You'll still be licking his boots after Al Qeida vaporizes a city here to show him they are a viable concern to be reckoned with. Then the economy will collapse, and he'll suspend the Constitution and rule forever.
And The Benghazi Cover Up Continues !
- Thread starter southwind
- Start date
You'll still be licking his boots after Al Qeida vaporizes a city here to show him they are a viable concern to be reckoned with. Then the economy will collapse, and he'll suspend the Constitution and rule forever.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Question: If we had a foreign policy of non-intervention how many US diplomats and security people would have been in Benghazi?
NONE would be the answer.
NONE would be the answer.
Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Dec 12, 2011
- 1,299
- 421
Perhaps? You're not real sure but perhaps.
Nice try, was a CIA op.......
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Question: If we had a foreign policy of non-intervention how many US diplomats and security people would have been in Benghazi?
NONE would be the answer.
NONE would be the answer.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,809
- 4,343
Non-intervention is not a policy. Isolationism does not work in the real world.
Try this rant(d) on for size Sparrow: LOL
"What’s wrong with that? To start with, EVERYTHING.
While America’s allies should “do more” to provide security, their capabilities are much more limited than America’s. There is a limit to what they can do, and it’s even more acute than the limits of America’s power.
While the European Union has a larger GDP and population than the US, the EU is a flimsy collection of 27 different states without a common leader, military, or foreign policy. Moreover, European countries are in financial straits even more dire than those in which America finds itself. Greece’s and Italy’s debts exceed their GDP’s; France’s debt equals 88% of its GDP; Britain’s, 80% of GDP.
The limitations of allies’ capacity to take up the slack is even more acutely visible in the Pacific Rim.
The biggest threat to that region’s, America’s, and its Pacific allies’ security – China – has a far larger economy, population, territory, industrial base, industrial production capacity, quantity of mineral resources, standing military, and military budget than Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, Australia, and New Zealand COMBINED.
Not to mention the fact that China has at least 1,800, and potentially up to 3,000, nuclear weapons, while none of these countries have a single nuke or ballistic missile and, with the sole exception of Japan, none of them have a missile defense system of any kind.
And the fact that China is now developing two 5th generation stealthy fightertypes, while none of these countries have any, the fact that China has an aircraft carrier (and is building more) while they have none… the list goes on.
Even if all of these nations overcame their mutual animosities and all worked together to defend themselves against China, they would still utterly fail and be easily subjugated by China – which is exactly what China, with its hegemonistic ambitions and its fervently nationalist leaders, soldiers, and citizens aims to do.
Even if all of these nations, currently troubled by China’s aggressive behavior and bellicose rhetoric, joined together to defend each other, they would still be nothing but mere speedbumps for the People’s Liberation Army (the Chinese military).
The only country which can stand up to the Chinese (and Russian) juggernaut and defend these countries – and the world’s sealanes, on which the entire world economy, including that of the US, depends – is the United States.
Furthermore, if the US dumps its allies, many, if not most, of them, will develop their own nuclear arsenals. (66.5% of South Koreans already want Seoul to do so, given the North Korean threat.)
You may ask “but why does that matter? Who cares if China subjugates all of these countries, what Iran and North Korea do, if they acquire nukes? Who cares?”
The answer is: because it will directly impact America’s economy and national security.
North Korea now has two types of ICBMs (Taepodong-2 and KN-08) capable of targeting the US and is able to mate nuclear warheads to them. One nuclear warhead detonated above the US would create an EMP strike crippling the entire US. That is a direct threat to US security.
If North Korea overruns South Korea, that will give Pyongyang a new platform from which to launch aggression against the US and other countries in the Pacific Rim.
If China attacks key American economic partners like Japan, the world’s third largest economy and one of America’s biggest trade partners, that will directly and negatively impact the US economy.
If China gets its hand on the rich oil and gas resources in the South China sea, those resources will be denied to the US and its allies.
If China turns the Western Pacific into its internal lake as it desires to, American merchant ships will not be secure there. That will directly impact the US economy.
If China continues to expand its already-large nuclear, ICBM, and SLBM/SSBN arsenal and build more aircraft carriers and submarines, that will only increase the direct threat that China poses to the US.
If Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large chunk of America’s oil and 30% of the world’s oil goes, this will immediately, directly, and negatively impact America’s economy and national security.
If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, other Persian Gulf states will race to do the same, and we will see a nuclear arms race in the region of the world in which we can least afford it. And a nuclear- and ICBM-armed Iran will pose a direct threat to US national security.
No, the US cannot afford to just withdraw its troops from the world, retrench behind oceans, cut its defense budget and its military, and pretend that the crocodile won’t come to eat it. This would be like an ostrich sticking it’s head in the sand while exposing its butt. And that butt will eventually be kicked."
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/03/non-interventionism-is-isolationism-by-another-name/
They will when they can't pay the bill.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,809
- 4,343
Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZOc0ZZSl3F#storylink=cpy
"Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.
“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.
Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.
“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.
The offers of aid and Stevens’ rejection of them have not been revealed in either the State Department’s Administrative Review Board investigation of the Benghazi events or during any of the congressional hearings and reports that have been issued into what took place there."
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZOc0ZZSl3F#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZOc0ZZSl3F#storylink=cpy
"Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.
“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.
Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.
“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.
The offers of aid and Stevens’ rejection of them have not been revealed in either the State Department’s Administrative Review Board investigation of the Benghazi events or during any of the congressional hearings and reports that have been issued into what took place there."
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZOc0ZZSl3F#storylink=cpy
Anybody happen to tell you we were the last foreign presence in the neighborhood?
Everybody else with half a brain got out because it was too dangerous.
And your article kills the notion those dastardly Republicans blocked money for security enhancements there also.....it was turned down
And he denied needing security as they were relying on the local rebels who were told by the local branch of Al Qeida to hit the bricks right before it hit the fan........
Its documented.
Everybody else with half a brain got out because it was too dangerous.
And your article kills the notion those dastardly Republicans blocked money for security enhancements there also.....it was turned down
And he denied needing security as they were relying on the local rebels who were told by the local branch of Al Qeida to hit the bricks right before it hit the fan........
Its documented.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,907
- 9,359
Yep, and the phone call isn't documented, unless Ham managed to record it. Otherwise, there's nobody left alive to verify what was actually said...
What is documented is that there were repeated requests for security from those actually responsible for safeguarding Stevens and the outposts.
Obama says we don't use bayonets anymore. Fortunately, there are people in the military who know better and keep ordering the replacements. Same thing here. The ambassador may have turned down Ham, but frankly, it wasn't his job to decide what the appropriate security level was. That was the job of folks in Foggy Bottom.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,809
- 4,343
CIA is in Hampton, VA, not Foggy Bottom.
Maybe he didn't want to draw unwanted attention to his roommates at the "mission".
Maybe he didn't want to draw unwanted attention to his roommates at the "mission".
