Benghazi is begining to stink.

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:34 am

GIThruster,
It does not seem that you are in disagreement on the basic goals or the idea of the big stick, just what is required. As to what is required, I have no idea myself. You seem to be a Wiki man in that regard, but that is only what it seems to me.
Best regards

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:37 am

GIThruster wrote:
palladin9479 wrote:In the US's case it is in the best interest of the USA for there not to be another large world reaching war, especially now that nuclear and biological weapons exist. To accomplish this the end the USA ensures that it has such a large disparity in military power that no other nation would attempt an armed conflict.
Irrelevant. The US could accomplish this with a Navy 1/5 its current size.

Ahh...nope.

It takes 3 ships to make one forward. For some inane reason it also takes a show of strength to keep certain personality types in check. Bullies fear confrontation. It is human nature. The biggest service the US Navy provides, which is key for a Maritime State such as the US, is that it conducts bully prevention operations by being forward. If you think that the world would perculate along by itself, you are correct. However, the path it would choose would not be one of stability and free global trade for all.

If the navy were cut to 1/5 of force, China would own the South China Sea and then some. They would not hesitate to seize it. Iran would own the Perisan Gulf and then some. Both nations would start to pressure for annexation of neighbours, as well as seek to impose taxes on transiting martime traffic. Failure to pay would result in seizures...etc and so on.
This is not musing, this is stated sought reality by both countries.
There are many others I will not bother to list.

If the US is going to have a strong anything, it should be the Navy and Marines. That is what most bullies around the planet fear to confront the most. Ironically, the army was only intended orignally to defend to US territories as a domestic defense force...the navy from day one was about forward presense.

Anyway, cutting the navy to 1/5 current size would mena a forward operating for of 1/3 of 1/5. So simple math...300 ships, to 1/5 is 60 ships, one third of which is 20 forward. You are not going to do much with twenty ships. Especially giving that the 20 will be a mix of platforms with differing purpose and capabilities.

Wake up dude. Demand is calling and Supply is limited...we do not have enough to meet demand as is.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:31 pm

GIThruster wrote:McCain is pressing to see the video from the drones. Should be interesting to see how the administration responds. This could drag out right up to election day if POTUS doesn't find a way to nip it. Just how much can the media ignore the issue now that McCain is involved? He's a Navy combat vet and a pair of SEALs just died. He's the ranking member of the Senate's Armed Services Committee, so I can't see how the FBI can deny him the ability to view the tapes and know whether the drones were armed. If they were and OBama let our people die without returning fire, I'd say that's the end of his presidency. In any case, the fact we had drones and knew there were no riots is going to be front and center through the election.

BENGHAZIGATE: OBAMA WATCHED BENGHAZI ATTACK LIVE SAYS LT. COL. TONY SHAFFER

http://www.myfreedompost.com/2012/10/be ... ghazi.html

AND:

Media Blackout: Aside from FOX, Sunday News Hosts Fail to Raise Benghazi

The mainstream media's silence on the Benghazi disaster reached deafening levels on Sunday, as hosts of four out of the five major news shows--with the exception of Fox News Sunday--failed to raise the issue. Only Bob Schieffer of CBS gave it serious consideration, and only after it was raised by Sen. John McCain.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism ... e-Benghazi

I now regard the fact that the Media is completely controlled by Liberal Democrats as a National Security threat. We need to start treating the Media like enemy combatants.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:40 pm

LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi(retired Seal Admiral)

There is an urgent need for full disclosure of what has become the “Benghazi Betrayal and Cover-up.” The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI and the Pentagon, apparently watched and listened to the assault on the U.S. consulate and cries for help but did nothing. If someone had described a fictional situation with a similar scenario and described our leadership ignoring the pleas for help, I would have said it was not realistic—not in my America – but I would have been proven wrong.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2AhdtXmNQ

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:25 pm

ladajo wrote:The biggest service the US Navy provides, which is key for a Maritime State such as the US, is that it conducts bully prevention operations by being forward.

Yes, but again, that is the world policing function. You're arguing for a world police. If that is somehow not the role we expect the navy to fill, then we can easily have 1/5 the fleet we have and still have the most powerful fleet on the planet.

I'm not suggesting we cut the fleet even in half. I think we could get along with 9 CVN's and 3 LHA/LHD's but those who know better might suggest better numbers. In any case we do not need 15 flattops filled with F-35's.

And just to reiterate, it won't matter how many CVN's we have when the day comes we can no longer pay our sailors. We either cut now with thoughtful controls, or cut later with no controls. There isn't a third choice. What we're doing is not sustainable.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:15 pm

Just to redirect back on topic, Reuters has copies of emails sent on September 11 where the radical Islamo-fascist Ansar Al-Sharia took responsibility for the attacks almost the moment they were happening, yet for weeks the OBama administration said they thought this was the result of some riots over a video. We now know the White House, the stet department had real time video and knew there was no riot.

