Benghazi Matters~

[phil1336]

A half dozen State Department employees and our Ambassador lost their lives in a terrorist attack, indeed a true tragedy.Was it caused by a anti-Islamic Video, anti-American sentiment, etc? Was there a lack of security, no doubt. That entire region is extremely dangerous. Cover up? Keep rehashing the issue. Were the 5000 Troops we lost for (nothing) in both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction of less value then those lost in the Benghazi attack?

[akirby]

You still don't get it, do you? There were plenty of reasons to take out Saddam other than just an imminent threat of WMDs. We know for a fact that Saddam had the ability to create WMDs and he had the inclination to use them - on his own people even. The intelligence saying they existed did not come from the white house. It was also shared and believed by other nations, not just the U.S. Congress saw the same intelligence as the white house and THEY voted in favor. John Kerry and all of the other democrats in Congress at the time are just as much to blame as Bush. Why don't you get that?

 

By contrast, the Obama administration knew what this was and instead of simply reporting the truth they concocted and perpetrated a bald-faced lie to the American public in an election year.

 

Poor intelligence vs. a bald-faced premeditated lie. Pretty simple comparison.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Were the 5000 Troops we lost for (nothing) in both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction of less value then those lost in the Benghazi attack?

Are the four lives each worth any less than the 5000 lives sacrificed for nothing when we walked out of Iraq before a stable government was established? Their lives were lost to secure a rogue tyrant-led country who murders it's own people with WMDs, so what makes you think is isn't a real threat to us or our allies or any other potential victims of his madness?

 

You decry the lost lives in Iraq. I decry the walking away from the success and victories there in the name of placating liberal who "supported the plan until they opposed the plan."

[cal50]

http://gawker.com/gop-house-report-on-benghazi-concludes-there-is-no-beng-1615741728

 

GOP House Report on Benghazi Concludes There Is No Benghazi Scandal

 

But, but, but . . . there's got to be a scandal!

 

 

Martha Steward went to prison for lying to investigators. (not a scandal)

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury (lied) and obstruction of justice. (not a scandal)

 

Obama & his administration made mistakes then tried to change the facts / timeline (lied) so figure it out.

I doubt many hold Obama or Clinton responsible for the deaths but they both lied about the facts when they clearly knew different.

[phil1336]

Are the four lives each worth any less than the 5000 lives sacrificed for nothing when we walked out of Iraq before a stable government was established? Their lives were lost to secure a rogue tyrant-led country who murders it's own people with WMDs, so what makes you think is isn't a real threat to us or our allies or any other potential victims of his madness?

 

You decry the lost lives in Iraq. I decry the walking away from the success and victories there in the name of placating liberal who "supported the plan until they opposed the plan."

Do you actually believe that the vast Majority of Iraqi`s feel that they are better off economically, politically, or socially today with Saddam gone? We picked a fight with the (least) religious Islamic leader in the Arab world! Was he Santa Claus? No! He was a strong armed Dictator that ruled with an iron fist. But,under his rule, his token Minority of non-Moslems, Christians and Jews were always left alone. Why? He pronounced that if anyone harmed them, (he) would avenge and punish those that did them harm. Did he used chemical warfare on the Kurds who started an uprising to gain Independence, yes. Was it wrong, no doubt. Where did he get the Chemical Warfare? The US Department of War and Donald Rumsfeld, but it was made in the USA. Some countries can`t deal with Western style Democracies. "Tito" was a strong armed dictator. What happened after he was removed? Iraqi women did`nt need to worry about Sharia Law, they could Drive, Vote, run for local office, didn`t need to wear vail`s or be covered up from head to toe. Gambling and alcohol was available in Bagdad despite its ban in orthodox Islam. They saying, the devil you know is better then the devil, you don`t know. Saddam was ruthless and no good but what has followed him is much worse. Saddam or Isis? You make the pick.

PS: The Special Congressional Joint Committee on the Benghazi Massacre has concluded that there was (no) coverup. It was composed of both Republicans and Democrats. Only (you) and Fox News pledges to keep the matter alive, enjoy!

