The UnBenghazi

[toomuchtime_]

Yeah that’s what we need. Another war.

CRAZY

Attacking an embassy is war. That is effectively what it is. By definition, an embassy is land held by another state.

So that land, is owned by the United States of America. Attacking it, is an attack on the US.

If it were me.... and thank G-d it isn't..... I would have a sign in front of the Embassy saying the protest was heard, but if they cross the line onto US soil again, their lives are forfeit. And I would have snipers on the roof, and the next guy that storms the gate would get a bullet between the eyes.

Fair warning, and 'pop' gone.

That sounds emotionally satisfying, but before deciding how to respond, it would be a good idea to remember why we are there and what we are trying to accomplish and how this or that response would effect the success of the mission.

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah that’s what we need. Another war.

CRAZY

Attacking an embassy is war. That is effectively what it is. By definition, an embassy is land held by another state.

So that land, is owned by the United States of America. Attacking it, is an attack on the US.

If it were me.... and thank G-d it isn't..... I would have a sign in front of the Embassy saying the protest was heard, but if they cross the line onto US soil again, their lives are forfeit. And I would have snipers on the roof, and the next guy that storms the gate would get a bullet between the eyes.

Fair warning, and 'pop' gone.

That sounds emotionally satisfying, but before deciding how to respond, it would be a good idea to remember why we are there and what we are trying to accomplish and how this or that response would effect the success of the mission.

The worst thing you can do, is show weakness. It doesn't matter what the mission is, if they don't respect you.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yeah that’s what we need. Another war.

CRAZY

Attacking an embassy is war. That is effectively what it is. By definition, an embassy is land held by another state.

So that land, is owned by the United States of America. Attacking it, is an attack on the US.

If it were me.... and thank G-d it isn't..... I would have a sign in front of the Embassy saying the protest was heard, but if they cross the line onto US soil again, their lives are forfeit. And I would have snipers on the roof, and the next guy that storms the gate would get a bullet between the eyes.

Fair warning, and 'pop' gone.

That sounds emotionally satisfying, but before deciding how to respond, it would be a good idea to remember why we are there and what we are trying to accomplish and how this or that response would effect the success of the mission.

The worst thing you can do, is show weakness. It doesn't matter what the mission is, if they don't respect you.

If the mission doesn't matter, why be there at all? Force protection is necessary, but if we create too many dead bodies it will be counter productive and the mission fails.

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah that’s what we need. Another war.

CRAZY

Attacking an embassy is war. That is effectively what it is. By definition, an embassy is land held by another state.

So that land, is owned by the United States of America. Attacking it, is an attack on the US.

If it were me.... and thank G-d it isn't..... I would have a sign in front of the Embassy saying the protest was heard, but if they cross the line onto US soil again, their lives are forfeit. And I would have snipers on the roof, and the next guy that storms the gate would get a bullet between the eyes.

Fair warning, and 'pop' gone.

That sounds emotionally satisfying, but before deciding how to respond, it would be a good idea to remember why we are there and what we are trying to accomplish and how this or that response would effect the success of the mission.

The worst thing you can do, is show weakness. It doesn't matter what the mission is, if they don't respect you.

If the mission doesn't matter, why be there at all? Force protection is necessary, but if we create too many dead bodies it will be counter productive and the mission fails.

IF THEY DO NOT RESPECT YOU.

If they respect you, you can engage in the mission. If they don't respect you, it doesn't matter what your mission is.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yeah that’s what we need. Another war.

CRAZY

Attacking an embassy is war. That is effectively what it is. By definition, an embassy is land held by another state.

So that land, is owned by the United States of America. Attacking it, is an attack on the US.

If it were me.... and thank G-d it isn't..... I would have a sign in front of the Embassy saying the protest was heard, but if they cross the line onto US soil again, their lives are forfeit. And I would have snipers on the roof, and the next guy that storms the gate would get a bullet between the eyes.

Fair warning, and 'pop' gone.

That sounds emotionally satisfying, but before deciding how to respond, it would be a good idea to remember why we are there and what we are trying to accomplish and how this or that response would effect the success of the mission.

The worst thing you can do, is show weakness. It doesn't matter what the mission is, if they don't respect you.

If the mission doesn't matter, why be there at all? Force protection is necessary, but if we create too many dead bodies it will be counter productive and the mission fails.

IF THEY DO NOT RESPECT YOU.

If they respect you, you can engage in the mission. If they don't respect you, it doesn't matter what your mission is.

