Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
RavenHawk

This is my rifle

109 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ellapenella

Okay..you were a Marine...and yeah...I go by that..once a Marine always a Marine...because you cannot erase being a Marine...its ingrained in your soul. But the reason I was asking is cause I figured you were. I was a Corpsman (not a CorpseMan) in the late 70s. :tu:

... just wanted to say , thank you .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

OK, lets look at the options.

1) Evacuate the embassy by arrangement with what remains of the local government, using civilian aircraft, and with the ambassadors honour guard surrendering their sidearms at the airport.

2) Send in the troops. In the absence of landing/assembling permission from Saudi and the other gulf states, this would have to be a maritime forced beach landing, supported by Naval Aviation. Presumably, this would require 2nd Marine Division at North Carolina, supported by at least one aircraft carrier (one may already be available in the region, but will be due for rotation soon).

It would take a couple of weeks to assemble 2nd Division, find suitable ships for them, and to arrive in the gulf.

There would then - presumably - be a forced amphibious assault, probably around Al Hudaydah. (a city of some 400,000 people). From there, it is a 100Km drive to the capital, Sana'a, where the Embassy is.

It would take several days for the landing to be complete, and for infantry to be mated with transport et al. Throughout this period, you could expect resistance to begin to form, in the shape of hit-and-run geurilla raids, improvised explosive devices, and so on. The Corp would retaliate, and the civilian death toll would start to rise.

Eventually, they would ride the N4 all the way to the capital, Sana'a - with IED's and RPG attacks every kilometer of the way.

Question: if some bright spark arranges a peaceful civilian demonstration, with thousands of Yemeni's blocking the road, what would the Marines do ? Stop ? Open fire to clear a path ? We're now flirting with War Crimes.

Meanwhile, the militia's would surely have stormed the US Embassy, killed the Marines, and captured the US Ambassador and his wife/family. NOW what are you going to do ? Occupy Sana'a and try to find them ? Occupy a city of 2,000,000 people with only 10-15,000 troops ? Start blowing up one of the oldest continously inhabited cities in the world, and a World Heritage Site to boot ?

Perhaps you'll call in the regular Army for reinforcements, or at least one of the other Marine Divisions.

Just how much of America's military power are you going to committ ?

Meanwhile, the entire Islamic world is in an uproar. America is being sanctioned by the General Assembly of the UN. All US forces are now being asked to leave ALL of the Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia. Shocked at the precedent of a direct amphibious assault, the navies of Iran, Pakistan, and India are on alert, and are shadowing the US fleet and its carrier(s). Who KNOWS what the Iranian mini-submarines are up to ? With tensions THAT high, it only takes a couple of mistakes, and suddenly you have Harpoon and Exocet missiles in flight. The USA could EASILY loose an aircraft carrier or two in that sort of Brouhaha.

Egypt closes the Suez Canal to all US shipping - military or commercial - and in common with Islamic Africa (the north and east) closes airspace to all us aircraft, civlian or military.

Cost: a few Billions of US dollars, several hundred US military casualties. Several tens of thousands of Yemeni casualties (mostly civilian).

Result: Ambassadorial staff and Marine guards captured, handed over to the Islamic State, and subsequently beheaded live on TV.

US military forces evicted from the entire Middle East and Northern/Eastern Africa. US influence in the region reduced to less than zero.

Timescale: Potentially open-ended. Would make Vietnam look like a picnic. (the Viet Cong weren't equipped with F15 fighters and Patriot anti-air missiles; several Gulf states ARE. They - along with many adjacent states (including Iran) also have long-range anti-shipping missiles like Harpoon and Exocet, which can threaten the US aircraft carriers).

So, Mr/Mrs President, do you choose option (1) or option (2).

Personally, I'd be leaning somewhat towards option (1). What do YOU think ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Yemen would of gotten the message loud and clear --that they needed to get that little mess under control - Teams of Special Force should of been heading in along side F.E.S.T ....We would of left just not under their terms. After Benghazi many of our forces would of been more than willing to be there this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Not that anyones is looking for the fight but ....America can't keep allowing these rebel militants to feel as if they can attack and kill them because "they know" Obama won't allow the soldiers to fight them back. So it seems they keep doing it .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

OK, lets look at the options.

1) Evacuate the embassy by arrangement with what remains of the local government, using civilian aircraft, and with the ambassadors honour guard surrendering their sidearms at the airport.

