50 Marines headed to Benghazi
A day late and a dollar short, a Marine “fast team” is headed to Libya to protect the pile of rubble that used to be our consulate there according to Fox News.
The official said a Marine “fast team” is being sent from the U.S. Naval base in Rota, Spain. They are not yet on the ground.
The move comes after President Obama ordered “all necessary resources” provided to Libya to support the security of U.S. personnel in the country.
In a statement, Obama also said he’s directed his administration to “increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe.”
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other American staff members were killed in the attacks Tuesday.
While I’m certain that most Americans are outraged by the pictures of Ambassador Stevens’ body being carried through the streets, I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to post it all over the internet. And, yes, we all want to talk tough about going over there and kicking some ass, but I don’t see lines of youngsters lining up at recruiting station. I’m also curious as to what 50 Marines coming from Spain will be able to do at this point, unless they’re going to do like the Marines did in Tripoli in 1804 during the Barbary War and fight through the streets.
If ever there was need for drone attacks, this one is ideal – Hellfire missiles to cover the evacuation.
Category: Terror War
I am calling the TSA … lets get Ex Pat added to the NO FLY LIST. The friggin’ French can keep him. Perhaps he can solve all the problems France is having.
At Old Tropper. I saw that race comment too. Scary … I hope he is not still serving.
Also @147: Pick up a fucking history book once in a while and then come back and talk to me, since you don’t understand plain english anymore.
@152: He’s not, but he thinks that he’s one of the only people entitled to have an opinion on anything to do with military matters.
In the beginning of your comment you say that we need to meet violence with more violence, and that’s why you advocated for the killing of women, children, and the elderly. Later on in your tirade you talk about the surge working precisely because our troops got “serious about killing the enemy”. Please explain what you mean by that, did our troops start targeting families or not? If they didn’t, and the surge still worked, then why do you believe it necessary to target families and whole villages in Libya? Shouldn’t hunting down and killing the actual terrorists suffice?
One can debate the morality of targeting terrorists’ families. But the effectiveness of doing so appears to be reasonably well documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Group
@155: The difference between the surge and what I advocated in Libya is that in Iraq, they were dealing with mostly outsiders that the locals didn’t want around, because they were killing Iraqis as well as us. In Libya, we aren’t talking about outside forces.
You advocated levelling entire villages. Yesterday there was a demonstration in Libya by people opposed to the attacks who wanted to voice their opposition as well as their condolences to America and the victims’ families. What are the odds that those some of those people were from the same villages as some of those who participated in the previous day’s attacks? Should they be killed too?
Ex Pat is sounding more and more sounding like a Frenchman who is benefiting from the very close relationship the French have with Libya. A relationship that goes way back!
Wine sipper!
@158: You want a discussion of morality? Is that what this is about? It hasn’t gone past my attention that many of those signs were written in perfect english in a country where english isn’t a first or second language. Who wrote them?
@158: I’ve been trying to think of a way to get you to understand, but it seems you’re cradling the teddy bear a little too tight.
Ok, last try: Have you ever heard of Nuremburg? Dresden? Tokyo? Cherbourg? How about Dusseldorf, Berlin, Hanoi, Hue? What do all those places have in common? When you can answer that; you might start to understand what I’m talking about.
@154 I don’t think I am the only one entitled to an opinion on military matters, I am just questioning an old pog who never saw any combat justifying killing women and children.. Who do you want to kill these women and children for you?
Forget it, Old Trooper. I found ExPat’s photo – which explains it all.
Oh please share Hondo!
@162: Photo? Really?
Well, based on what he’s posted here I’m pretty sure this is him.
http://olivierschmitt.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/surrender-monkey.jpg
“Eh bien, j’ai abandonner. Maintenant, où est le fromage ?”
@ Hondo … That is funnier French fruit flies on Libyan camel sh*t!
Don’t forget Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Arguing against the indiscriminate killing of non-combatant civilians is akin to clutching a teddy bear, Mr. Shit? Good to know, too bad you weren’t around during the Nuremberg trials or the Geneva convention to tell everyone involved in the proceedings that they were acting like mollycoddled little children.
Ex Pat is coming apart at the seams … he is starting to breathe heavily and his eyes are welling up. Soon he will start sobbing, wet his pants (or skirt), and cry, “I want my mommy”.
