What Will Make Americans In The Middle East Safe?

Tagged:  
No votes yet

We have already have superior fire power, by far and yet were not safe. Maybe a few hundred billion for some F22s will make us safe in the Middle East.

Obama handling of Arab relation is pretty much the same as Bush's.

IF you had said:
What Will Make Americans In The Middle East Safe?
1) More ring kissing and bowing to the Saudi King by The President
2) Superior Firepower AND THE WILLINGNESS TO USE IT

The answer would be Superior Firepower AND THE WILLINGNESS TO USE IT.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Bush taught us that the President needs to kiss and hold hands with the Saudi King to be safe.

We used around a $1 trillion of firepower in the last 10 years. How much more should we use? $2 tillion? $100 trillion?

1st, Bush hasn't been president for YEARS. Blaming Bush for your hero's failings doesn't work anymore.

Now my question to you. How many LIVES should we waste? How many times do you turn the other cheek before you strike back and strike hard?

Let's go back to grade school, Sensor. Remember when everyone used to pick on you? Remember when the class bully used to push you around? Although I'm sure YOU never stood up to him. I'll bet if you had punched back the kids teasing you would have stopped.

There are some people who cannot be reasoned with. They ONLY understand force. And if you deny that you are either ignorant or a Dimocrat. Probably both.

All it would take is one bloody retaliation. Find those responsible for terrorist attacks and drop a small, low yield nuke on them. NOT put them on trial in New York.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

You're bat shit crazy...no wonder your wife took the kids and ran.

The use of a nuclear weapon is a terrorist act against the world, the entire world, and you know it.

Stop it with the insane anger against some towelheads in some caves. Identify the real problem: The corruption of military response in order to make the area safe for Western oil companies. The real problem is us. Sane and honest leadership is needed, and we haven't had that for a long, long time. The 2012 election won't get us any of that, either. We've only ourselves to blame for that.

Let's start with a couple hundred dollars worth of ammunition, and distribute it to the Marines guarding the US Embassies.

I read the same report you did. Not giving ammunition to security personnel is quite common. It prevents against negligent discharges and issuing ammo becomes a controlled step within the Rules of Engagement.

In fact when I turned over in Afghanistan, the Marines we took over from weren't even armed on a daily basis. That was because the base was considered a secure location as I'm sure the embassy was considered a secure location with local authorities patroling the area outside the embassy.

What's funny is after my CO arrived in Afghanistan she had me arm all the Marines on base. We were not permitted to go condition 3 (magazine of rounds inserted) but we did carry our ammo. Even more was after Ft. Hood, every other base followed our lead.

I fully support the Ambassador's decision. Because not issuing Ammo doesn't mean the Marines didn't have access to ammunition if they felt there was a violent threat. I would be willing to bet the SNCO in charge of the barracks armed the Marines as soon as the wall was breached and the flag torn down.

Now the Libyan embassy not having Marines at all!!! That was just stupid.

MikeyA

Except it wasn’t the Libyan embassy that was it attacked, it was a consulate. There are over 200 consulates worldwide, stationing 50 Marines in each would mean 10,000 Marines wouldn’t be available for deployment.

I’d also like to point out that ten Libyan security guards also died defending the consulate.

Did I say station Marines at every consolate?

Let me explain the way it works. Marines, above all other services, can be given specific tasks by the President. That is why we are designed to be expeditionary and able to respond with 24 hrs anywhere in the world. Plus unlike the army, the President doesn't have to pull Marines out after a set time frame. We are essentially a strike force always at the President's disposal and for the last 100 years we've been directed to protect overseas civilians and diplomats.

Now.... in every area the Marines have a Region Security Office. These are designed to specifically support the embassy guards, which are there to support the State Dept. So.... since Libya had an Ambassador they then had an embassy. Sooooo, when the Ambassador opened the consolate they choose security... in this case Libyan. However, the Ambassador is the top official at any embassy, what they say goes. The Ambassador COULD have choose to take Marines with him to the consolate to at a bare minimum ensure his own safety, yet many times a small detachment of Marines can be dispatched from the RSO or the embassy to oversee security, all it requires is the Ambassador to direct it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard " The secondary mission of Marine Security Guards is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S. Government property located within designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular premises during exigent circumstances, which require immediate aid or action." To not have Marines who are specifically trained for this type of mission on hand was a huge mistake as I previously stated.

MikeyA

Mohamadden killers and their Liberal fellow travelers in their hate filled World, have killed so many unborn and born innocents, every murderous dreg from all of History, cannot and never will compare with their murderous numbers !!

Cut off all foreign aid to those country's burning our flag, wait a day then Nuke all them bastards!

Here's how to deal with these kind of radicals.
"The Chicago Way"

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.