That was definitely a choice and basically the one that occurred, but do you understand how lucky we got and the message that sent? What would have happened if after the Marines surrendered their weapons and al Qaeda decided to take them hostage? The message that was sent says that our Embassies are a prime target. We won’t do a damn thing to defend them. We don’t have the will to unleash the Wrath of GOD.

So, Mr/Mrs President, do you choose option (1) or option (2).

I wouldn’t choose either. I already laid out a basic plan. As I said earlier: it looks like the Carl Vinson is in the Persian Gulf region and elements of the 11th MEU are supporting operations in Syria and Iraq (from Kuwait and Bahrain). It would take a few days but a traditional amphibious landing is not needed. No troops on the ground until they reach the Embassy. It is possible to select a target near the shore and assault it. Use that amphibious operation as a decoy. But the Yemeni military is in disarray. It is still possible for a lighting strike. Blackhawks and Sea Stallions can make the Embassy in a few hours. The Mog is a really bad example to base not going in. Don’t you think that we have developed some new techniques to prevent another Blackhawk Down? We wouldn’t have much of a military that wasn’t willing to go in because of that. It was ready to go into Benghazi but were prevented.

Personally, I'd be leaning somewhat towards option (1). What do YOU think ?

If we consider that this wasn’t what happened, I wouldn’t choose it. Primarily because I would be thinking ahead. Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. When you retreat, it enables more of the same in other locations. There’ll be those situations in the future that they can’t run away and they will have to fight. If we establish the pattern that we will flee then it makes it more difficult to rescue them. If they know we will lay waste to get our people out, they will think twice about preventing rescue.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Jeez Louise......

America didn't retreat. It just closed it's embassy.

When it did this, it lost diplomatic immunity, and that meant that its troops no longer had the right to remain armed on Yemeni soverein (hah) territory.

Folks.. this is REALLY simple.

Obama did the right thing. Except he didn't... it was the State Department that did this. And they handled it very efficiently, and with the minimum of fuss.

Ravenhawk, are you truly suggesting that EVERY time the US State Department decides to close an Embassy, they must first invade that country and kill it civilians in order to accomplish a "forced extraction" ?

Nobody would ever want a US Embassy in their nation ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanato

Truly ?

Could you give me some examples of when this has worked ?

It is my understanding that the NEO has not had to be deployed since its inception. I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

It is my understanding that the NEO has not had to be deployed since its inception. I could be wrong.

I think somebody would have noticed an infantry company being bogged down and decimated, along with the ambassadorial staff, so I'm guessing that the NEO has - indeed - not been depolyed. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Jeez Louise......

America didn't retreat. It just closed it's embassy.

It was all out panic and retreat. It was not just closing an Embassy. If it was just that then there would have been arraignments made so that the Marines would have been pulled out ahead of time with all their equipment.

When it did this, it lost diplomatic immunity, and that meant that its troops no longer had the right to remain armed on Yemeni soverein (hah) territory.

That’s basically right but there are protocols in place that usually direct the extraction of security, staff, etc. Usually, there will be an LHA in support somewhere near. None of that happened.

Folks.. this is REALLY simple.

Obama did the right thing. Except he didn't... it was the State Department that did this. And they handled it very efficiently, and with the minimum of fuss.

And who ultimately directs the State Department? Abandoned vehicles are hardly efficient. Fuss? They were fleeing for their lives. They were left to fend for themselves. It was a repeat of Benghazi. This POTUS has no idea on how to defend our territory. Our porous border if proof of that.

Ravenhawk, are you truly suggesting that EVERY time the US State Department decides to close an Embassy, they must first invade that country and kill it civilians in order to accomplish a "forced extraction" ?

No and if that is what you think I said then you are very much off base. As I said, there are protocols in how to close an Embassy. You don’t run for your life. Just closing an Embassy does not require a forced extraction, but this was not just closing an Embassy. Perhaps if we evacuated when many of the others did, this wouldn’t have happened.

Nobody would ever want a US Embassy in their nation ever again.

Well, if they want to normalize relations with us, they’ll have to. They’ll establish protocols that ensure extraction without force.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

It was all out panic and retreat. It was not just closing an Embassy. If it was just that then there would have been arraignments made so that the Marines would have been pulled out ahead of time with all their equipment.

I'm not sure thats fair, RavenHawk. WAS their panic ? There would have been a degree of haste I would imagine, because they where reacting to events. (the takover of the capital by rebel forces). But panic ? That seems a bit harsh ? Anyway, if the Marines had pulled out ahead of time, who would have been left to protect the Ambassadorial staff ? After all, a pull-out like that couldn't have been done secretly, and the rebels would be alerted that the defence of the Embassy had just been drasticly reduced.

