|
Red7 posted:I've no doubt, but you only need a 100 or so blokes to get whipped up into a frenzy by a firebrand Mullah and your days ruined, how ruined it is is dependent on how screwed up the country is and/or the level of penetration by radical Islam. Yes, no matter how small the threat is we need an everpresent military force. What, a riot in L.A.? Send in the marines! This is your argument?
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
HMDK posted:Yes, no matter how small the threat is we need an everpresent military force. What, a riot in L.A.? Send in the marines! This is your argument? In L.A. there would be an established police force and riot squad. The same thing is needed over there, and those best prepared for that kind of duty would be the Marines or other elite operatives of the U.S. army. Emphasis could be made to avoid casualties if altercations do happen, but there is nothing wrong with providing security to foreign diplomats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
HMDK posted:Yes, no matter how small the threat is we need an everpresent military force. What, a riot in L.A.? Send in the marines! This is your argument? If there were a serious minority of people in an American, Canadian, UK, etc. city that was devoted to removing the government and installing a new government devoted to removing people's freedoms, and showed no problem with bombing and killing civilians in order to do it, and the existing police force had already had problems dealing with them? Yes, I think using a military force is justified. Until a strong security force has been established, and the threat of Islamic militants reduced significantly or eliminated, using a military force of some sort to establish and maintain security is a perfectly logical action. Christ, we have the Army come in and help clear snow after large storms. The military isn't just devoted to waging war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Myrdhale posted:In L.A. there would be an established police force and riot squad. The same thing is needed over there, and those best prepared for that kind of duty would be the Marines or other elite operatives of the U.S. army. Marines do not, and should not, perform the duties of a police force.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If there were a serious minority of people in an American, Canadian, UK, etc. city that was devoted to removing the government and installing a new government devoted to removing people's freedoms, and showed no problem with bombing and killing civilians in order to do it, and the existing police force had already had problems dealing with them? Yes, I think using a military force is justified. Until a strong security force has been established, and the threat of Islamic militants reduced significantly or eliminated, using a military force of some sort to establish and maintain security is a perfectly logical action. Wait, what. What army are we discussing now? And despite what is happening to paramilitarize police in some places, this is not a good thing, HMDK fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:Marines do not, and should not, perform the duties of a police force. Well then we just need to figure out when terrorist acts turn from police maters to military matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:51
|
|
Miltank posted:Well then we just need to figure out when terrorist acts turn from police maters to military matters.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
HMDK posted:Yes, no matter how small the threat is we need an everpresent military force. What, a riot in L.A.? Send in the marines! This is your argument? Red7 posted:even if that is provided by the host government in the more stable states. Congratulations on sucking at reading. And paramilitary != military. The Marines are not a police force, absolutely, but you DO need a secure environment if you are going to do aid type operations. This is not a new thing or something that's only happened post 9/11 or something unique to the Middle East, look at Somalia in the early '90s or the Balkans for pretty much all of the '90s or the Philippines for the past couple decades or several countries in Latin America at various points over the past couple of decades. The U.S. (or any other foreign) military is not and should not be the solution in every one of these situations, but waving your hands and making it sound like security is not a component of providing aid to a region is not grounded in reality, at all. kylejack posted:Or a better idea, let Sudan make decisions about security in their own damned country.  Turning that into some EVIL U.S. IMPERIALIST thing is idiotic, because like I've said previously numerous times in this thread, that was a tiny deployment of a few additional Marines solely for internal security for backup in the event that the Sudanese government is unable to contain the protests (as they are required to do under the Vienna Convention) and historically even countries that have less than optimal relations with the U.S. have granted requests like this because it's about security of diplomatic missions, something that pretty much everyone agrees is important. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Congratulations on sucking at reading. Yeah, no poo poo. But basically a 100 people or less could be "a credible threat" according to this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
A small threat in some of these countries that have experienced anti-western protests/riots in the past week includes mortars and heavy weaponry. Every case is different, but surely we can get behind a military presence in places like Libya, Iraq and Somalia to protect what we have out there. I'm not talking about battalions of troops - but embassy guards, security details for state officials, Military 'aid' workers and private security contractors for NGOs are surely not a step too far? e: when you're 10-20 people in a compound surrounded by 100 pissed off guys, its very much a credible threat. Red7 fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
