive facts from numerous sources utterly dismantling your claims, and that's what you come back with? How pitiful.

Clearly, if we keep killing their families for long enough, they'll surely eventually start liking us.

A couple of the quotes referenced that innocent's also died, the others just that we were there.

That said - what do we do when we find them? Just let them go on? Do not risk collateral damage (I do not like innocents being killed either, but what are the options?

(10-25-2012 12:13 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 09:42 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 09:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Send in the Marines after the four Americans were killed?

No, fool, you send in the Marines BEFORE the damn 4 Americans, on our sovereign territory, are killed. Help was requested numerous times before they were killed, idiot. Obama did not a Gdamn thing about it. We had a carrier group in the Med. Answer the f'n post I made last night. Obama is derelict and how he handled this event is impeachable.

The State Dept gets requests all the time. I just told you my cousin was in Iraq embassies during the Iraq War surrounded by protests and often with less security than Benghazi, under Bush. If he died would you have called him derelict and impeachable? Somehow I doubt it.

You can't take funds earmarked for one thing in the State Dept and spend them on something else (because it's illegal), and while I suppose you could send Marines in every time there's a terrorist attack in cities with an embassy, 1. they're not trained to guard embassies and their presence runs counter to the purpose of an embassy and 2. there was no specific credible threat to address at the time to justify reassigning them. You had remote attacks in the city and a pro-Gaddhafi Facebook page, from what I gather. That doesn't sound like enough of an alarm to go outside the State Dept security budget and send in the Marines, as much fun as it is for you to play Monday morning quarterback and score cheap political points over a national tragedy.

The marines are indeed trained to guard embassies.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/201...bya-102412

"Currently, more than 1,200 Marine security guards are assigned to security detachments in more than 130 countries, Wolf said. Sergeants and below train for seven weeks at Quantico’s Marine Security Guard School, which can accommodate 200 students per class, he said. The schoolhouse is only for those assigned to Marine security guard duty, he added, but the Embassy Security Group provides training to other units and government agencies, including orientation training and emergency escape training for some FBI and State Department personnel."

Those security-assigned Marines are part of the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program whose funding was cut. I figured he meant sidestepping the budget and bringing them in from Germany as SMN suggested. Look I think every embassy should be staffed with security Marines because in these times they're all at risk. Understaffed security has been an ongoing problem for a long time. Hopefully the GOP House will see the wisdom in that going forward.

(10-25-2012 12:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I just told you my cousin was in Iraq embassies during the Iraq War surrounded by protests and often with less security than Benghazi, under Bush. If he died would you have called him derelict and impeachable? Somehow I doubt it.

Less security in Iraq than Benghazi during the war? If you knew how Gdamn stupid you sound right here, you probably wouldn't have made that comment.

This was during Abu Graib, before the large Vatican-sized embassy was opened. Yes, some of our State outposts had no security.

(10-25-2012 02:17 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 12:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I just told you my cousin was in Iraq embassies during the Iraq War surrounded by protests and often with less security than Benghazi, under Bush. If he died would you have called him derelict and impeachable? Somehow I doubt it.

Less security in Iraq than Benghazi during the war? If you knew how Gdamn stupid you sound right here, you probably wouldn't have made that comment.

This was during Abu Graib, before the large Vatican-sized embassy was opened. Yes, some of our State outposts had no security.

Another fuken lie. Any state department officials were behind the protection of the US Military and I don't remember ANY state department officials stationed in any "outpost", as you call it, FOB as we call it.

It's because he's black.

(10-25-2012 02:23 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 02:17 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 12:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I just told you my cousin was in Iraq embassies during the Iraq War surrounded by protests and often with less security than Benghazi, under Bush. If he died would you have called him derelict and impeachable? Somehow I doubt it.

Less security in Iraq than Benghazi during the war? If you knew how Gdamn stupid you sound right here, you probably wouldn't have made that comment.

This was during Abu Graib, before the large Vatican-sized embassy was opened. Yes, some of our State outposts had no security.

Another fuken lie. Any state department officials were behind the protection of the US Military and I don't remember ANY state department officials stationed in any "outpost", as you call it, FOB as we call it.

Not a lie. In the eastern part near where the Euphrates meets the Tigris. They always had protection when traveling, but sometimes they were left behind gates without security.

(10-25-2012 02:15 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 12:13 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 09:42 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 09:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Send in the Marines after the four Americans were killed?