That's basically right but there are protocols in place that usually direct the extraction of security, staff, etc. Usually, there will be an LHA in support somewhere near. None of that happened.

Ummm.... according to this Reuters report, there was a wasp-class LHD assault carrier on standby off Yemen's coast, just in case.

And who ultimately directs the State Department? Abandoned vehicles are hardly efficient. Fuss? They were fleeing for their lives. They were left to fend for themselves. It was a repeat of Benghazi. This POTUS has no idea on how to defend our territory. Our porous border if proof of that.

No and if that is what you think I said then you are very much off base. As I said, there are protocols in how to close an Embassy. You don't run for your life. Just closing an Embassy does not require a forced extraction, but this was not just closing an Embassy. Perhaps if we evacuated when many of the others did, this wouldn't have happened.

Well, if they want to normalize relations with us, they'll have to. They'll establish protocols that ensure extraction without force.

Again, I think that is unfair. Abandoning the vehicles - granted that there was no time to SELL them (and not many buyers) - is not only efficient, but the ONLY thing to do. Who cares about a bunch of cars ? It would hardly be cost effective to try and ship them back to the USA, surely ?

I can't help but think that you are indulging a little bit in "20-20 hindsight". But apart from that, I would have said that the evacuation was actually pretty smooth ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

I'm not sure thats fair, RavenHawk. WAS their panic ? There would have been a degree of haste I would imagine, because they where reacting to events. (the takover of the capital by rebel forces). But panic ? That seems a bit harsh ? Anyway, if the Marines had pulled out ahead of time, who would have been left to protect the Ambassadorial staff ? After all, a pull-out like that couldn't have been done secretly, and the rebels would be alerted that the defence of the Embassy had just been drasticly reduced.

Ummm.... according to this Reuters report, there was a wasp-class LHD assault carrier on standby off Yemen's coast, just in case.

Again, I think that is unfair. Abandoning the vehicles - granted that there was no time to SELL them (and not many buyers) - is not only efficient, but the ONLY thing to do. Who cares about a bunch of cars ? It would hardly be cost effective to try and ship them back to the USA, surely ?

I can't help but think that you are indulging a little bit in "20-20 hindsight". But apart from that, I would have said that the evacuation was actually pretty smooth ?

It does rather give a Dunkirk-like impression, though, you must admit. (or the Last Days of Saigon). Surely the very fact of abandoning an Embassy (not just moving to new premises) suggests a headlong flight. Yes, I seem to be agreeing with Ravenhawk here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Good God Man...would you please stop blaming George W Bush for everything. Clinton was president...it happened on his watch...he was the Commander in Chief...he was more concerned with getting his cohorts in the White House that actually being President...a man who never wore any Uniform. Bush wore a Uniform...he was a pilot in the Coast Guard. The only thing Clinton ever piloted was a cigar...and we know that story well don't we. That happened on his watch. Bush was no where near that debaucle. Sorry dude...that dog doesn't hunt!

HW, not W. i don't think anyone could even blame W for something that happened in 1993. (Bush (HW) did indeed see action in the Navy, which was more than his chubby little son did.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanato

I think somebody would have noticed an infantry company being bogged down and decimated, along with the ambassadorial staff, so I'm guessing that the NEO has - indeed - not been depolyed. :P

It is my understanding that they have never had to be deployed because we have not had a situation where they needed to. But the company wouldn't bee destroyed they have a lot of support.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Canada didn't have the negative rap that the US had until recently. I still remember when US travelers were pretending to be Canadian to avoid bias.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Degen

I always thought they needed a few flamethrowers...

The only difference between you and isis in your fanaticism is you are a christian zionist and them muslim. Isis would be proud to call you one of there own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

You flirt with libel there, Degen. :unsure2:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

You flirt with libel there, Degen. :unsure2:

With guys like him it's just a matter of time before they disappear forever from the site. They simply do not have the capacity to properly debate or even offer opinions without giving in to rage. eAlmost veryone succumbs to it occasionally but this guy? seems to be in perpetual scream mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

I hate to say it, but you do share a lot of similar ideology with ISIS. Both of you believe in end times being relatively soon if not now, both believe in Jesus (or Issa) coming back and leading the faithful to exterminate the minions of the antichrist (everyone else), both believe in a holy state for the chosen people, and both believe that the path of the sword is the only way. That's why I was saying that the root ideology behind ISIS was contagious and could infect the US.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

I hate to say it, but you do share a lot of similar ideology with ISIS. Both of you believe in end times being relatively soon if not now, both believe in Jesus (or Issa) coming back and leading the faithful to exterminate the minions of the antichrist (everyone else), both believe in a holy state for the chosen people, and both believe that the path of the sword is the only way. That's why I was saying that the root ideology behind ISIS was contagious and could infect the US.