Where did the story even emerge that Obama and the administration had previous warning about these attacks? I haven't seen that reported ANYWHERE credible. It seems like another of those things that started on twitter and blogs and spread like wildfire, so now every Obummer hater is just parroting it, but can't source it. Hell - I couldn't even find it on Fox.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
Red7 posted:A small threat in some of these countries that have experienced anti-western protests/riots in the past week includes mortars and heavy weaponry. We already have all of these.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
HMDK posted:Yeah, no poo poo. But basically a 100 people or less could be "a credible threat" according to this. Does a 100 person threat justify invading a country or deploying the military to provide aid or whatever? Obviously not, but you can't just completely hand wave away a security threat to aid simply because it's small.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Where did the story even emerge that Obama and the administration had previous warning about these attacks? I haven't seen that reported ANYWHERE credible. It seems like another of those things that started on twitter and blogs and spread like wildfire, so now every Obummer hater is just parroting it, but can't source it. Did you check the Republican party's press releases? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Red7 posted:Did you check the Republican party's press releases? wouldn't that be redundant?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:Marines do not, and should not, perform the duties of a police force. I wasn't saying they should, sorry if I wasn't clear. What I was saying is that his analogy is flawed. L.A. has established, effective law enforcement to provide security and keep the peace. Countries (like Libya) are not as well equipped, if they even have the capabilities of providing security at all. We aren't talking about a massive detachment of troops. This is a small force of paramilitary to aide in the case of an incident. Security abroad is needed, and a paramilitary force is the most sensible choice, since they are trained for the kinds of scenarios that might happen. E: The Canadian forces do our Country proud.  Vigilamus pro TeVV Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
HMDK posted:Wait, what. Oh, I meant the Canadian Armed Forces. We have them come in and do disaster relief domestically, when necessary, including, famously, shovelling Toronto's snow after a large storm. The only point being that the military is not confined to waging war: we pay them, so we might as well send them to places where we need poo poo done. If that's to shovel snow, off you go. If it's to help provide security at foreign missions, and help establish a local police force to eventually take over, that's a worthy job too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:Muslim fundamentalism is not, at it's core, anti-American. The cases of Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan are ones in which Muslim fundamentalists are willing to make implicit or explicit military alliances with the United States and other jahili states like Turkey. I know this is a bit late, but I find this really hard to be true. There's plenty of proof out there that the Kurds are playing a role in the FSA, which in turn would not help any alliance with Turkey due to the PKK. Islamic Fundamentalism, in its modern form, comes down to two major events that allowed it to gain popularity: The support of the Shah in power, and the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Both of these were a clear exercise of power by the west. The situation for the mujaheddin in Afghanistan was built upon an alliance with Pakistan and the ISI (the Taliban went onto to be a major asset for Pakistan in Kashmir against India), which the US filtered supplies into.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:05
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Turning that into some EVIL U.S. IMPERIALIST thing is idiotic, because like I've said previously numerous times in this thread, that was a tiny deployment of a few additional Marines solely for internal security for backup in the event that the Sudanese government is unable to contain the protests (as they are required to do under the Vienna Convention) and historically even countries that have less than optimal relations with the U.S. have granted requests like this because it's about security of diplomatic missions, something that pretty much everyone agrees is important.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Does a 100 person threat justify invading a country or deploying the military to provide aid or whatever? Obviously not, but you can't just completely hand wave away a security threat to aid simply because it's small. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Where did the story even emerge that Obama and the administration had previous warning about these attacks? I haven't seen that reported ANYWHERE credible. It seems like another of those things that started on twitter and blogs and spread like wildfire, so now every Obummer hater is just parroting it, but can't source it. The Independent reported it...everything I've seen indicates it's absolute bullshit, but the Obummer crowd is eating it up. The funny thing is that pretty much everything else The Independent reports is going to be vehemently rejected by that crowd (I mean, Robert Fisk is their Middle East correspondent for christ sakes), but on this issue they are clearly speaking the god's honest truth because it makes Obama look bad. And people are getting things conflated...the Marines that Sudan rejected were there solely for internal