if only you guys were there to give such prescient advise. "let's go in, guns blazing." And hopefully everything will go perfectly as planned and it doesn't turn into a shitstorm of more dead and imperilled Americans and maybe some mutilated and dead civilains too. nothing engenders sympathy and cooperation like kids blown to pieces.
Do you think the Russians could fly over their embassy in the US with gunships, because they feel it might be threatened?
Are we threatening it? Also, I don't recall Russia had a AC-130 counterpart. I also don't recall the Russian Embassy is within the 2-4 range of such things. Anyway, They wouldn't be able to make it through anyway if they did decide to do so because our fighters would be on their asses.AussieReaper wrote:
Do you think the Russians could fly over their embassy in the US with gunships, because they feel it might be threatened?
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Russians should park their nuclear subs he never their embassy feels threatened
How does that compare with sitting back and doing nothing to prevent 2,000 Americans get killed eh?rdx-fx wrote:
No AC-130 gunships for you.
Don't care if they're two or four hours away in Djibouti, waiting for the word to go.
Don't care if the ground forces have targets under laser designators.
Don't care if there are "tier one" forces begging to go help, within an hour or two of the area.
President says "No".
This may be a repeat from 1993, or 2012.
Embassy overrun on September 11th - it's all about a movie nobody saw, and not a 9/11 anniversary thing....
Then sending 5,000 to their deaths in an unrelated and pointless adventure masquerading as 'payback'? While another 2,000 die in a half-assed sham.
But still, if its true as reported its not good by any stretch.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
@recip
There is no acceptable defense you can offer to validate his inaction. Moreover, the subsequent coverup has been disgusting.
@reap
I guarantee you russia doesn't feel threatened by the US anymore & feeling threatened is different than being attacked. derp.
@bargs, the russians used to deploy subs to US coasts regularly. China recently had a sub in the Gulf of Mexico.
@dil
Might as well blame clinton then too as he allowed bin laden to live even though he had numerous opportunities to take him out. Bush isn't the potus, and this didn't occur on his watch. As it has no bearing on this attack, I'm not going down that road either. Nice try, but no cigar.
There is no acceptable defense you can offer to validate his inaction. Moreover, the subsequent coverup has been disgusting.
@reap
I guarantee you russia doesn't feel threatened by the US anymore & feeling threatened is different than being attacked. derp.
@bargs, the russians used to deploy subs to US coasts regularly. China recently had a sub in the Gulf of Mexico.
@dil
Might as well blame clinton then too as he allowed bin laden to live even though he had numerous opportunities to take him out. Bush isn't the potus, and this didn't occur on his watch. As it has no bearing on this attack, I'm not going down that road either. Nice try, but no cigar.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Kids blown to pieces is a reality of a modern day urban battlefield no matter how politically convenient or inconvenient you see it as. Lots of little kids got blown to pieces in places like Dresden and Berlin, but I don't see anyone making a fuss over that. Reality isn't pretty. I find people using this type of argument to be particularly disgusting as they are they the same people who yell about being to heavy handed (Iraq) and not heavy handed enough (Syria). Point is, there isn't a correct avenue of action for people such as yourself, only people like yourself using examples of horrible things to further your point or opinion.Reciprocity wrote:
if only you guys were there to give such prescient advise. "let's go in, guns blazing." And hopefully everything will go perfectly as planned and it doesn't turn into a shitstorm of more dead and imperilled Americans and maybe some mutilated and dead civilains too. nothing engenders sympathy and cooperation like kids blown to pieces.
Sending in a SOF QRF with air support is a far, far cry from "going in with guns blazing" and "kids getting blown to pieces."Reciprocity wrote:
if only you guys were there to give such prescient advise. "let's go in, guns blazing." And hopefully everything will go perfectly as planned and it doesn't turn into a shitstorm of more dead and imperilled Americans and maybe some mutilated and dead civilains too. nothing engenders sympathy and cooperation like kids blown to pieces.
