- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 8,834
- Reaction score
- 2,812
- Location
- Alabama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
So it would be ok with you if the Americans were part of that collateral damage
Our missile guidance technology is a bit more advanced than you seem to think...
not when the enemy is 50 feet from your own men.
Using you "logic" (if one can call it that), close air support should never be provided to our troops on the ground. That's an insane position to take or defend...
I wouldn't be celebrating, but that s the nature of collateral damage. On 9/11, did you not support the order to shoot down any commercial airliner that did not immediately follow the grounding order...
Our missile guidance technology is beyond approach. We can program a cruise missile to fly down the street and go thru someones bedroom window, but the explosion would take out the whole block, if not more. So that missile would have probably taken out the Americans we were trying to save.
LOL, you now have the intelligence available to know the distance of the attackers in feet?
So you would be ok if the Americans were killed in that collateral damage? The other part has nothing to do with this thread, remember Custer?
Good afternoon V1.1 - I find it remarkable the lengths to which people here will go to "rescue" Obama and Clinton but wouldn't lift a finger to save American assets on the ground in a hostile environment.
no i was trying to make the point that you can't bomb the enemy if they are literally right next to your own men. it was a tactic employed in Stalingrad by the Russians, by placeing their frontlines right next to the germans in the city and fighting at close quarters, the germans could not use their airforce to bomb the russians without the risk of hitting their own men.
But they are lifting their fingers, CJ! They're typing! Granted, it's not to offer sympathy to the families of the men who were murdered by cowardly unwashed thugs in Benghazi, but attempts to justify BHO's seeming lack of concern for the lives of our Embassy personnel and Seals who were waiting in vain for help that never came. I wonder if their opinion would be the same if one of their husbands, brothers or friends had been among those who died in Benghazi! :shock: To each his own opinion...but very sad indeed...
I believe the issue was defending against mortars and RPGs, neither of which are fired from that range unless it's a suicide mission of some sort...
Our missile guidance technology is beyond approach. We can program a cruise missile to fly down the street and go thru someones bedroom window, but the explosion would take out the whole block, if not more. So that missile would have probably taken out the Americans we were trying to save.
in which case we are talking about the attacks on the CIA annex, where two people were killed by mortar fire.
When we make no attempt to provide support during an attack, it is an issue even if no one were to have lost their lives...
Which attack the one on the consulate, or the one on the Annex.
the mortar attacks that killed the two victims in the annex came after there had been a lull in the initial attack on the annex.
should they have called for backup at the start of the attack, or when they were being shelled by mortars?
Should who or what have been called back up? There was never an order executed to provide support from the start of the attacks. The ex SEALS at the annex were there against orders...
and no one knew that until they had already left for benghazi. so who could have provided them backup without permission.
I'm sorry, but this comment is just to stupid to address in a rational manner...
look at the edit i made then.
Secretary Gates advocated no such position. He stated that resources were not available and the on-the-ground situation was uncertain. That's very different from advocating a position that the U.S. should not act if it had military assets and sufficient information to do so.
Added: The following link reveals what was "known" about the attack: Panetta on Benghazi attack: 'Could not put forces at risk' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
a explosion can't tell the difference between friend or foe.
That's ridiculous.
We have missiles that are made purely out of concrete, nothing else. People, do just a little research so your'e not left guessing.
How does a missile made purely out of
concrete gonna fly. All they're gonna do is drop. Not much killing power unless you hit someone directly with it. And you talk about ridiculous.
What a great link, thanks.
"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on," Panetta said. "(We) felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?