security. They would never leave the embassy compound, period. They weren't there to engage with the rioters or provide security for U.S. diplomats leaving the compound or secure aid or anything else, they were only there to secure the actual embassy compound. HMDK posted:Agreed. Fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Red7 posted:Did you check the Republican party's press releases? That's my point. Even if the RNC said something, you'd think Fox would pick it up. I see nothing though. This, again, seems like the whole "marines didn't have ammo" thing. I really don't understand the conservative's hatred of basic journalistic requirements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Where did the story even emerge that Obama and the administration had previous warning about these attacks? I haven't seen that reported ANYWHERE credible. It seems like another of those things that started on twitter and blogs and spread like wildfire, so now every Obummer hater is just parroting it, but can't source it. As I recall, The Independent ran a story with an unsourced unspecific claim about how somebody knew it was coming ahead of time. No one has since confirmed this claim and it seems to be largely bogus. The Independent was probably just making it up, hoping that it would turn out to have some sort of validity and they could claim the scoop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:06
|
|
Myrdhale posted:I wasn't saying they should, sorry if I wasn't clear.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:As I recall, The Independent ran a story with an unsourced unspecific claim about how somebody knew it was coming ahead of time. No one has since confirmed this claim and it seems to be largely bogus. The Independent was probably just making it up, hoping that it would turn out to have some sort of validity and they could claim the scoop. I think it more likely that their "source" was someone like, say, Dick Cheney.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:As I recall, The Independent ran a story with an unsourced unspecific claim about how somebody knew it was coming ahead of time. No one has since confirmed this claim and it seems to be largely bogus. The Independent was probably just making it up, hoping that it would turn out to have some sort of validity and they could claim the scoop. Any link to this article? It's, obviously, hard to search for so maybe someone has it bookmarked? I ask because it's being brought up repeatedly on Facebook and I'm trying to calm my crazy BibleBeltConservapublican friends down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
kylejack posted:But that might be exactly what it is about, for the protesters. Bringing in foreign soldiers very well could inflame the situation more. Sudan is protecting the embassies and do not want foreign soldiers coming in. Their house, their rules. If the United States doesn't want to play by the host nation's rules, they can withdraw their embassy. Protesters got into the German embassy and set it on fire. I don't know what you consider "protecting," but obviously it's radically different than my definition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
kylejack posted:But that might be exactly what it is about, for the protesters. Bringing in foreign soldiers very well could inflame the situation more. Sudan is protecting the embassies and do not want foreign soldiers coming in. Their house, their rules. If the United States doesn't want to play by the host nation's rules, they can withdraw their embassy. The protesters would only see the Marines if they penetrated the embassy...I feel like people really have the wrong idea about this. The Marines aren't going to be out on the street, cracking protesters heads, they aren't even going to be near the external gate, they are going to be in the embassy chancery itself and will only see protesters if it gets to the point where the protesters are on the verge of completely storming the compound and U.S. lives are at risk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
kylejack posted:We're talking about Sudan, not Libya. Sudan is the one who rejected the Marines detachment. Sudan has an active government, not a transitional mess. Sudan gets to decide who they let in their country. Ah I think I forgot we were talking about the specific case, sorry. Coming back to a thread sometimes I lose the train of the conversation. I'm still not sure it's a worthwhile move on the Sudanese government to do this, but ultimately, short of an international incident, What they decide is what is going to happen. It's a dumb thing to contest though, because as has been said, this is a standard procedure that has happened numerous times in the past. Doing this isn't a show of sovereignty over fear of U.S. troops, this is the Sudanese government wanting to stick it to America. If things do end up getting to much for the Sudanese security forces to handle, well, it'll be terrible for the embassy staff but the Sudan would take a huge amount of flak internationally for it, so hopefully they'll be smart enough to not let things get out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Any link to this article? It's, obviously, hard to search for so maybe someone has it bookmarked? How about if you ask them for a reference? Demand something from an actual news source, not a blog. They should have to prove their claim, not just spout random bullshit for you to try to prove false.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The protesters would only see the Marines if they penetrated the embassy...I feel like people really have the wrong idea about this. The Marines aren't going to be out on the street, cracking protesters heads, they aren't even going to be near the external gate, they are going to be in the embassy chancery itself and will only see protesters if it gets to the point where the protesters are on the verge of completely storming the compound and U.S. lives are at risk. Wait, you DID get that I was making a joke about the marines, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:13