[phil1336]

Are the four lives each worth any less than the 5000 lives sacrificed for nothing when we walked out of Iraq before a stable government was established? Their lives were lost to secure a rogue tyrant-led country who murders it's own people with WMDs, so what makes you think is isn't a real threat to us or our allies or any other potential victims of his madness?

 

You decry the lost lives in Iraq. I decry the walking away from the success and victories there in the name of placating liberal who "supported the plan until they opposed the plan."

Are you a Veteran Sir? Did you or any of your Children risk your/their personal lives for Iraqi Freedom? Yes or No? Same goes for Afghanistan! Stop talking Shit until you help push forward legislation to bring back the Draft. I`m sick of you and other "patriots" as well as Fox New WarFare Queens enjoying the beat of "War Drums" without also enjoying the fun of being a participant. Maybe a "Hundred Year" war is worth the good fight to establish another US Colony in the Middle East in order to secure a back up source for Houston TX based Oil Interests? If so, state it!

[akirby]

You don't need to be a veteran to have an opinion on decisions made by the government relative to military operations.

 

Saying that you support continued military intervention doesn't make you a war mongerer. Not supporting it doesn't make you pacifist.

 

A lot of us support military strength because we think without it we would be vulnerable to attacks from other countries and terrorists and having a strong military is the best deterrent. It doesn't mean we can't cut military spending. It also doesn't mean that we support Halliburton or other companies that make money off of the war effort. To me that's just a side effect of doing what we need to do for protection.

 

That also doesn't mean we agree with everything the government has done with military actions.

 

Go find a member of Congress who will openly support cutting military spending. I doubt you'll find many on either side of the aisle. Why? Because it directly impacts their constituents and they're afraid of not being reelected.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Are you a Veteran Sir? Did you or any of your Children risk your/their personal lives for Iraqi Freedom? Yes or No? Same goes for Afghanistan! Stop talking Shit until you help push forward legislation to bring back the Draft. I`m sick of you and other "patriots" as well as Fox New WarFare Queens enjoying the beat of "War Drums" without also enjoying the fun of being a participant. Maybe a "Hundred Year" war is worth the good fight to establish another US Colony in the Middle East in order to secure a back up source for Houston TX based Oil Interests? If so, state it!

To your first question, "sir", no I am not. I was in AFJROTC in High School and turned 18 three weeks after the draft ended, and I made a decision that I admit I regret today. I went for the "upfront cash" of going to work the day after high school and with the exception of Grenada, I would have had a mostly quiet service.

 

But, what I do today is stand for the men and women who do serve. My son-in-law is a Marine who has served in the Middle East. Do you suggest that I am indifferent to the safety of those who volunteered to protect this country?

 

Read every syllable of every word I have ever written. I defy you to find ANY evidence of me being less than their greatest supporter. As akirby said though, it's not the men and women that serve, it's the men and women who make a political career out of playing the military as a means to an end, which is usually re-election.

 

I do remember Mai-Li, and when such atrocities occur, I place blame on those in command. But, for all but those few exceptions, those lives should never be placed in harms way for frivolous causes. But, if we do send them in.....BY GOD, GO IN TO WIN!!!!!!! Viet Nam and other battles have gotten our people killed by the score for nothing, because we end up handing over all the gains made at the cost of thousands of lives.

 

We are still in Germany, Japan and other countries today. But, if we had pulled out within two years, where would they be today. And where would we be as well.

 

For all we lost, for all the collateral damages and losses, for all the terror inflicted upon the innocents of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have washed our hands of them. And so, those lives have been for nothing but political expediency and the economic stimulus created by the build up of the military machines and support.

 

Every fireman, policeman and soldier accepts a job with full knowledge that they may have to lay down their life for their duty. I can think of no higher calling. And I strive to express my gratitude for their service.

 

I don't ask them to fight a fight that we will surrender their sacrifices for, just because the politicians think they can get elected by pandering to either extreme of pro-war and anti-war activists.

 

I do say, however, is if the best we can determine is good enough to send them in, then don't give it back for anything less than the costs, and I don't mean the money.

