Barbados? Nobody's gonna be there outside the spring break time. 
Posted on 10/12/2012 3:38:07 PM PDT by Perdogg
When terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 of this year and killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, there were no U.S. Marines deployed in Libya to defend U.S. diplomats, diplomatic facilities and classified information and equipment.
However, says the State Department, a Marine Security Detachment was deployed on that day to carry out those duties at the U.S. Embassy in Bridgetown, Barbados.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Worth repeating ... worth Tweeting ... (as if I even know what tweeting is...lol)
“... the culmination of 4 years of blitzing the constitution ends in such negligence, such complacency, such outright stupidity and delusional dissociation...”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
Hear Hear!
It was laughable when Biden said they had bad intelligence regarding the Libyan embassy attack, yet in the same breath says they have very good intelligence regarding how close Iran is to having a nuke....................two different intelligence agencies?
It needs to get into the R&R campaign hands before Tuesday for USA voters (and Hillary)to hear it.
More like Valerie Jarrett The Reptilian.
I’ve been to Barbados. Why would we need a contingent there?
Seems safe.
Hey, if you could choose, where would you choose to go? To some North African hellhole or to a tropical paradise?
Of course, Marines would always choose to go where they were needed. So it must have been some State Department puke deciding this...
Hey, if you could choose, where would you choose to go? To some North African hellhole or to a tropical paradise?
Of course, Marines would always choose to go where they were needed. So it must have been some State Department puke deciding this...
I thought I heard Ms Lamb (or what ever her name was) in the hearing state the funding cuts in no way would effect security because if it was needed, they would get the money from somewhere.................shots down the lefts “it was the republicans” fault line doesn’t it
The smartest people in America, possibly the world, could’ve avoided all this by saying at the start its a national security issue and they are investigating it.
Because hostage situations work so well for incumbent Presidents? Huh? Ask Jimmy Carter about that.
The trouble is that even when a government is openly hostile, they use proxies instead of doing it themselves.
This goes all the way back to the Chinese Boxer Rebellion, and its “Siege of the International Legations”, with the “Dilemma of the Chinese Government”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_the_International_Legations#Dilemma_of_the_Chinese_Government
This is actually fairly typical as to how such scenarios come about.
1) There is some form of armed conflict going on in the country, not directly against the government, yet, but would be a serious threat if it did.
2) The government or its military is too weak to protect the foreign embassies from the radicals, and afraid to do so as it might turn them against the government.
3) Elements of the government support the radicals, and will betray the government to the radicals if it moves against them.
Now this being said, pretty much the same situation developed in Tehran, except the government fully backed the radicals, and as soon as they took over the embassy, the government claimed that it could not drive them out, or they might kill the hostages. The radicals quickly agreed to this idea and made that threat.
The big difference between “55 Days at Peking”,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056800/
and Tehran and Libya, is that the State Department is today utterly spineless about defending our embassies from mobs, be they independent or working for the government as proxies. They fear that it will offend the hostile government.
But this is strictly policy. By the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (treaty, 1961), we have the full authority to terminate any dirt bag who invades our embassy grounds without permission. Or a whole s-load of dirtbags.
And it doesn’t matter if the host nation says it cannot, and does not, protect our embassy. It is our statement that, “fine with us, we will defend ourselves.”
And a squad of US Marines with serious weapons, in a reinforced, elevated, defensive position are far more dangerous than trying to rape an irate, giant porcupine.
All obama has to do is hold on and stall for another 3 weeks and he’s home free. Then it won’t matter whats’s uncovered no matter which way the election goes.
But this is strictly policy. By the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (treaty, 1961), we have the full authority to terminate any dirt bag who invades our embassy grounds without permission. Or a whole s-load of dirtbags.
And it doesn’t matter if the host nation says it cannot, and does not, protect our embassy. It is our statement that, “fine with us, we will defend ourselves.”"
Dead on! Thanks for mentioning the treaty that addresses this. I will try to remember that. In my mind, it is very similar in effect to the clauses of the Geneva Conventions which state that ALL combatants who are not garbed in recognizable uniform should be treated as spies - which essentially means they are liable to be executed without trial, as well as not being protected by ANY of the other provisions of the Geneva Conventions. That, again, is part of treaty law where our state department and military have chosen to be without spine.
Absolutely - the mismanagement of our ambassador's safety amounts to dereliction of duty, calling into serious question Obama's qualification to be commander in chief. The cover-up is the head on the boil; the scandal grows and festers each day it is allowed to persist. The cover-up rots the soul of everyone associated with it and, in turns, reveals the rot already there, hiding the details of a man's murder in order to hold onto power one more day.
I always knew that the embassy in Paris would be well guarded.
Not a lot. What people fail to realize is the programmatics behind putting a Marine Detachment in Benghazi. Its not an overnight fix.
Also, a typical Marine Det doesn't have the manpower or hardware to fend off a hundred fighters: particularly when those fighters have mortars.
ALL MARINE DETACHMENTS RELY ON THE HOST GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THE EXTERIOR OF THE EMBASSY. There are no exceptions to this. Even during a civil war.
The only solution to a host government unable to protect a diplomatic mission, there needed to be an expeditionary task force on the ground. That means a Marine combat unit (not embassy guards): and the State Department didn't ask for it.
Barbados? Nobody's gonna be there outside the spring break time.
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.