One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Why did U.S. military carried out a total of 546 “activities” in Africa last yr?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 4 next>>
Mar 28, 2014 07:48:25   #
Patty
 
and why couldn't we get to Benghazi?
"For years, the U.S. military has publicly insisted that its efforts in Africa are small scale. Its public affairs personnel and commanders have repeatedly claimed no more than a “light footprint” on that continent, including a remarkably modest presence when it comes to military personnel. They have, however, balked at specifying just what that light footprint actually consists of. During an interview, for instance, a U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokesman once expressed worry that tabulating the command’s deployments would offer a “skewed image” of U.S. efforts there.

It turns out that the numbers do just the opposite.

Last year, according AFRICOM commander General David Rodriguez, the U.S. military carried out a total of 546 “activities” on the continent -- a catch-all term for everything the military does in Africa. In other words, it averages about one and a half missions a day. This represents a 217% increase in operations, programs, and exercises since the command was established in 2008.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, Rodriguez noted that the 10 exercises, 55 operations, and 481 security cooperation activities made AFRICOM “an extremely active geographic command.” But exactly what the command is “active” in doing is often far from clear.

AFRICOM releases information about only a fraction of its activities. It offers no breakdown on the nature of its operations. And it allows only a handful of cherry-picked reporters the chance to observe a.......
read more
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38080.htm

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 07:55:24   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
Patty wrote:
and why couldn't we get to Benghazi?
"For years, the U.S. military has publicly insisted that its efforts in Africa are small scale. Its public affairs personnel and commanders have repeatedly claimed no more than a “light footprint” on that continent, including a remarkably modest presence when it comes to military personnel. They have, however, balked at specifying just what that light footprint actually consists of. During an interview, for instance, a U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokesman once expressed worry that tabulating the command’s deployments would offer a “skewed image” of U.S. efforts there.

It turns out that the numbers do just the opposite.

Last year, according AFRICOM commander General David Rodriguez, the U.S. military carried out a total of 546 “activities” on the continent -- a catch-all term for everything the military does in Africa. In other words, it averages about one and a half missions a day. This represents a 217% increase in operations, programs, and exercises since the command was established in 2008.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, Rodriguez noted that the 10 exercises, 55 operations, and 481 security cooperation activities made AFRICOM “an extremely active geographic command.” But exactly what the command is “active” in doing is often far from clear.

AFRICOM releases information about only a fraction of its activities. It offers no breakdown on the nature of its operations. And it allows only a handful of cherry-picked reporters the chance to observe a.......
read more
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38080.htm
and why couldn't we get to Benghazi? br "For ... (show quote)





Meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries?


But Obama ties the hands of the U.S. navy in fighting the African pirates on the high seas,

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 08:06:50   #
Patty
 
I read an article explaining why he is shredding our military. He is putting the money into NATO military forces to use them on a global platform. 7Washington is using the 27 NATO countries as Washington Empirical army. Their Navy ships have been armed with US weapons system such as AEGIS and integrated into the US SYSTEM. European governments have lost control of their military forces and our tax money is being used to expand the US dominated NATO structure.

hprinze wrote:
Meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries?


But Obama ties the hands of the U.S. navy in fighting the African pirates on the high seas,

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 08:16:12   #
Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan
 
Patty wrote:
and why couldn't we get to Benghazi?
"For years, the U.S. military has publicly insisted that its efforts in Africa are small scale. Its public affairs personnel and commanders have repeatedly claimed no more than a “light footprint” on that continent, including a remarkably modest presence when it comes to military personnel. They have, however, balked at specifying just what that light footprint actually consists of. During an interview, for instance, a U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokesman once expressed worry that tabulating the command’s deployments would offer a “skewed image” of U.S. efforts there.

...They were looking for the Presidents Birth Certificate...
It turns out that the numbers do just the opposite.

Last year, according AFRICOM commander General David Rodriguez, the U.S. military carried out a total of 546 “activities” on the continent -- a catch-all term for everything the military does in Africa. In other words, it averages about one and a half missions a day. This represents a 217% increase in operations, programs, and exercises since the command was established in 2008.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, Rodriguez noted that the 10 exercises, 55 operations, and 481 security cooperation activities made AFRICOM “an extremely active geographic command.” But exactly what the command is “active” in doing is often far from clear.