 

And a lot of this depends on having faith in our leaders, particularly when the make the decision to go in. Alas, I haven't had much faith in a politician in decades. And it only has gotten worse lately.

[akirby]

Back on topic please.

[phil1336]

You don't need to be a veteran to have an opinion on decisions made by the government relative to military operations.

 

Saying that you support continued military intervention doesn't make you a war mongerer. Not supporting it doesn't make you pacifist.

 

A lot of us support military strength because we think without it we would be vulnerable to attacks from other countries and terrorists and having a strong military is the best deterrent. It doesn't mean we can't cut military spending. It also doesn't mean that we support Halliburton or other companies that make money off of the war effort. To me that's just a side effect of doing what we need to do for protection.

 

That also doesn't mean we agree with everything the government has done with military actions.

 

Go find a member of Congress who will openly support cutting military spending. I doubt you'll find many on either side of the aisle. Why? Because it directly impacts their constituents and they're afraid of not being reelected.

I absolutely "disagree" with you KIrby 100%. If you don`t have a "dog in the fight" or "flesh in the game" you have nothing to contribute. Only those that wore the Uniform should be heard from or listened to on matters of the pain and suffering of War. Wanna have (non) Gold Star Mothers putting their two cents in as well as what its like loosing a Child to War? Saying a non-Veteran should have the say weight in opinion as someone who safely watches the ravages of War from the comfort of their Lazy Boy Recliner as one who put their Ass in harms way is simply asinine. Being a Vietnam era Vet that was honorably discharged, I say, Bring back the Draft before another Campaign is initiated, period!

[phil1336]

To your first question, "sir", no I am not. I was in AFJROTC in High School and turned 18 three weeks after the draft ended, and I made a decision that I admit I regret today. I went for the "upfront cash" of going to work the day after high school and with the exception of Grenada, I would have had a mostly quiet service.

 

But, what I do today is stand for the men and women who do serve. My son-in-law is a Marine who has served in the Middle East. Do you suggest that I am indifferent to the safety of those who volunteered to protect this country?

 

Read every syllable of every word I have ever written. I defy you to find ANY evidence of me being less than their greatest supporter. As akirby said though, it's not the men and women that serve, it's the men and women who make a political career out of playing the military as a means to an end, which is usually re-election.

 

I do remember Mai-Li, and when such atrocities occur, I place blame on those in command. But, for all but those few exceptions, those lives should never be placed in harms way for frivolous causes. But, if we do send them in.....BY GOD, GO IN TO WIN!!!!!!! Viet Nam and other battles have gotten our people killed by the score for nothing, because we end up handing over all the gains made at the cost of thousands of lives.

 

We are still in Germany, Japan and other countries today. But, if we had pulled out within two years, where would they be today. And where would we be as well.

 

For all we lost, for all the collateral damages and losses, for all the terror inflicted upon the innocents of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have washed our hands of them. And so, those lives have been for nothing but political expediency and the economic stimulus created by the build up of the military machines and support.

 

Every fireman, policeman and soldier accepts a job with full knowledge that they may have to lay down their life for their duty. I can think of no higher calling. And I strive to express my gratitude for their service.

 

I don't ask them to fight a fight that we will surrender their sacrifices for, just because the politicians think they can get elected by pandering to either extreme of pro-war and anti-war activists.

 

I do say, however, is if the best we can determine is good enough to send them in, then don't give it back for anything less than the costs, and I don't mean the money.

 

And a lot of this depends on having faith in our leaders, particularly when the make the decision to go in. Alas, I haven't had much faith in a politician in decades. And it only has gotten worse lately.

If you believers of a "just War" is worth fighting, simply bring back the damn Draft! You bring up Vietnam which I happen to have a tiny bit of insight with. What was accomplished? What was the End Game. Billions of dollars flushed down the toilet, over 55,000 Troops killed, we "ran" away after having our Ass KIcked, North Vietnam (unified) the entire Country and the United States has given North Vietnam "favorite trade status" and have become one of our closest import/export Allies as well as Vacation destination. Was that War too worth the good fight? Halliburton and the rest of America`s Military Industrial Complex believes so.

