Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?

[Cutlass]

And who's he getting his information and advice from?

 

[MobBoss]

The subject bar of this absurd thread says it all. It speaks volumes that you are actually trying to rationalize and defend such despicable and clearly partisan comments only weeks before a presidential election.

Its neither partisan nor dispicable to ask why our people were murdered in Libya.

I mean, didnt Obama himself promise us a more transparent admin?

And, yes. It is no secret that it was Republican congressmen who decided to hire and retain mercenaries in place of government officials, and to "privatize" other governmental functions so their rich supporters could become even richer off the US taxpayers. To claim otherwise is highly disingenuous, as usual.

And that was something like a decade ago. Who's in charge now? If the dems continue the practice (and in turn endorse it) its actually more disingenuous to attempt to lay this practice at the feet of republicans. As usual of course.

And thats still aside the fact that the label of 'mercenary' is so improper of this individual, who has served his nation honorably, and was continuing to serve it in this capacity. He gave his life in trying to help, not play 'cowboy'. And you call him a 'thug'.

 

[DinoDoc]

And who's he getting his information and advice from?

Valerie Jarret?

Seriously though, given what they did have (real time video from drones overhead and reports from forces engaged on the ground), I would be curious how much more intelligence would have been needed to commit forces in order to save American lives.

 

[strijder20]

And thats still aside the fact that the label of 'mercenary' is so improper of this individual, who has served his nation honorably, and was continuing to serve it in this capacity. He gave his life in trying to help, not play 'cowboy'. And you call him a 'thug'.

Where does that 'nation' guy you speak of live? I'd like to persuade him to stop paying people to wage war.

 

[holy king]

i guess it was a military decision not to intervene.

i dont know if it was a good one or not since i have no further information and dont know anything about these things anyway, but i guess military decisions may or may not involve letting people die because there's no real chance to save them.

 

[AlpsStranger]

If Romney is reelected then I personally expect outrage to be equal when he starts a war with Iran.

After all, we suddenly care so much about this stuff despite just absolutely loving to start as much of a <bleep>storm as possible.

Electing a Republican because you're mad that Americans died overseas is nearly exactly like jumping from a frying pan into an open fire.

 

[azzaman333]

Let's not forget that the most recent Republican president sent thousands of Americans (since, as we all know, those are the only lives that count) to their deaths in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'd fire the man the instant that statement was made. The president has totally politicized the state department and military. The objective now is not to serve and protect. The objective is to avoid doing anything that might incur risk. Risk of reputation.

Cow pies.

Obama made the call to get bin Laden, and it was at grave "risk of reputation".

You're talking out of your butt and politicizing an attack that killed several Americans. How despicable of you.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If Romney is reelected then I personally expect outrage to be equal when he starts a war with Iran.

After all, we suddenly care so much about this stuff despite just absolutely loving to start as much of a <bleep>storm as possible.

Electing a Republican because you're mad that Americans died overseas is nearly exactly like jumping from a frying pan into an open fire.

Honestly, I'd almost be inclined to say that anyone voting for either side is guilty of consenting to mass murder, but then I remember all of the true "Lesser of two evils" people and I just feel bad.

There are no options this year. None. None from the major parties.

 

[MobBoss]

Cow pies.

Obama made the call to get bin Laden, and it was at grave "risk of reputation".

You're talking out of your butt and politicizing an attack that killed several Americans. How despicable of you.

Everything is political. Hasnt the President politicized the attack that killed Obama? Of course he has. So why isnt it fair if the shoe is on the other foot?

 

[GhostWriter16]

There are even people polticizing the freaking hurricane now.

People will politicize anything and everything in order to win. Its crazy.

In Libya's case, of course, Obama may well have been negligent.

Does that mean, elect Romney?

Afraid not..

 

[FriendlyFire]

Everything is political. Hasnt the President politicized the attack that killed Obama? Of course he has. So why isnt it fair if the shoe is on the other foot?

Fair ?

I like how Republicans are all suddenly worked up and concerned about the death of 4 US civilians by terrorists. Thank God Republicans dont know about the 3000 dead Americans that died on 9-11, Republicans would have impeached someone.

 

[Phrossack]

Everything is political. Hasnt the President politicized the attack that killed Obama?

Reread this closely.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Everything is political. Hasnt the President politicized the attack that killed Obama?

I do believe the President praised everyone involved, from the SEALS who performed the task, to the intelligence people, to the military and government at large, and made no attempt to suggest that the issue was solely his win, and his party's win. I do also believe he took credit for authorizing the mission, because that's the role he played in it, and it was the correct call. And he's got every right to do so.

Meanwhile, folks are politicizing an attack on American lives and the lives of our allies, while the event is occurring, and shortly afterward. Making it a partisan thing, when it's not in the slightest.

That's despicable.

 

[DinoDoc]

No one was responding to the Benghazi attack as it was occurring. That seemed to have been the problem. Romney had released a statement critical of the Cairo statement. An action the Obama admin later agreed with him on by saying that it had been unauthorized.

 

[kochman]

Yes, this is what Panetta said. "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place,"

I'd fire the man the instant that statement was made. The president has totally politicized the state department and military. The objective now is not to serve and protect. The objective is to avoid doing anything that might incur risk. Risk of reputation.