@167: Man you are fucking stupid. Do you know when the Geneva Accords were done? Do you know what the Nuremberg trials were about? I didn’t have to be around for them to understand the context of what they are. Obviously you don’t have that understanding of context.
Oh, yeah, I forgot about London, Antwerp, and a few others, also.
It’s obvious that you have the intellect of a rotten melon and don’t understand what historical perspective is.
Ok, Mr. whine-tit; I will let you go back to your cheese and whine while clutching your teddy bear.
I’m well aware of historical perspective Mr. Shit. In WWII our enemies actively targeted civilian population centers as well as production centers, which resulted in widespread civilian casualties. We responded in kind. That was necessary at the time, but that doesn’t make it any less barbaric. I’ll be sure to piss all over Kurt Vonnegut’s grave and call him child for seeing what he saw in Dresden and having something critical to say about it. What a bitchy, whiny, simpering little girl he was! Too bad he wasn’t a real man like you, then he would’ve known why it’s acceptable to incinerate children! And those guys who decided that Chemical and Biological weapons were to awful to ever be used. A bunch of pussies, the lot of them. They don’t have your insight into the true nature of war which you learned from the history channel and your time jacking off in the back of a helicopter during your stint in the Army. What a bunch of fags. If we only had ten divisions of men such as you, our troubles in the Middle East would be over very quickly.
It’s too bad you weren’t in charge of coalition forces during Desert Storm. You would have rolled straight into Baghdad and the onto Tehran, spreading fire whereever you went, not like that appeasing pussy Schwarzkopf. The Army should have let you back in when you approached them all those years ago, because you would have said “fuck all that not killing old ladies bullshit!” and nobody in the Middle East would have ever gotten uppity again after 1991.
My gawd you get your lace undies in a twist. The amount of hyperbole you’re using shows that you aren’t mature enough for this conversation.
Whine-tit; why don’t you go over to the corner, clutching your teddy bear, and have yourself a good cry. it will make you feel all better.
I’m arguing with an imbecile who thinks it acceptable to deliberately target children, I’m pretty sure your maturity is non-existent. Have you ever seen that photo of the naked Vietnamese girl running from a burning village? Does that picture make you hard, or does it piss of you off that she’s not a dead with a 5.56 round through her left eyeball?
@173: I’m arguing with a brain dead simp that is overdosing on estrogen.
Nice question there, whine-tit. Why don’t you ask “so have you quit beating your wife” instead?
Your arguments aren’t anything we haven’t heard around here, before. You ignore historical context and reference. Everything you write is out of emotion. Logic fails you and if it doesn’t go your way, then you immediately resort to acting like an immature child and making sweeping hyperbolic statements and stomping your feet.
Like I said; grab your teddy bear, go over to the corner, and have yourself a good cry.
@JPJason, @76 was you? I thought it was an Asian carp trolling for catfish.
Master chief, what is wrong with wine, cheese, bread and a good painting? I have all of that in my kitchen, except the art, which is in piles in the living room. Oh! That’s right! I’m a girl.
Et l’Ex-pat, il est le merde sous les pieds.
Next time you bitch about about hippies spitting on troops and calling them babykillers, please keep in mind that actually want our troops to kill babies.
@176: LOL!! You’re such a fucking simp. I dare you to go up to a WWII bomber pilot from the 8th Air Force and spit in his face and call him a baby killer, because chances are, he actually was one. The difference between me and the hippies such as yourself is that I understand they had a job to do, as tasteless and barbaric as it was, it was necessary. That’s right, it was necessary to stop an even bigger genocide from continuing. Your problem is you don’t have the intellectual capacity to differentiate the two. THAT is why I call you immature. THAT is what you can’t figure out for yourself. You prove it every time you post.
I’m growing tired of having to provide the answers for you. You have proven you have zero critical thinking skills. You can continue to call me a baby killer, a POS, etc. It doesn’t matter, because everyone sees that it is you that is proving to be the fool.
Moron, the difference between a WWII bomber crew member and what you’re advocating is the concept of collateral damage. Unless his mission was to specifically bomb children’s hospitals or nurseries, then he killed children inadvertantly. Is it that difficult for you to see the difference between that and say slitting a four year old’s throat because her daddy is some terrorist piece of shit? You talk about context and perspective, but you seem to have none.