But you've got gobs of politico-military planning experience, weighing the benefit of the objective against the geopolitical costs of the action. But probably less than those who wanted to support those guys.
It came down to a political decision. And it was clearly not the right one--either during the attack or following.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
This.FEOS wrote:
Sending in a SOF QRF with air support is a far, far cry from "going in with guns blazing" and "kids getting blown to pieces."
It came down to a political decision. And it was clearly not the right one--either during the attack or following.
AC-130 has phenomenal observation and communications capability, combined with the capacity for extremely precise firepower. With ex-SEALs on the ground, and an AC-130 telling them where every hostile is at, plus a bit of controlled fire support from the AC-130 whenever a mortar crew got frisky or hostiles got too close to the Ambassador - they could've most likely held out until a QRF came to pick them up.
And, to be clear, the AC-130 wouldn't have to drop a single round outside of embassy grounds. Only people getting blown to bits would've been hostiles invading sovereign US territory (embassy grounds).
As far as the political fallout, it was a gross error on Obama's part to try to throw Hillary Clinton to the wolves. Clinton family is far too well connected. Hillary is not a disposable sacrificial scapegoat like Colin Powell. He may be POTUS, but she's got better connections.
Dresden and Berlin didn't have local populace with cell phones feeding videos to youtube. Events after a firebombing run in Japan, or the bomb at Hiroshima would surely be different than what transpired.Extra Medium wrote:
Kids blown to pieces is a reality of a modern day urban battlefield no matter how politically convenient or inconvenient you see it as. Lots of little kids got blown to pieces in places like Dresden and Berlin, but I don't see anyone making a fuss over that. Reality isn't pretty. I find people using this type of argument to be particularly disgusting as they are they the same people who yell about being to heavy handed (Iraq) and not heavy handed enough (Syria). Point is, there isn't a correct avenue of action for people such as yourself, only people like yourself using examples of horrible things to further your point or opinion.Reciprocity wrote:
if only you guys were there to give such prescient advise. "let's go in, guns blazing." And hopefully everything will go perfectly as planned and it doesn't turn into a shitstorm of more dead and imperilled Americans and maybe some mutilated and dead civilains too. nothing engenders sympathy and cooperation like kids blown to pieces.
Then I think they should serve as astonishing historical contexts then. The vast majority of Americans believe that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary and most still support that decision. One has to wonder what would happen if there had been a youtube in those days, people would probably denounce as the most evil thing in history.Ilocano wrote:
Dresden and Berlin didn't have local populace with cell phones feeding videos to youtube. Events after a firebombing run in Japan, or the bomb at Hiroshima would surely be different than what transpired.Extra Medium wrote:
Kids blown to pieces is a reality of a modern day urban battlefield no matter how politically convenient or inconvenient you see it as. Lots of little kids got blown to pieces in places like Dresden and Berlin, but I don't see anyone making a fuss over that. Reality isn't pretty. I find people using this type of argument to be particularly disgusting as they are they the same people who yell about being to heavy handed (Iraq) and not heavy handed enough (Syria). Point is, there isn't a correct avenue of action for people such as yourself, only people like yourself using examples of horrible things to further your point or opinion.Reciprocity wrote:
if only you guys were there to give such prescient advise. "let's go in, guns blazing." And hopefully everything will go perfectly as planned and it doesn't turn into a shitstorm of more dead and imperilled Americans and maybe some mutilated and dead civilains too. nothing engenders sympathy and cooperation like kids blown to pieces.
Once more, just because it is horrible doesn't mean it is wrong and it certainly doesn't make it right. The simple fact is, hard decisions make turning points in history and sometime making a hard decision means someone innocent dies. If you can't handle that, you have the answer as to why you aren't the one making the decisions.
You're still violating another countries airspace when you say send in a gunship to defend your embassy.13rin wrote:
@recip
There is no acceptable defense you can offer to validate his inaction. Moreover, the subsequent coverup has been disgusting.
