3 calls for backup at Benghazi denied

[rjmacs]

swampy wrote:
Rjmacs, what leads you to think that we could rely on the Lybian's protection when they had failed to protect the Benghazi facility on two earlier occasions? on one of those occasions the attackers blew a hole in the outer wall big enough to drive a truck through.

So, are you asking why we have diplomatic missions in Libya or Benghazi? Because that's a different question.

You have steadfastly avoided my key point, which is that in ANY sovereign nation the protection of diplomatic missions is the responsibility of the HOST country, not mission staff and security. Period. End. Of. Story.

[hal]

and sending in such a force is an invasion - an act of war

this is something best left to the pros who actually know what they are doing...

[john dough]

I wonder if Swampy is this angry in real life. :mad2: That would suck to be saddled with a time on Earth that bitter.

[Ca Bob]

The United States violated diplomatic protocol and essentially committed an act of war when it sent an armed invasion force into Pakistan to get at Osama Bin Laden. Obviously we are willing to do that when the situation is warranted, is well defined, and when we have a plan that allows us to get our own troops back out. Mounting an armed incursion from a carrier task force is a little more complicated than blowing a bugle and yelling, "Charge."

In brief, will the Swampy persona (I think it is actually an adolescent male, at least in terms of intellectual age, but I'll leave that to the rest of you to speculate) explain exactly how this intervention was supposed to work, what the acceptable casualty figures would be, how much preparation time would be required, would ground troops such as the Marines be involved, how much territory they would have to control and for how long, and how many Libyan dead would be acceptable (bad guys and others). Then we can have a more reasonable discussion.

There's one other point, which the righties won't accept, and probably won't even comprehend, which is that sometimes the long term strategic and geopolitical implications of taking action rule it out, even when those in charge would very much like to ride in to the rescue. The long term implications of an armed American assault on Libyan soil would of course be extremely negative. Up until the moment that the American diplomats were killed, there was no way of knowing that this was anything other than one of the chronic, dreary protests against our existence.

Shorter version: Hindsight is easy. What was the state department doing to protect our diplomats in Malaysia or Georgia at the same exact moment? And how do you know?

In the meanwhile, I think I'm going over to Carrows for a late lunch, which is what I should have said at the beginning.

[Black]

Ca Bob wrote:
The United States violated diplomatic protocol and essentially committed an act of war when it sent an armed invasion force into Pakistan to get at Osama Bin Laden. Obviously we are willing to do that when the situation is warranted, is well defined, and when we have a plan that allows us to get our own troops back out. Mounting an armed incursion from a carrier task force is a little more complicated than blowing a bugle and yelling, "Charge."

In brief, will the Swampy persona (I think it is actually an adolescent male, at least in terms of intellectual age, but I'll leave that to the rest of you to speculate) explain exactly how this intervention was supposed to work, what the acceptable casualty figures would be, how much preparation time would be required, would ground troops such as the Marines be involved, how much territory they would have to control and for how long, and how many Libyan dead would be acceptable (bad guys and others). Then we can have a more reasonable discussion.

There's one other point, which the righties won't accept, and probably won't even comprehend, which is that sometimes the long term strategic and geopolitical implications of taking action rule it out, even when those in charge would very much like to ride in to the rescue. The long term implications of an armed American assault on Libyan soil would of course be extremely negative. Up until the moment that the American diplomats were killed, there was no way of knowing that this was anything other than one of the chronic, dreary protests against our existence.

Shorter version: Hindsight is easy. What was the state department doing to protect our diplomats in Malaysia or Georgia at the same exact moment? And how do you know?

In the meanwhile, I think I'm going over to Carrows for a late lunch, which is what I should have said at the beginning.

*swoon*