|
|
PT6A posted:Protesters got into the German embassy and set it on fire. I don't know what you consider "protecting," but obviously it's radically different than my definition. None of that means that Marines can enter another sovereign nation without permission.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
Here's the story from the Independent. Here's a Politico story featuring quotes from Administration officials denying it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:14
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The protesters would only see the Marines if they penetrated the embassy... I feel like people really have the wrong idea about this. The Marines aren't going to be out on the street, cracking protesters heads, they aren't even going to be near the external gate, they are going to be in the embassy chancery itself and will only see protesters if it gets to the point where the protesters are on the verge of completely storming the compound and U.S. lives are at risk. It doesn't matter, because Sudan said no, and it's their country.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:How about if you ask them for a reference? Demand something from an actual news source, not a blog. They should have to prove their claim, not just spout random bullshit for you to try to prove false. I try. These are the people that believe it is my duty to disprove their claim, rather than the other way around. I regularly link to things and they either read it, dismiss it as "biased" or "lame stream media." Not only that, but I generally like to read the dissent myself - whatever my belief may be, I like to at least read what the other guy's points are first hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:15
|
|
sicarius posted:Where did the story even emerge that Obama and the administration had previous warning about these attacks? I haven't seen that reported ANYWHERE credible. It seems like another of those things that started on twitter and blogs and spread like wildfire, so now every Obummer hater is just parroting it, but can't source it.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
kylejack posted:Arriving by Star Trek Transporter? Never showing their faces outside the walls of the embassy building? That being the case, wouldn't we want to remove our embassy? Aren't embassies traditionally seen as the alien country's turf for the purpose of law enforcement, citizenship, etc. If that's the case forbidding us to transport things into and out of our sovereign soil (even if that sovereignty is granted) seems counter to the purpose of an embassy - which is to establish a little piece of Alien Country on Host Country's soil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:17
|
|
sicarius posted:That being the case, wouldn't we want to remove our embassy? Aren't embassies traditionally seen as the alien country's turf for the purpose of law enforcement, citizenship, etc. If that's the case forbidding us to transport things into and out of our sovereign soil (even if that sovereignty is granted) seems counter to the purpose of an embassy - which is to establish a little piece of Alien Country on Host Country's soil.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
HMDK posted:Wait, you DID get that I was making a joke about the marines, right? Directed at kylejack, not you. kylejack posted:Are you under the impression that the Vienna Convention requires a host nation to successfully repel all attacks against an embassy? Are you aware that it isn't possible to anticipate and repel all attacks? Sudan has made an effort to protect the embassies. Sometimes the bad guys outmaneuver or outgun the defenses. Which is why they aren't entering without permission. But making it sound like a host nation allowing a diplomatic mission to be violated is just an "oopsie" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of just how big of a deal that is diplomatically speaking. And as I've said numerous times, this isn't a U.S. IMPERIALISM INVASION thing. It's less than 50 Marines, and pretty much every other time the U.S. has requested this (even with countries that have less than friendly relations with the U.S.) the request was granted, because diplomatic security is a big deal. sicarius posted:That being the case, wouldn't we want to remove our embassy? Aren't embassies traditionally seen as the alien country's turf for the purpose of law enforcement, citizenship, etc. If that's the case forbidding us to transport things into and out of our sovereign soil (even if that sovereignty is granted) seems counter to the purpose of an embassy - which is to establish a little piece of Alien Country on Host Country's soil. Jesus christ no. Embassies are not sovereign soil. How many times do we have to go over this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
sicarius posted:I try. These are the people that believe it is my duty to disprove their claim, rather than the other way around. I regularly link to things and they either read it, dismiss it as "biased" or "lame stream media." Not only that, but I generally like to read the dissent myself - whatever my belief may be, I like to at least read what the other guy's points are first hand. In my own experience, these people aren't worth arguing with. They're not interested in the truth, they're only interested in shouting you down. It's a game for them. Their goal is to wear you down and frustrate you with a blizzard of bullshit, until you give up. That's how they win. The only way for you to win is to not play their game. Don't accept their premises, tell them everything is false without proof and do not respond unless they offer evidence. They'll eventually knock it off, or go bug someone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:21
|
|