[akirby]

You'll never hear me advocating war. Nor do I believe that any of our leaders have advocated war for personal or corporate gain since 1990. I believe our elected leaders do what they think is necessary to protect the U.S. They may or may not be correct but I believe their intentions are good. Unlike the liberals who think Bush lied (which is totally false) and sent soldiers to their death unnecessarily in the name of corporate profits for Halliburton, etc. Especially when there is absolutely no proof to that effect.

 

I believe we need a strong military to deter terrorists and other countries from attacking us. We have to show that we won't be bullied and we won't sit idle while our citizens are attacked. If we show weakness (like Obama has repeatedly) then it gives our enemies hope.

 

Does that mean a blank check for the military? Of course not. Do we need the F-35? Absolutely. Do we need all the ones ordered? Probably not immediately.

Can we cut military spending and still maintain a strong military option? Sure.

 

I also think we should stay out of foreign conflicts as much as possible unless there is a direct threat to the U.S.

 

Most people who want a strong military realize it is the best way to keep us out of wars. That doesn't make us war mongerers.

 

Thank you for your service.

[akirby]

BTW - I'm sick and tired of people who ignore the democrat's role in Afghanistan and blame it all on Bush and the republicans.

 

I guarantee you if Democrats had control of the White House, Senate and House that nothing would have changed including using Halliburton. Because it was the right thing to do given the circumstances and information available at the time. Nobody else has Halliburton's capabilities. That's not cronyism - it's just good business.

 

Why hasn't Obama closed Gitmo like he promised years ago? Because it's totally different when you're making the decisions and you have a lot of information that the public doesn't have. And you understand that if you make a mistake that costs American lives that you have to live with it. What if we had ignored the intelligence and Saddam had launched or assisted in a chemical weapons attack on the U.S.? What would you have said about Bush then? What if you had to make the decision and gamble on whether it was a real threat or not? It's a lot different when you have to make the decision.

[GaryG]

I think whoever made you a moderator will regret it. I think the site is toast with your opinions.

 

Gary

[akirby]

I think whoever made you a moderator will regret it. I think the site is toast with your opinions.

 

Gary

 

Whoever made me moderator would just as soon not have any political topics at all.

 

My opinions have nothing to do with being a moderator and I don't censor differing opinions.

 

If you're implying this forum is not what it used to be with several topics per week with the same folks attacking each other with off topic and inflammatory posts over and over then I say mission accomplished.

 

Go play angy liberal (or angry conservative or angry tea partier or whatever) somewhere else. This isn't the place.

[cal50]

I think whoever made you a moderator will regret it. I think the site is toast with your opinions.

 

Gary

 

 

The forum has actually improved with limiting some peoples redundant vowel movements.

[goinbroke2]

I'll just add my 2 cents (as a "career lifer" with 30 years in on the 24th of Aug) The draft is the worst possible thing, it brings in good but also the bad and very bad in people. I'd rather have 10 guys that believe in the cause and want to be there than 25 who drag their feet and poison the work place.

Phil, I'm Canadian but had two uncles in Viet Nam, one died there, I can't express how much your posts turn my stomach. I don't care where we went or left or anything else, we did what we were told/trained to do. The gov (and it is their decision to make) pulled us out of places when they decided or the public decided. Your bitter and I understand that, it's too bad it changed your outlook so much. Or were you a pacifist draftee then too who went because they had too and didn't believe in any of it in the first place? (see my comments on why the draft is bad???)

 

That said, I was quite the "anti-war" or "anti-stupid shit, I can't believe what one human will do to another" when I came back from my very first over-sea's deployment. However, for me it turned to apathy for the human race I guess, and reinforced the idea that when we go to places and have to do things, it's with the best intentions and I do my part. It's not a job to me or a temporary thing it's been a career and I'm proud of what I've done. (the good and "bad")

 

You know the most dangerous enemy on the battlefield isn't the opposing army, but the children with weapons or the drunks that have no clear leadership. I've had to return fire at both and while disgusting on the surface, when your buddy is sniped beside you, it doesn't matter how old or what sex pulled the trigger, you just engage that spot, later you find out it was whatever.

