RC Groups

RC Groups
    Life, The Universe, and Politics
        Discussion Libya security "inappropriately low"...US Security Officer

#1 Tim Jonas Oct 10, 2012 07:14 AM

Libya security "inappropriately low"...US Security Officer
 
It really is an outrage

#2 Dusty1000 Oct 10, 2012 07:37 AM

Quote:

Between February and June, a series of attacks took place, beginning with the desecration of 200 British and Commonwealth World War II-era graves in the city. They escalated to bomb attacks against the United Nations head of mission in April, the International Committee of the Red Cross office in May and the U.S. consulate in June.

Later that month, a rocket hit an armored jeep in a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the British ambassador to Libya, and injured two of his bodyguards. While the British and the Red Cross subsequently left the city, the U.S. stayed on.

Even after those attacks, the U.S. consulate remained less fortified than the abandoned British facility. While the U.S. building had barbed wire at the front, parts of its side and rear walls were unprotected.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...pin-blame.html
History shows us that when a country is attacked, whether in Europe, the middle east or Africa, an overwhelming military presence is required in order to protect the top officials of the invading countries. If we are going to attack and invade countries, overthrowing their leaders; leaving top officials there without such military presence, can only serve to endanger their lives.

Dusty

#3 Tim Jonas Oct 10, 2012 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dusty1000 (Post 22961451)
History shows us that when a country is attacked, whether in Europe, the middle east or Africa, an overwhelming military presence is required in order to protect the top officials of the invading countries. If we are going to attack and invade countries, overthrowing their leaders; leaving top officials there without such military presence, can only serve to endanger their lives.

Dusty

No question, and that isn't the point of the post.

The Executive Branch and the State Department have collectively urinated on our shoes and told us that it is raining outside.

#4 Dusty1000 Oct 10, 2012 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Jonas (Post 22961470)
No question, and that isn't the point of the post.

The Executive Branch and the State Department have collectively urinated on our shoes and told us that it is raining outside.

At least President Obama hasn't told you ''they hate us for our freedoms,'' or that ''there is a strong desire for US 'leadership' in the middle east.''

That's not to excuse what he did or didn't do, just to put things into perspective. ;)

Dusty

#5 Tim Jonas Oct 10, 2012 08:06 AM

Nope, but he stood up in front of the UN and mentioned that video as part of the reason the violence in Libya happened, and that is now being denied. His leadership responsibilities in Libya are confined to that embassy, and it is now becoming clear that he abrogated those responsibilities.

#6 Gooroo Oct 10, 2012 08:06 AM

I'm not sure how what Barrack Hussein did in Libya differs from what Bush did in Iraq.

There was no ground force invasion (that we know of) and both were there to "free people from tyranny".

Many will say that Bush did it for the oil but Obama did, too. Oil for France, that is, the country who gets an overwhelming majority of their oil from Libya.

#7 Dusty1000 Oct 10, 2012 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Jonas (Post 22961631)
Nope,...

Yes, it does put things into perspective. Not many politicians are honest, Ron Paul being a notable exception.

Dusty

#8 ENGINETORQUE Oct 10, 2012 08:30 AM

There's a lot of 'hexperts' out here telling us what they'd have done differently!

I think (call it a hunch) that if the envoy really had felt threatened (as in unreasonably so...) he'd have been long out of there!

#9 DenverJayhawk Oct 10, 2012 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gooroo (Post 22961633)
I'm not sure how what Barrack Hussein did in Libya differs from what Bush did in Iraq.

There was no ground force invasion (that we know of) and both were there to "free people from tyranny".

Many will say that Bush did it for the oil but Obama did, too. Oil for France, that is, the country who gets an overwhelming majority of their oil from Libya.

If you really think W's fabricating a story of WMDs to convince the US Public that an All Out War in the air, land, and sea against Iraq was necessary in the pursuit of terroism is the same what Obama's Libya, you're in need of some serious history lessons.

PS....check back in after we've lost 4488 troops in Libya.

http://antiwar.com/casualties/
Casualties in Iraq

The Human Cost of Occupation

American Military Casualties in Iraq

Since war began (3/19/03): 4488
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 4347
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3627
Since Obama Inauguration (1/20/09): 257
Since Operation New Dawn: 68

#10 Tim Jonas Oct 10, 2012 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENGINETORQUE (Post 22961797)
There's a lot of 'hexperts' out here telling us what they'd have done differently!

I think (call it a hunch) that if the envoy really had felt threatened (as in unreasonably so...) he'd have been long out of there!

Did you read the article? Have you been watching or reading the news?

It's been since 1979 since an US Ambassador has been killed. This is a very big deal.

Your hunches don't mean squat. And they differ completely with what is now understood to be factually what happened.

Be dismissive...it's what you do. Unless it does not suit you.

#11 ENGINETORQUE Oct 10, 2012 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Jonas (Post 22961887)
Did you read the article? Have you been watching or reading the news?

It's been since 1979 since an US Ambassador has been killed. This is a very big deal.

Your hunches don't mean squat. And they differ completely with what is now understood to be factually what happened.

Be dismissive...it's what you do. Unless it does not suit you.

You really seem not to have a clue about this!

It makes not one jot of difference when the last US Ambassador picked his nose - went golfing or got killed - what's your point - that Libya was 'a safe place' :confused:

My hunches don't mean squat - correct - neither do your claims of 'factually what happened' because none of us know that yet, so stop projecting - it's pointless nonsense!

Dismissive to B/S - well of course - why wouldn't I be dismissive to something I take issue with :confused:

Your posts continue to puzzle, but I enjoy em so keep trying :popcorn:

#12 RumRunner_1492 Oct 10, 2012 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Jonas (Post 22961887)
Did you read the article? Have you been watching or reading the news?

It's been since 1979 since an US Ambassador has been killed. This is a very big deal.

Your hunches don't mean squat. And they differ completely with what is now understood to be factually what happened.

Be dismissive...it's what you do. Unless it does not suit you.

Facts just bounce off of ET. :p

#13 ENGINETORQUE Oct 10, 2012 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492 (Post 22961964)
Facts just bounce off of ET. :p

B/S just sticks to some of us down here ;)

#14 RumRunner_1492 Oct 10, 2012 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENGINETORQUE (Post 22961942)
You really seem not to have a clue about this!

It makes not one jot of difference when the last US Ambassador picked his nose - went golfing or got killed - what's your point - that Libya was 'a safe place' :confused:

My hunches don't mean squat - correct - neither do your claims of 'factually what happened' because none of us know that yet, so stop projecting - it's pointless nonsense!

Dismissive to B/S - well of course - why wouldn't I be dismissive to something I take issue with :confused:

Your posts continue to puzzle, but I enjoy em so keep trying :popcorn:

There have been clear accounts released by the state department aout what happened and when. They also said they disagree with the admoinistration on their story and never supported that version since no evidence supported it. There are also released information showing claims for increased security that were denied and infact the month before the attack security was reduced. It is also a fact that that Obama, Clinton and the UN secretary knowingly lied to the american people about this story.

Those are all known and published facts. You deciding to ignore them or not read them does not mean they don't exist.

#15 RumRunner_1492 Oct 10, 2012 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENGINETORQUE (Post 22961975)
B/S just sticks to some of us down here ;)

I wasn't going to accuse you of that. I tried to be nicer than to call out the obvious. If you want to claim it though who am I to stop you from describing yourself? :D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:22 PM.