We don't need their respect, we just need to protect our personnel and property, and we are doing a good job of it. Just to be safe, 100 marines have been brought in already, 750 are on the way and as many as 4,000 more may be moved there. With loads of fixed and rotary aircraft just minutes away, the US already has sufficient power to repel any further attacks, but if we kill too many Iraqis, the mission will have failed.

Iran is crafty. They sent Iraqi militia that are loyal to Iran to attack us, so when we struck back, we killed Iraqis, not Iranians and now the Iraqis are furious at us and the Iraqi government has to try to distance itself from us. Part of the mission is to maintain Iraqi sovereignty to contain ISIS and Iran, but if we kill too many Iraqis in the process, the mission will have failed. In effect, Iran has been using our superior military power against us. To put it another way, the more these Iraqi militia respect and fear our power, the greater Iran's influence in Iraq becomes.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

We have been in a quasi-war with Iran for many years, maybe decades.

It started with propping up Saddam against Iran.

Oops, now that Saddam's gone, Iran has spread into Iraq.

Thank you Dumbya Bush.

Aiding saddam was not the start. That came later. The Iran revolution of 1979 and subsequent kidnapping of American embassy workers was the start. Carter giving asylum to the shah threw fire on that.

 

[Andylusion]

Attacking an embassy is war. That is effectively what it is. By definition, an embassy is land held by another state.

So that land, is owned by the United States of America. Attacking it, is an attack on the US.

If it were me.... and thank G-d it isn't..... I would have a sign in front of the Embassy saying the protest was heard, but if they cross the line onto US soil again, their lives are forfeit. And I would have snipers on the roof, and the next guy that storms the gate would get a bullet between the eyes.

Fair warning, and 'pop' gone.

That sounds emotionally satisfying, but before deciding how to respond, it would be a good idea to remember why we are there and what we are trying to accomplish and how this or that response would effect the success of the mission.

The worst thing you can do, is show weakness. It doesn't matter what the mission is, if they don't respect you.

If the mission doesn't matter, why be there at all? Force protection is necessary, but if we create too many dead bodies it will be counter productive and the mission fails.

IF THEY DO NOT RESPECT YOU.

If they respect you, you can engage in the mission. If they don't respect you, it doesn't matter what your mission is.

We don't need their respect, we just need to protect our personnel and property, and we are doing a good job of it. Just to be safe, 100 marines have been brought in already, 750 are on the way and as many as 4,000 more may be moved there. With loads of fixed and rotary aircraft just minutes away, the US already has sufficient power to repel any further attacks, but if we kill too many Iraqis, the mission will have failed.

Iran is crafty. They sent Iraqi militia that are loyal to Iran to attack us, so when we struck back, we killed Iraqis, not Iranians and now the Iraqis are furious at us and the Iraqi government has to try to distance itself from us. Part of the mission is to maintain Iraqi sovereignty to contain ISIS and Iran, but if we kill too many Iraqis in the process, the mission will have failed. In effect, Iran has been using our superior military power against us. To put it another way, the more these Iraqi militia respect and fear our power, the greater Iran's influence in Iraq becomes.

Right, but until they respect us, then it will be utterly impossible to protect our personnel and property. Benghazi is proof of that.

We went around Libya, thinking we were doing all this good stuff, and never confronted the militias. Because we didn't want any bodies on our hands.

But these groups don't respect care bear hugs, and candy cains. They respect power.

It doesn't matter how many marines you have on standby if they never shoot one of these barbarians crashing the gate. They are going to keep doing it over and over, until they get blood, or we make them bleed.

When the backup consulate was being attacked in Benghazi, the local security, kept backing down. They retreated, and retreated. The attackers kept pushing unopposed, until the set the place on fire, and killed Stevens.

You know what would have stopped them? Shooting back as soon as they jumped the wall.

My point to you is.... if we do not establish this respect... they will keep attacking us until we end up having a blood bath.

Better to kill a few dozen people now, than to wait until we have a thousand people swarming our embassy, and we have to slaughter hundreds.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Aiding saddam was not the start. That came later. The Iran revolution of 1979 and subsequent kidnapping of American embassy workers was the start. Carter giving asylum to the shah threw fire on that.

The Shah was one of the best and most important allies that we ever had in that part of the world. Failing to back him up at a critical time, allowing him to be overthrown, allowing the Khomeniacs to take over Iran, was Carter's greatest failing; and the genesis of nearly all the trouble that we and the rest of the world have had in modern times with violent Islamist terrorism.

 

[gipper]

So, those people demonstrating outside the Empire’s embassy are terrorists deserving death.

