Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on August 31, 2014, 11:49:42 AM
-
I guess the Obama response will depend on if he's on the fourth or seventeenth hole on the golf course. The story implies occupation versus the place being ransacked. I would assume all sensitive materials had already been destroyed or removed, but you never know.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/31/islamic-militia-groups-says-it-has-secured-us-compound-in-libya/
-
Well, the Huffington Post and foreign news sources are covering the story. Didn't see anything from the NYY, WAPO, NBC, CBS or ABC yet. Maybe in a year?
-
Dang it, now we have to wait until Oboma develops another strategy. :facepalm:
-
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/08/31/world/middleeast/ap-ml-libya.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpHeadline&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
-
Residential compound does not = embassy
-
Well, they are technically on our turf, so it shouldn't be that hard to flatten it with a missile now... [ar15]
-
Residential compound does not = embassy
And yet the Embassy a kilometer away has also been "secured".
Maybe what we need is a Russian duchess http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056800/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_87
Oh, yeah - and a company of Marines.
stay safe.
-
What difference does it make?
-
What difference does it make?
One is sovereign US soil. The other is third world soil.
We really should move all of embassies in third world hellholes to outside town, ensure it is easily defendable, give the embassy Marines crew served weapons and not hire locals for security. But then again, I could rant about the State Dept all day.
-
Why do we need embassies in those places ???
-
I think it would be appropriate to drop a MOAB from time to time on every US site occupied by terrorists. (Including the US embassy in Tehran.)
-
I would assume all sensitive materials had already been destroyed or removed, but you never know.
One has to wonder why these places don't have remotely detonated demolition charges embedded so deeply in the walls that the place would pretty much have to be bulldozed to get them out. Seems like one of the most practical base denial steps.
-
We really should move all of embassies in third world hellholes to outside town, ensure it is easily defendable, give the embassy Marines crew served weapons and not hire locals for security. But then again, I could rant about the State Dept all day.
This.
Grounds to include a rather large helipad capable of handling our largest.
-
Grounds to include a rather large helipad capable of handling our largest.
Hell, a runway capable of handling a C5 and/or a few C17s *once* wouldn't be unreasonable compared to the other expenses involved in these things. It's only when you want to pound it with stuff like that repeatedly and still have the ambassador's Gulfstream get a smooth ride that it becomes a civil engineering mess.
-
Hell, a runway capable of handling a C5 and/or a few C17s *once* wouldn't be unreasonable compared to the other expenses involved in these things. It's only when you want to pound it with stuff like that repeatedly and still have the ambassador's Gulfstream get a smooth ride that it becomes a civil engineering mess.
State Dept in DC would never allow it. And never allow for an easily defensible location out of town. They're under the opinion that an occupied embassy, a dead ambassador or a handful of lower echelon employees without political connections are trivially outweighed by not having to deal with a host nation whining that we don't trust them. Dead service or security personnel don't count whatsoever, unless embarrassing news reports can't be blamed on someone else.
Diplomatic circles are a very weird kabuki theater. In my opinion, they cost us far more than they've saved our bacon. They're quite happy to throw US domestic industry under the bus, or on the flip side, throw the citizenry under the bus for a specific company. It all comes down to who bribed what bureaucrat or had the most pull at the time. "What's best for the American citizenry as a whole" is never a consideration. It's about lining up a sweet gig after retiring from State, or angling to get into a position to angle for a payday.
Another weird aspect is our foreign intelligence operates near exclusively out of State Department facilities.
The whole situation is fubar and has needed overhauling for decades.
-
Too hard to host dinner parties off embassy row. Embassy takeovers are rare. Cocktails are 6 nights a week. And remember they didn't cut down the palm tree in the embassy yard to clear a bigger lz in saigon till the end of the bug out
-
Too hard to host dinner parties off embassy row. Embassy takeovers are rare. Cocktails are 6 nights a week.
Yup, but a private airstrip on the grounds is a hell of a prestigious thing in places where traffic can be a huge mess.
If you could sneak them in, it would be a good place to stash a couple of those A-10s that they're trying to get rid of, as support for a ground evac or against a ground assault.
-
Yup, but a private airstrip on the grounds is a hell of a prestigious thing in places where traffic can be a huge mess.
If you could sneak them in, it would be a good place to stash a couple of those A-10s that they're trying to get rid of, as support for a ground evac or against a ground assault.
I would be happy with some crew served weapons. Heavier is better, since they won't have to be humped anywhere. I am thinking 60, 81, 120mm mortars with HE, PGM, WP. Ma Deuce, M240B& M249; MK19; M40 105mm recoilless rifle. And all the usual personal weapons: M4, M9, etc.
-
I would be happy with some crew served weapons. Heavier is better, since they won't have to be humped anywhere.
AFAICT, DOD is completely unfamiliar with that concept. Why else would soldiers ever be defending a fixed, fortified and well-stocked location with AR pattern rifles other than just long enough to get to more appropriate (larger caliber, mounted, better cooled, belt or hopper fed, and/or any of a dozen other things that make a gun far more deadly but harder to carry) weapons?
-
Apparently, after this hit the press, the Commander in Chief has decided to send 350 Marines to re-claim the properties and hold down the fort(s) until something in some situation changes.
Part of me wonders why the Marines were not on hand when the embassy staff decamped for safer places. The other part of me wonders who did what to get the Commander in Chief to order this because I'm pretty sure Putin will not be cowed, let alone impressed, by the decision.
stay safe.
-
Apparently, after this hit the press, the Commander in Chief has decided to send 350 Marines to re-claim the properties and hold down the fort(s) until something in some situation changes.
Part of me wonders why the Marines were not on hand when the embassy staff decamped for safer places. The other part of me wonders who did what to get the Commander in Chief to order this because I'm pretty sure Putin will not be cowed, let alone impressed, by the decision.
stay safe.
Actually the Marines are heading Iraq not Libya.
-
Actually the Marines are heading Iraq not Libya.
Meh. All those third world deserts are the same anyway.