Old Trooper you talk about context but fail to realize what killing women and children would do to the United States reputation around the world.. That is what makes this country better than these thug terrorists not WEAKER.. How dare you call this country weak.. This country killed Bin Laden and Qaddafi and plenty of other scumbags without the killing of civilians.. You are a disgrace as are the rest of the readers on this site who haven’t condemned you and your comments.. 4 people were arrested for the Libya attacks without mass killing I guess that isn’t good enough for you.
The Dude: actually, fella – the US didn’t take out Qadaffi. He was murdered by some of those very revolutionaries turned de facto government of Libya (many of whom are apparently linked to al Qaeda) after he’d been taken prisoner.
You also should never assume that silence regarding a given issue equals approval. Many have found out – the hard way – that that is very often not the case.
@180. “You are a disgrace as are the rest of the readers on this site who haven’t condemned you and your comments.”
Condemn him? I applaud him–and am in honored to be in Old Trooper’s company. My only regret is that he is compelled to respond to you. You just don’t get it and that’s it.
@179: Sigh………please point out where I said “slit a 4 year old’s throat”? Your hyperbole is showing, once again.
I believe I said something in regards to leveling a village. I can tell you that when you send 350 bombers to take out 1 factory, the thought of collateral damage wasn’t even in the briefing room. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure that out. Night time bombing was even less accurate than that. Sometimes; the purpose is to break the will of the people, which in itself can be a strategic objective. That you don’t get that isn’t my fault, but rather yours.
You can continue to live in your rose colored world. I will continue to live in reality. War is ugly, vile, disgusting, and sometimes necessary.
Both Curtiss LeMay and “Bomber” Harris would point out that collateral damage was kind of the point.
Look, OT, I have read your comments many times here and while I do not presume to know you, I have more than an inkling–and some insight based upon my years on this Earth–as to what sort of fellow you are. No one here or elsewhere has a monopoly on moral authority or empathy, though some make pretense to just that. They will learn or they will not but anyone who thinks he knows it all, knows nothing of value. Have a good weekend and, if you need a laugh, I suggest that you revisit Al Sharpton’s Walter Cronkite impersonation.
OT, you ought to know when you’re being targeted by a bully.
76 was me I was having a little fun at the expense of an idiot. I will have to give a little bit of a consistent argument here in a second. I have some more important matters to attend to.
Seems to me that the folks who want us to “understand” our enemies 1–say that because they can’t/won’t fight for their freedom (or lives), 2–don’t have the capability of wrapping their heads around the fact that there are some evil motherfuckers out there who don’t think on our level, 3–sometimes it really does come down to a question of us versus them.
YMMV.
ExPat and Dude you really have to look at stuff from a historical perspective before you start throwing around judgements. If you want to say that the targeting of civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong you should compare the probable civilian loss of the continued war if the invasion of Japan had gone ahead as planned. Of course you will throw out the argument that they had already offered surrender, but that wasn’t a full surrender. I also bet you will forget to consider the looming monster of Stalin. Without the proof that we could and were willing to use multiple atomic bombs he would have probably continued WWII into WWIII. Hell I bet the world was lucky that he died in the middle of the Korean war, which he was more than happy to use as a test to see how far the western world was willing to go to stop communism…well Stalinism. Now if you go from a purely act utilitarian view it was completely justified.
Now if you want to start discussing pure ethics sure we can do down that road if you like. I will be happy to do that with you gentlemen. Of course we will have to discuss some vocabulary just to make sure everyone knows what we are talking about and then get down to some brass tacks just so I can be sure that you two aren’t just a couple idiots talking out of your ass.
ExPat and Dude,a little of understanding islam. If a member of a muslim family is killed guilty or not. The duty of the muslim family is to revenge the death by killing the members of the offending family which in turn calls for more revenge killings of they say their honor has been restored. Not to forget the milk and honey with the 72 virgins. Some of these “honor killing” have on going for many generations. Kids grow up with the “honor killings” and the venettas contigue. Morally wrong by 21st century literate people . Not in their world. They also think the whole should be under laws and false faith.