Once they begin to assault our people they're fair game to be shot and killed. What do you propose?

Leave.

 

[K9Buck]

So, those people demonstrating outside the Empire’s embassy are terrorists deserving death.

Once they begin to assault our people they're fair game to be shot and killed. What do you propose?

Leave.

So run away? No thanks. I say we KILL the attackers. I also think we need to start making high-level Iranians die under bizarre circumstances to make them think twice about ******* with us. Trump has been too soft.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Aiding saddam was not the start. That came later. The Iran revolution of 1979 and subsequent kidnapping of American embassy workers was the start. Carter giving asylum to the shah threw fire on that.

The Shah was one of the best and most important allies that we ever had in that part of the world. Failing to back him up at a critical time, allowing him to be overthrown, allowing the Khomeniacs to take over Iran, was Carter's greatest failing; and the genesis of nearly all the trouble that we and the rest of the world have had in modern times with violent Islamist terrorism.

And every democrat you point that out to will respond the same way; “the shah was a US puppet regime who abused his people.” Completely omitting the context of the Cold War and Iran’s geography.
They use that line as an excuse for Iran going from bad to worse just so they can blame the US.

 

[pknopp]

We have been in a quasi-war with Iran for many years, maybe decades.

It started with propping up Saddam against Iran.

Oops, now that Saddam's gone, Iran has spread into Iraq.

Thank you Dumbya Bush.

Aiding saddam was not the start. That came later. The Iran revolution of 1979 and subsequent kidnapping of American embassy workers was the start. Carter giving asylum to the shah threw fire on that.

No it wasn't. It started long before that. We helped overthrow their government to put the Shah in place to start with. For some reason we simple refuse to mind our own business and wonder why people retaliate. They are doing nothing less than we would do.

 

[pknopp]

Aiding saddam was not the start. That came later. The Iran revolution of 1979 and subsequent kidnapping of American embassy workers was the start. Carter giving asylum to the shah threw fire on that.

The Shah was one of the best and most important allies that we ever had in that part of the world. Failing to back him up at a critical time, allowing him to be overthrown, allowing the Khomeniacs to take over Iran, was Carter's greatest failing; and the genesis of nearly all the trouble that we and the rest of the world have had in modern times with violent Islamist terrorism.

This idea that it's our decision on who runs another country is something I never will understand. We would never accept having another country come in and put our leadership in place. I don't understand how it is we think other countries will be OK with it.

 

[Bush92]

This is how you protect Americans.

View attachment 297608
Twitter
View attachment 297609
Twitter
View attachment 297613

Twitter


And now it’s time to send Iran a New Years gift.

View attachment 297611

Protect our people at home and abroad. That’s what a President does.

 

[Flash]

Trump is NOT saying the Obama bullshit that it is nothing more than an " spontaneous demonstration".

Looks like Obama's Iranian Mullah buddies are spending the cash that Obama gave them. Obama was a ******* moron to give the Iranians any money. What the hell was that shithead thinking?

 

[August West]

This is how you protect Americans.

View attachment 297608
Twitter
View attachment 297609
Twitter
View attachment 297613

Twitter


And now it’s time to send Iran a New Years gift.

View attachment 297611

Protect our people at home and abroad. That’s what a President does.

That`s what they should do but people are getting gunned down in Walmarts, schools, churches, movie theaters, etc. We spend hundreds of billions on wars but we`re okay with domestic terrorists.

 

[Flash]

Obama left an embassy staff to die!

Trump sends in the Military!

God bless Trump!

 

[gipper]

So, those people demonstrating outside the Empire’s embassy are terrorists deserving death.

Once they begin to assault our people they're fair game to be shot and killed. What do you propose?

Leave.

So run away? No thanks. I say we KILL the attackers. I also think we need to start making high-level Iranians die under bizarre circumstances to make them think twice about ******* with us. Trump has been too soft.

Yeah...your solution is to compound the problem, leading to yet more death and destruction. It does benefit the 1% though.

 

[August West]

Trump is NOT saying the Obama bullshit that it is nothing more than an " spontaneous demonstration".

Looks like Obama's Iranian Mullah buddies are spending the cash that Obama gave them. Obama was a ******* moron to give the Iranians any money. What the hell was that shithead thinking?

It was their own money genius. Can you blame them for wanting a nuke after we`ve been threatening them for decades?

 

[Meathead]

Sounds like Iran is about to feel the Thunder in some places.

I surprised they didn't call in the fat lady for her expertise on diplomatic mission assaults.