AFRICOM releases information about only a fraction of its activities. It offers no breakdown on the nature of its operations. And it allows only a handful of cherry-picked reporters the chance to observe a.......
read more
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38080.htm
and why couldn't we get to Benghazi? br "For ... (show quote)


...They were looking for O's birth certificate....
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 09:29:13   #
RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC
 
Patty wrote:
and why couldn't we get to Benghazi?
"For years, the U.S. military has publicly insisted that its efforts in Africa are small scale. Its public affairs personnel and commanders have repeatedly claimed no more than a “light footprint” on that continent, including a remarkably modest presence when it comes to military personnel. They have, however, balked at specifying just what that light footprint actually consists of. During an interview, for instance, a U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokesman once expressed worry that tabulating the command’s deployments would offer a “skewed image” of U.S. efforts there.

It turns out that the numbers do just the opposite.

Last year, according AFRICOM commander General David Rodriguez, the U.S. military carried out a total of 546 “activities” on the continent -- a catch-all term for everything the military does in Africa. In other words, it averages about one and a half missions a day. This represents a 217% increase in operations, programs, and exercises since the command was established in 2008.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, Rodriguez noted that the 10 exercises, 55 operations, and 481 security cooperation activities made AFRICOM “an extremely active geographic command.” But exactly what the command is “active” in doing is often far from clear.

AFRICOM releases information about only a fraction of its activities. It offers no breakdown on the nature of its operations. And it allows only a handful of cherry-picked reporters the chance to observe a.......
read more
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38080.htm
and why couldn't we get to Benghazi? br "For ... (show quote)


Could it be because Africa covers more than 11 million square miles and makes up over 20% of the earth's land mass? Or could it be because there was not enough information about the attack, or enough time (remember, Amb Stevens was killed within 1-1/2 hrs after the attack started) to gather the necessary forces and deploy them?

Why don't you tell us exactly how U.S. forces could have repelled the attack? Give us a timeline.

Tell us why the most senior general in AFRICOM didn't feel that there was a viable military option that night.

I think you watch too much tv.

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 09:34:24   #
Patty
 
Hope this helps.

http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/70782/Benghazi-Timeline/#vars!date=2012-05-12_12:15:35!

This might help shed some light also.
"•July 9, 2012 - Request sent to State Dept. by Ambassador Stevens requesting 13 additional security personnel, citing “unpredictable” situation in Benghazi
•July 21, 2012 – Warning issued to State Dept. by RSO Nordstrom stating security risk of U.S. officials Benghazi is “HIGH,” a designation that placed the State Dept. in breach of minimum security requirements dictated by law
•August 2, 2012 – Urgent request for “protective body detail” sent via cable to Secretary Clinton’s State Dept. office from Ambassador Stevens
•August 5, 2012 – State Dept. orders removal of Ambassador Stevens’ security detail teams (SST); SST departs 8/8/13
•August 16, 2012 - Urgent warning sent via email from RSO Nordstrom to Secretary Clinton’s State Dept. office citing a “dire” security situation
•September 8, 2012 – Urgent warning sent to U.S. from Benghazi security personnel stating an attack is rumored to be imminent
•September 11, 2012 - Urgent warning issued to State Dept. via cable from Ambassador Stevens citing a rapidly deteriorating security in Benghazi; Stevens was assassinated within hours of this issuance"

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 10:24:30   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
RetNavyCWO wrote:
Could it be because Africa covers more than 11 million square miles and makes up over 20% of the earth's land mass? Or could it be because there was not enough information about the attack, or enough time (remember, Amb Stevens was killed within 1-1/2 hrs after the attack started) to gather the necessary forces and deploy them?

Why don't you tell us exactly how U.S. forces could have repelled the attack? Give us a timeline.

Tell us why the most senior general in AFRICOM didn't feel that there was a viable military option that night.

I think you watch too much tv.
Could it be because Africa covers more than 11 mil... (show quote)




That information has been poblished by several well qualified military experts in various places at various times. I don't memorize all the titles and web sites but it's easy to find for someone who wants to be informed.
But you Obama idolizers don't want to be informed, you just want to deny anything that does not glorify your despicable idol.

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 12:40:06   #
RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC
 
Patty wrote:
Hope this helps.

http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/70782/Benghazi-Timeline/#vars!date=2012-05-12_12:15:35!