I said the intended targeting of civilians was wrong and that is what old trooper wants.. I became a pacifist after I came back from Iraq so I think all war is wrong but I am not even arguing that.. collateral damage is different than intentionally harming civilians which the chickenhawk helicopter mechanic who never deployed is all for.
@191: You’re just as stupid as whine-tit. Did you not read what has been written? Do you not know history, including American history? For someone who is a supposed sooper trooper billy badass, you don’t know much about military strategy and tactics; do ya?
You can say it’s wrong all you want, but that is an emotionally driven argument based on morality, not military strategy. You can’t refute the military strategy argument, so you revert to attacking me, personally, once again (I should be flattered by the attention you keep giving me, but I’m more annoyed than anything else).
You give me shit for not deploying, yet being for a strategy that in the end would probably save lives. Do you think the same about Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight Eisenhower? That’s right, he never deployed to the front, either, but was responsible for sending others into battle. He was also one of the people responsible for approving the bombing of civilians all over Europe. Are you ever going to get tired of getting your ass kicked by facts?
There you go, once again, with your tired-assed justification in attempting to make yourself feel better about your service. Go ahead, keep beating that drum, I don’t really care. You’re losing the argument and instead of addressing the subject, you return to keep piling on me. In fact, as I have pointed out many times before, you never address the subject. You only show up to comment on me, and sometimes Sparky; I wonder why? I know it’s because you have an unnatural attraction for me bordering on obsession. Sorry, I don’t swing that way. I guess you’ll have to stick with your current boyfriend.
Oh, so now you’re a pacifist? Really? For someone who claims to be a pacifist, you sure don’t mind attempting to get into fights right here. You talk really tough to me, but then you want to roll out the pacifist claim? Riiiiight. Nice try numbnuts.
You’re a pacifist, The Dude? Interesting, but not exactly surprising.
If you’re really a committed pacifist, that means you reject all violence. That includes violence for the purpose of self defense or the defense of innocents. Ergo, that means you would literally stand and do nothing while someone murdered your best friend or raped your lady – and would not resist violently if someone tried to slit your throat.
One purpose of war is collective self defense. And virtually all religions agree that violence in defense of self or others – including war waged for that purpose – is indeed moral and allowable.
One can argue the merits and morality of a particular war. But anyone who espouses pacifism is an abject fool, living in a dream world.
Dude you are just jumping on what was obviously a moment of someone blowing off steam. There are times of frustration and anger where some of us say some crazy stuff. Hell I bet you have said the same things, but no one is harping on you about it.
The news from the front this morning: al Qaeda is praising the killings at the US embassy in Libya and calling for more attacks.
There are protests/riots in 20+ different countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, including Indonesia.
The Brit FOB in Afghanistan (Camp Bastion/Leatherneck) was attacked this morning and two Marines killed. The appropriate thing to do is to warn Karzai that he stops this crap now or he can expect a full-scale engagement – a nelly way of saying shooting war – and no more money from the US. Ditto Morsi in Cairo.
And we pull our troops and stuff out, ditto the Brits and Kiwis and anyone else who is there, and we do it ASAP, not in 2013.
That’s what I would do, and then let them feed on each other like the pariah dogs they are. I don’t care what happens to them.
I do care that this is all over the excuse of an obscure, bad film that was posted online by a convict in violation of his parole, and that it went completely unnoticed until just this past week. That’s the excuse and it’s pretty lame. Send Bakoula back to Cairo and turn him loose in the streets.
Al Qaeda is threatening attacks on the contiguous US. Fine. I haven’t used up my grocery budget yet. I’ll go over to Bass Pro Shop and pick up a crossbow and some bolts and go stand with the troops when those dirt-eaters show up.
Pacifist, huh? I wonder if you’ll still feel that way then the jihadists set your house on fire while you’re inside asleep in your bed, because that’s what they do.
I feel much better now.
Riddle me this Mr. Shit, if you actually had sacked up and deployed to Iraq of A-stan and killed several insurgents, would their comrades be justified in coming to America and targeting your children and if they have have any, their children?
Damn French Canadians.
@196: They already have, Mr. Whine-tit.
ExPat they have you think they would have learned from the first time it happened.
Oh yeah, you’ve had to fend off insurgents from killing your family?