No, fool, you send in the Marines BEFORE the damn 4 Americans, on our sovereign territory, are killed. Help was requested numerous times before they were killed, idiot. Obama did not a Gdamn thing about it. We had a carrier group in the Med. Answer the f'n post I made last night. Obama is derelict and how he handled this event is impeachable.

The State Dept gets requests all the time. I just told you my cousin was in Iraq embassies during the Iraq War surrounded by protests and often with less security than Benghazi, under Bush. If he died would you have called him derelict and impeachable? Somehow I doubt it.

You can't take funds earmarked for one thing in the State Dept and spend them on something else (because it's illegal), and while I suppose you could send Marines in every time there's a terrorist attack in cities with an embassy, 1. they're not trained to guard embassies and their presence runs counter to the purpose of an embassy and 2. there was no specific credible threat to address at the time to justify reassigning them. You had remote attacks in the city and a pro-Gaddhafi Facebook page, from what I gather. That doesn't sound like enough of an alarm to go outside the State Dept security budget and send in the Marines, as much fun as it is for you to play Monday morning quarterback and score cheap political points over a national tragedy.

The marines are indeed trained to guard embassies.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/201...bya-102412

"Currently, more than 1,200 Marine security guards are assigned to security detachments in more than 130 countries, Wolf said. Sergeants and below train for seven weeks at Quantico’s Marine Security Guard School, which can accommodate 200 students per class, he said. The schoolhouse is only for those assigned to Marine security guard duty, he added, but the Embassy Security Group provides training to other units and government agencies, including orientation training and emergency escape training for some FBI and State Department personnel."

Those security-assigned Marines are part of the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program whose funding was cut. I figured he meant sidestepping the budget and bringing them in from Germany as SMN suggested. Look I think every embassy should be staffed with security Marines because in these times they're all at risk. Understaffed security has been an ongoing problem for a long time. Hopefully the GOP House will see the wisdom in that going forward.

You just went from saying that Marines are not trained to guard an embassy and their presence runs counter to the purpose of and embassy to advocating having them in every embassy. You also have went from saying there were no credible threats against the embassy to saying they are all at risk. The budget cut argument you are making rings hollow.

(10-25-2012 02:42 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 02:23 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 02:17 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 12:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I just told you my cousin was in Iraq embassies during the Iraq War surrounded by protests and often with less security than Benghazi, under Bush. If he died would you have called him derelict and impeachable? Somehow I doubt it.

Less security in Iraq than Benghazi during the war? If you knew how Gdamn stupid you sound right here, you probably wouldn't have made that comment.

This was during Abu Graib, before the large Vatican-sized embassy was opened. Yes, some of our State outposts had no security.

Another fuken lie. Any state department officials were behind the protection of the US Military and I don't remember ANY state department officials stationed in any "outpost", as you call it, FOB as we call it.

Not a lie. In the eastern part near where the Euphrates meets the Tigris. They always had protection when traveling, but sometimes they were left behind gates without security.

Security of embassies is usually the responsibility of the host nation.

I do not see foreign marines in my neighborhood, yet there are a few embassies here.

Although we did not have an embassy in Iraq until after we invaded, we then set up a temporary one in one of the palaces.

The temporary US embassy in Iraq was more dangerous, less secure, and Americans did die there.

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. diplomats will begin moving into the mammoth new, heavily fortified embassy in Baghdad next month after long delays in the $736 million project — and not a moment too soon. Increasing rocket attacks on the Green Zone have killed four Americans in recent weeks and have embassy staff wearing body armor and ducking for cover.

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said Friday that construction is complete at the Vatican-sized compound and that although not all buildings have yet been certified for final occupancy, transition to the facility from the less-protected location in a Saddam Hussein-era palace should start at the end of May.

"It's been a difficult few weeks, rockets are bouncing off your buildings, and maintaining focus can be an occasional challenge," Crocker said, referring to the recent spate of insurgent attacks in the Green Zone that have killed at least two U.S. soldiers and two American civilians.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/worl...assy_N.htm

The military ignorance of some amazes me. If you're that ignorant, why even chime in at all?

http://www.mcesg.marines.mil/


Here's a newsflash for you, they're not there just to raise and lower the flag at reveille and retreat.