When we have people at risk, when the ambassador is at risk, when our territory is at risk, when our prestige and reputation is at risk, and you don't have real-time information then what you do is insert recon forces to get it.

Words do not exist that could express the distain I feel for Obama, Clinton, and Panetta.

It's like they said, well, we could potentially save 4 people, but we may lose 30... Let's just stick with the losing 4, even though that isn't "optimal".

So you think throwing in troops when you do not know what they will be facing is the smart way to go about things? GW Bush must be your favorite person ever.

That's sometimes what you have to do, yes. That's specifically what the Marines do... first responders floating around in big ships waiting to fight at the drop of a hat with poor intelligence at their disposal. If we always waited to be sure we could win something handily, we'd rarely have anything to fight... because we would have already lost.

It's not like we'd be invading an entire country and then trying to occupy it for however long it is popular... it would be a small unit action supported by airplanes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Let's be honest with ourselves, you guys get paid to kill people so large corporations can make bigger profits. There's nothing honorable about it.

Ok, assume you're right for a moment. I don't think you are, although I do believe it's a very nasty concept having those large corporations so close to the decision making, I'm not willing to put it into the terms you just did. But for argument's sake.

Doesn't the intention and motivators of the soldier play any role here? A soldier who joined the army for the love of his country, for the desire to fight terrorism, for an urge to give his life meaning even, by definition cannot be a mercenary. A good way to check that is wondering if they'd fight for 'the other side' if it paid the same. I think you'll find very few US soldiers willing to fight for anything but the United States.

edit: I saw that this originated with Phrossack's post. Same question to him. I guess the difference might be: soldiers who were called mercenaries, and those who fit the textbook definition.

i guess it was a military decision not to intervene.

i dont know if it was a good one or not since i have no further information and dont know anything about these things anyway, but i guess military decisions may or may not involve letting people die because there's no real chance to save them.

I feel exactly the same way with regard to intervening in Iraq.

 

[Phrossack]

Ok, assume you're right for a moment. I don't think you are, although I do believe it's a very nasty concept having those large corporations so close to the decision making, I'm not willing to put it into the terms you just did. But for argument's sake.

Doesn't the intention and motivators of the soldier play any role here? A soldier who joined the army for the love of his country, for the desire to fight terrorism, for an urge to give his life meaning even, by definition cannot be a mercenary. A good way to check that is wondering if they'd fight for 'the other side' if it paid the same. I think you'll find very few US soldiers willing to fight for anything but the United States.

edit: I saw that this originated with Phrossack's post. Same question to him. I guess the difference might be: soldiers who were called mercenaries, and those who fit the textbook definition.

I don't really regard American soldiers as mercenaries; the majority of them seem motivated primarily by ideological reasons, but people rarely join for just one reason; some like the benefits, or might want military service because they think it will make them better people. I like the fact that American soldiers tend to be more interested in helping than in making money. I like that the US Military is under strong civilian control and has never even attempted to mount a coup.

My point was that the line between merc and soldier can get awfully blurry at times. A mercenary cannot merely be defined as one who fights for money; after all, soldiers fight and they receive money. You might say that mercs, unlike soldiers, fight mainly for money, but this is difficult to prove. Some mercenaries are motivated by a variety of causes; during its war, Rhodesia employed a great deal of foreigners. They received the same pay as Rhodesian slodiers and for the most part were treated the same way. Many of these foreigners seem to have been ideologically motivated and believed they were fighting for a cause. And maybe some of the Flying Tigers fought in part because they didn't like the idea of Japan invading China and slaughtering millions. Just because these causes were not that of their homelands shouldn't really change anything.

On the other hand, many soldiers throughout time and space have fought for other causes than their "countries". A great deal of soldiers in other times and other places were (or are) poor and needed the money. For example, the majority of Rhodesian soldiers during the Bush War were actually black, and it's hard to imagine them fighting because they liked the idea of white supremacy. And what makes those who fight for nationalistic ideology morally superior to all other soldiers? Would you call a man noble if he signed up for the US Army in 1898 to fight the Spanish? Or what about a Briton at around the same time who wanted to join the fray against the Boers? These wars were not essentially defensive in nature for the US and UK; they were wars of choice and, to a certain extent, greed, declared by government officials. How is it noble to kill strangers because your government tells you to?

I'm not saying military service is morally wrong, either. Far from it. An Iranian who signed up to help stop Saddam's invasion force does seem to be fighting for a good cause. As does an American who joins the Army with the intention of fighting al-Qaeda because his family member died on 9/11. I'm just saying that many soldiers have been or are motivated by pay, that sometimes mercenaries have motives other than money, and that sometimes, even soldiers who intend to "fight for their country" are actually just serving in an unnecessary offensive war started by government officials.

 

[MobBoss]

General Carter Ham, commander of Africom has been relieved of command. Pentagon says its just part of planned rotations, but the rumor mill is going nuts that he's being removed from command because of what happened in Libya.

Even if it has nothing to do with Libya, why fuel the rumor mill by replacing him not long after this occurred? Surely they could see how this would be interpreted?

 

[Bugfatty300]

An important distinction is that a mercenary isn't a member of a government-sponsored military.

So either way, active duty soldiers (foreign or otherwise) fighting on behalf of their governments cannot be considered mercenaries regardless of personal motivations unless one holds a very liberal view of what a mercenary is.