So simple question: if all the proper authorities knew there were no riots in Benghazi, and that a terrorist group had claimed responsibility, why did the administration in half a dozen ways claim the attacks were the results of some video?

More pointedly, how much evidence do people need that OBama deliberately lied to the American people and has been covering this up for 6 weeks?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:41 pm

Bigger than Watergate: Proof that the President is Lying about Benghazi?

Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.

One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not "paint" a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.

Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.

If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.

If that SEAL was actively "painting" a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/10/b ... ghazi.html

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:44 pm

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:14 pm

Upon returning to the CIA annex with survivors, Griffin said one of the soldiers got on the radio and asked, frantically, at midnight: “Where the blank is the Spectre?” (Griffin didn’t say exactly which expletive she had replaced).

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/father- ... ls-emerge/

Stubby · Post by **Stubby** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:41 pm

not knowing all the story, I need to ask a question:

Would you consider Winston Churchill a coward for refusing to stop the bombing of Coventry in WWII?

Maybe there is more at stake, more than meets the eye?

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:11 am

GIThruster wrote:
palladin9479 wrote:In the US's case it is in the best interest of the USA for there not to be another large world reaching war, especially now that nuclear and biological weapons exist. To accomplish this the end the USA ensures that it has such a large disparity in military power that no other nation would attempt an armed conflict.
Irrelevant. The US could accomplish this with a Navy 1/5 its current size.

'
Which only goes to show your ignorance. I'm sure the various naval experts here will immediately notice this.

For your whole "we're not the world police", you've failed to answer my question. Who would you like to be the world police then? Or rather, who would you like to be the dominant power in the world? Currently you have three choices, China, Russia, and USA. The EU could in theory do this but they'd have to dissolve the sovereignty of each member state into a single country first in order to create a single unified military force.

If you think the world will keep going on without anyone being the dominate military power, and using it according to their own national policies / interests, then your even more ignorant and naive then you've already demonstrated.

Scupperer · Post by **Scupperer** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:15 am

Stubby wrote:Would you consider Winston Churchill a coward for refusing to stop the bombing of Coventry in WWII?

I presume the Coventry reference is to the thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory that Churchill was trying to protect the fact that Enigma had been cracked, even though he'd already previously used info obtained from cracked Enigma transmissions to thwart planned Nazi attacks?

http://bshistorian.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... d-in-1940/

Given the facts emerging in this case, it better have been a damned good reason, given that the Africom commander has been relieved for disagreeing, along with the Admiral of the Stennis Feet, and even Petraeus (CIA head) is basically pointing his finger at the President by denying he ordered the stand-down.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that there are very few reasons, if any at all to deliberately sacrifice lives when help is at all possible. And of the many suspected reasons for allowing this to happen, none rise to the occasion.

palladin9479 · Post by **palladin9479** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:20 am

If the US is going to have a strong anything, it should be the Navy and Marines. That is what most bullies around the planet fear to confront the most. Ironically, the army was only intended orignally to defend to US territories as a domestic defense force...the navy from day one was about forward presense.

The overly large ground force is a result of WWII / Cold War era policies. Air / Navy are strategic forces, they can be used to soften up / destroy an enemies capabilities and otherwise project power / intimidate others. Like you said their bully control. In an actual fight you need ground power to hold land as it's a tactical force. Basically Air / Naval power (Marines / SoF for strike operations) are used to decimate a foe's capabilities, then ground (Army / Marines) is used to mop up whats left, take territory, and hold / defend territory. The large swaths of land involved in East Europe are what dictated a large Army. Also unlike Sea / Air where technology allows a crew of less then 200 to create untold destruction, ground forces are more manpower intensive. Even using modern technology and combined forces doctrine you still end up needing 4~5+ soldiers / marines for every airman / sailor.

At least until we can create Mechs with PPC's.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:57 pm

GIThruster wrote:
ladajo wrote:The biggest service the US Navy provides, which is key for a Maritime State such as the US, is that it conducts bully prevention operations by being forward.
Yes, but again, that is the world policing function. You're arguing for a world police. If that is somehow not the role we expect the navy to fill, then we can easily have 1/5 the fleet we have and still have the most powerful fleet on the planet.

I'm not suggesting we cut the fleet even in half. I think we could get along with 9 CVN's and 3 LHA/LHD's but those who know better might suggest better numbers. In any case we do not need 15 flattops filled with F-35's.

And just to reiterate, it won't matter how many CVN's we have when the day comes we can no longer pay our sailors. We either cut now with thoughtful controls, or cut later with no controls. There isn't a third choice. What we're doing is not sustainable.

Force structure and requirements is something I know way more about than I want to. You clearly know naught. At this point you are babbling, and I cede the floor to you. Having a navy 1/5 of what it is, and then expecting to be able to fullfill any meaningful role with the resulting 20 deployable units is complete idiocy.
You win, I give up.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:17 pm

Is a U.S. general losing his job over Benghazi?

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/is-a-gener ... z2Ansutk5B