@reap
I guarantee you russia doesn't feel threatened by the US anymore & feeling threatened is different than being attacked. derp.
@bargs, the russians used to deploy subs to US coasts regularly. China recently had a sub in the Gulf of Mexico.
@dil
Might as well blame clinton then too as he allowed bin laden to live even though he had numerous opportunities to take him out. Bush isn't the potus, and this didn't occur on his watch. As it has no bearing on this attack, I'm not going down that road either. Nice try, but no cigar.
You wouldn't tolerate another nation doing the same against you.
Don't have to violate anyones airspace.AussieReaper wrote:
You're still violating another countries airspace when you say send in a gunship to defend your embassy.
You wouldn't tolerate another nation doing the same against you.
Have your President call their President, ask nicely for airspace clearance, and perhaps some assistance from the local ground forces.
Most countries we have embassies in, we're on good enough terms that they'd allow a QRF in to rescue embassy personnel in danger of being overrun and killed.
That point is invalid as we don't attack other States' embassies in the US. When these asshats attacked our embassy they launched an attack on US sovereign territory. The US has every right to defend it with whatever means at their disposal. The US had all ready established control over their skies months before when the bamster lent our air force to the UN.AussieReaper wrote:
You're still violating another countries airspace when you say send in a gunship to defend your embassy.
You wouldn't tolerate another nation doing the same against you.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
definitely no use arguing with anonymous sources, speculation, blogs, and radio personalities who make their living riling up simpleton audiences.13rin wrote:
@recip
There is no acceptable defense you can offer to validate his inaction. Moreover, the subsequent coverup has been disgusting.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ … ?nopager=1---
The reasons for this perversity have been debated in the pages of intellectual magazines (like this one) for decades. Academics in the humanities and the social sciences, it’s sometimes suggested, too often wish to give their fields the legitimacy and public authority of science, and so write in highly technical, jargon-laced prose. Academics in the hard sciences, for their part, are too concerned with factual correctness to worry about making their productions agreeable, even to co-specialists. Then, of course, there is the really uncharitable interpretation: Many academics simply haven’t got anything useful to say, but if they say it in a sufficiently complicated fashion and use all the vogue terms, they’ll get credit for having said something without saying anything worth defending.
---
Very good article.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Cover for an asshole who sat by and idle watched Americans die while he had the power to stop it. What kind of bitch does that make you for being a blind pom-pom girl? You can't even break party lines to say "I would have done it differently." Totally pathetic.... The dank side is moldy now... Toss it bro and re-up....Recip wrote:
herp-a-derp-a-hurr-a-durpa-derp-a-derp-a
Last edited by 13rin (2012-11-01 22:05:20)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
13rin - as I highly doubt the validity of your apparent doctorate in international politics I'd suggest you drop it before you damage your side of the argument any further.
Jay - I thought that was the point of academia. (Also I fucking agree. I loath academic writing.)
Jay - I thought that was the point of academia. (Also I fucking agree. I loath academic writing.)
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
this perversity have been debated in the pages of intellectual magazines (like this one)
They are really modest, too.
They are really modest, too.
that's an annoyance, but little more. writing for your audience etc - though i do wonder if the difficulties in science communication especially aren't helped by the fact that many scientists simply have no idea how to present their ideas in a layman-friendly manner.Jay wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ … ?nopager=1---
The reasons for this perversity have been debated in the pages of intellectual magazines (like this one) for decades. Academics in the humanities and the social sciences, it’s sometimes suggested, too often wish to give their fields the legitimacy and public authority of science, and so write in highly technical, jargon-laced prose. Academics in the hard sciences, for their part, are too concerned with factual correctness to worry about making their productions agreeable, even to co-specialists. Then, of course, there is the really uncharitable interpretation: Many academics simply haven’t got anything useful to say, but if they say it in a sufficiently complicated fashion and use all the vogue terms, they’ll get credit for having said something without saying anything worth defending.