 

I think most don't understand the role of the military and think they go around conquoring places for the countries best interest. This is completely false. The military is but ONE tool in the massive toolbox the gov has and is used as a "last resort". Strong letter, blockades, embargoes, tactical airstikes and worst case scenario, ground invasion. (the "boots on the ground" wording the media likes to say)

 

A strong military however has proven repeatedly to be a deterrent to attack. With obama squandering the reputation the US has built over the years "don't mess with them they got this or that" to the point that it's "haha, they got all this crap but their too scared/indecisive and they even deal with kidnappers, haha"

Neville Chamberlane proved you can't continually placate people who won't stop...ever...

Edited August 8, 2014 by goinbroke2

[akirby]

The forum has actually improved with limiting some peoples redundant vowel movements.

 

It's been really really nice since one of those people got banned for the 3rd time.

 

Gary just can't stand anyone with different political views, especially when they're backed up with facts.

[akirby]

And with that I'm closing the military discussion. Both sides have made their points. This thread is about Benghazi. If there is nothing new to discuss about Benghazi I'll close the thread.

[phil1336]

I'll just add my 2 cents (as a "career lifer" with 30 years in on the 24th of Aug) The draft is the worst possible thing, it brings in good but also the bad and very bad in people. I'd rather have 10 guys that believe in the cause and want to be there than 25 who drag their feet and poison the work place.

Phil, I'm Canadian but had two uncles in Viet Nam, one died there, I can't express how much your posts turn my stomach. I don't care where we went or left or anything else, we did what we were told/trained to do. The gov (and it is their decision to make) pulled us out of places when they decided or the public decided. Your bitter and I understand that, it's too bad it changed your outlook so much. Or were you a pacifist draftee then too who went because they had too and didn't believe in any of it in the first place? (see my comments on why the draft is bad???)

 

That said, I was quite the "anti-war" or "anti-stupid shit, I can't believe what one human will do to another" when I came back from my very first over-sea's deployment. However, for me it turned to apathy for the human race I guess, and reinforced the idea that when we go to places and have to do things, it's with the best intentions and I do my part. It's not a job to me or a temporary thing it's been a career and I'm proud of what I've done. (the good and "bad")

 

You know the most dangerous enemy on the battlefield isn't the opposing army, but the children with weapons or the drunks that have no clear leadership. I've had to return fire at both and while disgusting on the surface, when your buddy is sniped beside you, it doesn't matter how old or what sex pulled the trigger, you just engage that spot, later you find out it was whatever.

 

I think most don't understand the role of the military and think they go around conquoring places for the countries best interest. This is completely false. The military is but ONE tool in the massive toolbox the gov has and is used as a "last resort". Strong letter, blockades, embargoes, tactical airstikes and worst case scenario, ground invasion. (the "boots on the ground" wording the media likes to say)

 

A strong military however has proven repeatedly to be a deterrent to attack. With obama squandering the reputation the US has built over the years "don't mess with them they got this or that" to the point that it's "haha, they got all this crap but their too scared/indecisive and they even deal with kidnappers, haha"

Neville Chamberlane proved you can't continually placate people who won't stop...ever...

As a "Canadian" you should know better. Fortunately, your Country usually does, unlike us Americans. Am I bitter, damn right! I was one of those "pacifist peaceniks" you referred to. I indeed was Drafted in 1967 to participate in America`s campaign to prop up and support a corrupt South Vietnamese puppet regime. Exactly, what was gained? Except for massive profits for our Military Industrial Complex and those who profited with "No Bid Contracts". You statement on an all Volunteer Military makes no sense. Israel has one of the finest and best trained Military in the entire world and they have a compulsory Draft. Why? Exactly the opposite of your argument. "Everyone" needs to be involved in any War with fighting, the good, bad, and the ugly. Why should simply the poor and minorities be the ones sacrificed while Children of the privileged & rich are spared? Is one life less valuable then another? Some Wars need to be fought, no doubt. WW2 when the allies fought against both Japan, Germany, and to a lesser degree Italy. Most other non-declared Wars downgraded to mere (conflicts) still cost fortunes of both blood and money. You, as a career Soldier should have a better understanding of the big picture. To obey orders and do as your told while wearing the "uniform" is one thing. If I had it to do all over again, I would have never submitted to the Draft knowing what I know now. I would have joined thousands of other Americans who became permanent Canadians residents, "Landed Immigrants" many which later became Canadian Citizens. My final two cents on both Benghazi and being a Soldier of Fortune. Kill the Thread Kirby as you please! Cheers

[akirby]

Well that explains your anger, even if you're completely wrong. Where did you get the stupid idea that only the poor and minorities volunteer for service?