Your post just shows your ignorance of Christianity. Christ comes back to save the world...not to destroy it. Of the end times, Jesus said, He who lives by the sword must die by the sword. He who leads into captivity, goes into captivity. The root ideology is not Christianity...it is Islam.

The end of the world as we know it Gromdor is not something to believe in or not believe in...it is fact. The entire Global Economy is a house of cards, leveraged upon a House of cards....

Consider this my friend: In the history of the world...there has never been an Empire that remained. Babylon fell. Rome fell. And America will fall too. All from the inside. Sad...but true...but...as it relates to you ...and yes...you are my friend...as it relates to you and the rest of the world...when the proverbial fecal matter hits the fan...and America is no more...do you think that a wave of Something Dark And Sinister will not grab the entire world by the throat? If America falls...you fall too. Back literally to the dark ages...except these will be...the Darkest of Ages. It is not a question of if...but when.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

How is what you said and what I said different?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Degen

With guys like him it's just a matter of time before they disappear forever from the site. They simply do not have the capacity to properly debate or even offer opinions without giving in to rage. eAlmost veryone succumbs to it occasionally but this guy? seems to be in perpetual scream mode.

Only towards the fanatics like you. You have t hat much in common with isis but you fail to see that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

How is what you said and what I said different?

You said:

both believe in Jesus (or Issa) coming back and leading the faithful to exterminate the minions of the antichrist (everyone else), both believe in a holy state for the chosen people, and both believe that the path of the sword is the only way.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying...I thought you were saying that Christians believe in the path of the sword...which is the opposite of what Jesus taught

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

.......

Consider this my friend: In the history of the world...there has never been an Empire that remained. Babylon fell. Rome fell. And America will fall too. All from the inside. .......

I don't think I entirely buy into that analogy, Joc. Empires may fall, but not necessarily the 'host' nation.

The Roman empire fell, but modern day Italy still exists. It has a greater population than the entire Roman Empire at its height. It is both economically and Militarily more powerful than the old Empire. Ditto with the Ottoman Empire, the French Empire, and many others. The British Empire fell, but Britain still exists last time I checked. (albeit with a smaller population).

America, in the traditional sense, is not even an empire. Its world influence may wax and wain, but I can't see it falling back to the dark ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Your post just shows your ignorance of Christianity. Christ comes back to save the world...not to destroy it. Of the end times, Jesus said, He who lives by the sword must die by the sword. He who leads into captivity, goes into captivity. The root ideology is not Christianity...it is Islam.

The end of the world as we know it Gromdor is not something to believe in or not believe in...it is fact. The entire Global Economy is a house of cards, leveraged upon a House of cards....

Consider this my friend: In the history of the world...there has never been an Empire that remained. Babylon fell. Rome fell. And America will fall too. All from the inside. Sad...but true...but...as it relates to you ...and yes...you are my friend...as it relates to you and the rest of the world...when the proverbial fecal matter hits the fan...and America is no more...do you think that a wave of Something Dark And Sinister will not grab the entire world by the throat? If America falls...you fall too. Back literally to the dark ages...except these will be...the Darkest of Ages. It is not a question of if...but when.

joc I think that most who hear your words genuinely cannot admit to themselves that they even MIGHT be true. God does not exist ergo none of the end times eschatology is real. They cling to it like a secular lifesaver and when they need it most they're going to realize it doesn't float. But isn't that what this tribulation is ultimately ABOUT? Some will seek at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Degen

joc I think that most who hear your words genuinely cannot admit to themselves that they even MIGHT be true. God does not exist ergo none of the end times eschatology is real. They cling to it like a secular lifesaver and when they need it most they're going to realize it doesn't float. But isn't that what this tribulation is ultimately ABOUT? Some will seek at that time.

Most of us dont see such a dim view of the world. Just because all we hear from media is mostly negative doesnt mean we have to be the same. As for the bolded i couldnt care less if your version of the end times is real or not, im not gonna let something that may or may not happen stop me from living a free life. Id rather die on my feet then live on my knees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.