I was making a distinction between security and non-security troops. Each embassy should have some trained guards, but I don't think we should divert general forces from just anywhere to beef up embassies. Marines who aren't trained as guards are instead trained to kill, and we shouldn't be stationing them at embassies.

I said no specific credible threat. If a specific credible threat arises and you have advanced knowledge, yes you should add more security. From what I've gathered there was no such threat made on the embassy. If I'm wrong I might change my tune.

The budget cut was very real and had practical consequences, as most cuts generally do.

(10-25-2012 04:19 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I was making a distinction between security and non-security troops. Each embassy should have some trained guards, but I don't think we should divert general forces from just anywhere to beef up embassies. Marines who aren't trained as guards are instead trained to kill, and we shouldn't be stationing them at embassies.

I said no specific credible threat. If a specific credible threat arises and you have advanced knowledge, yes you should add more security. From what I've gathered there was no such threat made on the embassy. If I'm wrong I might change my tune.

The budget cut was very real and had practical consequences, as most cuts generally do.

Marines are trained to kill regardless of what additional training they receive later on. That's one of the reasons they are used for embassy duty.

Common sense would dictate any embassy located in the middle east would have a credible security threat especially one located in a country where a civil war just occurred. Common sense seems absent from this administration though.

The budget cuts did not require any reduction in security in Libya. Any budget cuts could have been satisfied with cuts at only low-risk locations. That was the intent--get rid of the overkill at places where we don't need it. And there is no reasonable risk calculus by which Libya was not at or near the top.

But here's how the bureaucratic mind works. They cut my budget. I'm pissed off. I want my budget back. And a major incident would probably get it restored. So instead of focusing the cuts on places that are overstaffed and need cutting, let's just whack everybody and see what happens. And if there is an incident somewhere, then that just proves we need our money back. Yeah, somebody might get killed, and that would be unfortunate. But that's a small price to pay for getting my budget back.

(10-25-2012 04:19 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I was making a distinction between security and non-security troops. Each embassy should have some trained guards, but I don't think we should divert general forces from just anywhere to beef up embassies. Marines who aren't trained as guards are instead trained to kill, and we shouldn't be stationing them at embassies.

I said no specific credible threat. If a specific credible threat arises and you have advanced knowledge, yes you should add more security. From what I've gathered there was no such threat made on the embassy. If I'm wrong I might change my tune.

The budget cut was very real and had practical consequences, as most cuts generally do.

Dafuq? There is no difference between the Marines that do their stint guarding the embassies or the Marines serving in 2nd Division.

(10-25-2012 02:26 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  It's because he's black.

Did you see that Sununu admitted his true feelings to Piers Morgan that it was because of race and that Powell should leave the Republican party?

Of course he later lied and recanted.

What a pathetic coward.

And oh yeah...he is a huge Romney surrogate.

Telling.

I find it very telling that on the same day that Powell endorsed Obama, Romney got endorsed by Glenn Beck.

LOL

(10-26-2012 09:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 02:26 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  It's because he's black.

Did you see that Sununu admitted his true feelings to Piers Morgan that it was because of race and that Powell should leave the Republican party?

Of course he later lied and recanted.

What a pathetic coward.

And oh yeah...he is a huge Romney surrogate.

Telling.

Rush said it 4 years ago.

(10-26-2012 07:26 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 04:19 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I was making a distinction between security and non-security troops. Each embassy should have some trained guards, but I don't think we should divert general forces from just anywhere to beef up embassies. Marines who aren't trained as guards are instead trained to kill, and we shouldn't be stationing them at embassies.

I said no specific credible threat. If a specific credible threat arises and you have advanced knowledge, yes you should add more security. From what I've gathered there was no such threat made on the embassy. If I'm wrong I might change my tune.

The budget cut was very real and had practical consequences, as most cuts generally do.

Marines are trained to kill regardless of what additional training they receive later on. That's one of the reasons they are used for embassy duty.

Common sense would dictate any embassy located in the middle east would have a credible security threat especially one located in a country where a civil war just occurred. Common sense seems absent from this administration though.

Security duty is more like domestic policing than war and often involves confrontation with pissed off locals. It's important situations like that be handled with tact because killing civilians of a host country can cause an international incident.

So now we want beefed up security in every Middle East embassy indefinitely? Well I'm on board, but it's going to cost money. I think we should have more security everywhere. In this day and age a terrorist attack could hit any of our embassies, from Europe to the Middle East to the Pacific Islands.