[Imawhosure]

Well, if I may interject........(maybe I can't) the militarys job is to kill people, and break things.

 

I do not subscribe to the theory---------->that we have to fight politically correct. The Vietnam veterans really got the short end of the stick; although as we see, many of our wars afterward have been the same way. I do not subscribe to any political view from right/left, that our kids should sacrifice their lives for moral authority. It should be relative to every person in this country, that if we actually go to war, we use everything in our arsenal short of nuclear to defeat the enemy; and that we do not tie our soldiers hands with ridiculous edicts for rules of engagement.

 

Phil, I understand your disgust at how all of this has worked. I had a good friend named "Marty" who went to Vietnam and had 1/2 of his hand shot off. A bullet right through between his thumb and index finger. His hand was crippled for life. Nobody would give him a job upon his return from active duty, and the last time I seen him which was 35yrs ago, he was trying to go to college on the GI bill to get a way to support himself and his soon to be family.

 

Our politicians do NOT deserve the soldiers they command. How can any politician DEMAND that one of our soldiers; one of our kids, lay down their lives to make Washington look caring? Once a military action is decided upon, then all hell should break loose upon the enemy to force them to submit, to allow our people to get out of there.

 

You got drafted, didn't you? You didn't want to do it, did you? But you did what the country asked, and now you are really pissed as they left you hanging out there to dry.

 

Nah, you get no blow back from me on that one Phil. When you commit troops; no matter a democrat or republican, you give your troops the best chance to win; or never commit them. The troops that went to Vietnam deserved far better than what they got, and it falls on both parties.

 

We may never agree Phil, but I thank you for your service, and I will always support your right to disagree with me on any issue, although you are probably wrong, lol. This is America, and I would never, ever, deny anyone...........most of all a veteran, the opportunity to put forth his/her opinion, on why things are such a SNAFU. The only thing I can do, is try and change what it is they fight against.

 

Thnx again, with all respect while not in agreement with your views, but understanding your terrible sacrifice, with all sincerity, Imawhosure.

[phil1336]

Well that explains your anger, even if you're completely wrong. Where did you get the stupid idea that only the poor and minorities volunteer for service?

Kirby, Are you really that naive? Who do you think makes up the largest demographic of those that volunteer to serve in our Military? Mostly poor lower income folks that have no better Job prospects. They are certainly not (all) minorities but they compose a huge percentage of those that serve with Caucasians filling in the rest. Do you know of many young Men and Women from affluent well to do Families who volunteer to serve? You will find the exception now and then but for the most part the working poor and low income families supply the majority of the Military`s rank and file. Would you kindly inform me of what I was (wrong) about in my rant?

[akirby]

Kirby, Are you really that naive? Who do you think makes up the largest demographic of those that volunteer to serve in our Military? Mostly poor lower income folks that have no better Job prospects. They are certainly not (all) minorities but they compose a huge percentage of those that serve with Caucasians filling in the rest. Do you know of many young Men and Women from affluent well to do Families who volunteer to serve? You will find the exception now and then but for the most part the working poor and low income families supply the majority of the Military`s rank and file. Would you kindly inform me of what I was (wrong) about in my rant?

Only 30% of active military are minority races. Over 50% are married. Your perception of the military is as skewed as your perception of the tea party and most other things.

 

You're no longer allowed to post such crap without a factual reference. To say you don't like something is fine. When you start spouting facts that are incorrect that's a different ball game.

[Ron W.]

http://www.statisticbrain.com/demographics-of-active-duty-u-s-military/