---
Very good article.
more of a problem for mine is aspects of peer review. i hold high hopes for open access, but it's still too hazy for my liking.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I find the average 'poorly written' article less annoying than having to wade through typical academia-speak - the average 'research paper' is so convoluted and filled with references and reviewing of previous work that its often hard to see what has been done thats really new, if anything. Every subject I've studied, prety well, has a tight network of 'experts' who get by through republishing the same paper every year for their whole career, but the paper is so densely worded and convoluted, references a few new texts to appear current, usually circularly references everyone elses paper in the network (and gets in a dig at those outside it), that its hard to tell nothing has been done.Spark wrote:
that's an annoyance, but little more. writing for your audience etc - though i do wonder if the difficulties in science communication especially aren't helped by the fact that many scientists simply have no idea how to present their ideas in a layman-friendly manner.Jay wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ … ?nopager=1---
The reasons for this perversity have been debated in the pages of intellectual magazines (like this one) for decades. Academics in the humanities and the social sciences, it’s sometimes suggested, too often wish to give their fields the legitimacy and public authority of science, and so write in highly technical, jargon-laced prose. Academics in the hard sciences, for their part, are too concerned with factual correctness to worry about making their productions agreeable, even to co-specialists. Then, of course, there is the really uncharitable interpretation: Many academics simply haven’t got anything useful to say, but if they say it in a sufficiently complicated fashion and use all the vogue terms, they’ll get credit for having said something without saying anything worth defending.
---
Very good article.
Industry papers by comparison are usually a breeze, people who are busy just don't have the time to conjure twaddle I guess.
I imagine the humanities are a lot worse.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-11-02 02:21:31)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
...
well no, references are kind of the most fundamental basis of any respectable academic. if you don't reference properly, then you're less than a hack. and the number of citations is by far the best quick quantitative measure of a paper's influence and quality.
well no, references are kind of the most fundamental basis of any respectable academic. if you don't reference properly, then you're less than a hack. and the number of citations is by far the best quick quantitative measure of a paper's influence and quality.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I'm pretty sure that there are hundreds of demonstrations outside of US embassies worldwide year round, I very much doubt he knew in time that this one wanted to attack and kill the employees that were present (over a fucking film no less). Besides this, in all cases it is first and foremost the responsibility of the country your embassy is in to provide security and even to undertake rescue operations if that were necessary.13rin wrote:
Cover for an asshole who sat by and idle watched Americans die while he had the power to stop it. What kind of bitch does that make you for being a blind pom-pom girl? You can't even break party lines to say "I would have done it differently." Totally pathetic.... The dank side is moldy now... Toss it bro and re-up....Recip wrote:
herp-a-derp-a-hurr-a-durpa-derp-a-derp-a
To do either yourself on foreign soil isn't possible without the permission of said country. To get this permission, that would involve people pushing about quite a bit of paperwork and stuff. It would, at the very least, take several days to grant such an appeal - even on the soil of your most faithful allies. Even then it would be questionable whether it actually will be granted because I doubt any country wants to admit that their own security forces are so incompetent they couldn't even undertake a small scale rescue ops on their own soil.
While it may give you a good mental image to believe that US special forces could've rappelled down from a helicopter onto the embassy, shoot some people, rescue the diplomats and save the day - reality doesn't allow for such brash undertakings in the span of a few hours. Let's say that even if that were possible, it's doubtful that any sort of military help would've arrived in time.
Now you can stop hatin' Obama for this.
inane little opines
I didn't say there should be no references, I don't see the value in the first 50% of a paper being a literature survey of previous work, the next 30% being a survey of the authors own previous work, 5% real work and the remainder a summary of the foregoing part of the paper.Spark wrote:
well no, references are kind of the most fundamental basis of any respectable academic. if you don't reference properly, then you're less than a hack.
Which is bullshit really. Most esoteric academic areas are practically closed communities, that they endlessly reference each other as they publish their next incremental paper doesn't mean a whole lot.and the number of citations is by far the best quick quantitative measure of a paper's influence and quality.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!