This might help shed some light also.
"•July 9, 2012 - Request sent to State Dept. by Ambassador Stevens requesting 13 additional security personnel, citing “unpredictable” situation in Benghazi
•July 21, 2012 – Warning issued to State Dept. by RSO Nordstrom stating security risk of U.S. officials Benghazi is “HIGH,” a designation that placed the State Dept. in breach of minimum security requirements dictated by law
•August 2, 2012 – Urgent request for “protective body detail” sent via cable to Secretary Clinton’s State Dept. office from Ambassador Stevens
•August 5, 2012 – State Dept. orders removal of Ambassador Stevens’ security detail teams (SST); SST departs 8/8/13
•August 16, 2012 - Urgent warning sent via email from RSO Nordstrom to Secretary Clinton’s State Dept. office citing a “dire” security situation
•September 8, 2012 – Urgent warning sent to U.S. from Benghazi security personnel stating an attack is rumored to be imminent
•September 11, 2012 - Urgent warning issued to State Dept. via cable from Ambassador Stevens citing a rapidly deteriorating security in Benghazi; Stevens was assassinated within hours of this issuance"
Hope this helps. br br http://www.tiki-toki.com/t... (show quote)


Nobody disagrees at all that inadequate security measures were not in place to protect this covert CIA facility.

But how does any of this factor into your proposal to send in aerial combat planes to rescue them?

The problem you Obama-haters have is that you seem to be unable to separate

a: the pre-attack security issues
b. the attack itself
c. the public statements afterward.

Both a and c are very valid criticisms to which I don't think anyone disagrees (except for those who would add that it was all part of some big plan to assassinate Amb Stevens). But even Susan Rice's comments that have been so widely criticized included references to the effect that we would need to wait until the investigation was completed before we could know exactly what happened. Haters choose to ignore that, though.

What I object to are the charges that Obama and Hillary and our military failed to do what could have been done to protect Amb Stevens and the others as the attack was underway. I believe the comments of the 4-star general in charge of AFRICOM when he said that there was no viable military operation.

Criticize Obama and Hillary as much as you want for a and c, and I will be right there with you! I would have to include Amb Stevens in that as well, though, as much as I dislike placing part of the blame on a victim, because he should not have been there if the place was not secured.

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 12:42:29   #
RetNavyCWO Loc: VA suburb of DC
 
hprinze wrote:

But you Obama idolizers don't want to be informed, you just want to deny anything that does not glorify your despicable idol.


Why do you rightwingers insist on labeling anyone who disagrees with you as "Obama idolizers" who "glorify your despicable idol." Neither I nor anyone else on this forum says any such thing. Don't you realize how stupid it makes you look?

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 13:13:03   #
just chris
 
Patty wrote:
Hope this helps.

http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/70782/Benghazi-Timeline/#vars!date=2012-05-12_12:15:35!

This might help shed some light also.
"•July 9, 2012 - Request sent to State Dept. by Ambassador Stevens requesting 13 additional security personnel, citing “unpredictable” situation in Benghazi
•July 21, 2012 – Warning issued to State Dept. by RSO Nordstrom stating security risk of U.S. officials Benghazi is “HIGH,” a designation that placed the State Dept. in breach of minimum security requirements dictated by law
•August 2, 2012 – Urgent request for “protective body detail” sent via cable to Secretary Clinton’s State Dept. office from Ambassador Stevens
•August 5, 2012 – State Dept. orders removal of Ambassador Stevens’ security detail teams (SST); SST departs 8/8/13
•August 16, 2012 - Urgent warning sent via email from RSO Nordstrom to Secretary Clinton’s State Dept. office citing a “dire” security situation
•September 8, 2012 – Urgent warning sent to U.S. from Benghazi security personnel stating an attack is rumored to be imminent
•September 11, 2012 - Urgent warning issued to State Dept. via cable from Ambassador Stevens citing a rapidly deteriorating security in Benghazi; Stevens was assassinated within hours of this issuance"
Hope this helps. br br http://www.tiki-toki.com/t... (show quote)
Just wondering why the time line doesn't include the 2 times Ambassador Stevens was offered a millitary sec detail in the weeks prior to the attack by AFRICOM but declined both times. Did any body watch the hearings?

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 13:20:39   #
Patty
 
I would question that if it was based on here say since Stevens repeatedly asked for more security that really doesn't add up.
just chris wrote:
Just wondering why the time line doesn't include the 2 times Ambassador Stevens was offered a millitary sec detail in the weeks prior to the attack by AFRICOM but declined both times. Did any body watch the hearings?

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 14:45:34   #
just chris
 
Patty wrote:
I would question that if it was based on here say since Stevens repeatedly asked for more security that really doesn't add up.
I believe the issue was that the Stevens did not want a military presence at the compound. And if things had gotten that bad where is the request to be evacuated? Why didn't he go to the annex? At what point does he have any responsibilty for not only his own safety but for the people he was responsible for. I have yet seen an e-mail ordering him to stay.

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 14:47:48   #
Patty
 
That is what they are trying to find out is why he was there to begin with.
just chris wrote:
I believe the issue was that the Stevens did not want a military presence at the compound. And if things had gotten that bad where is the request to be evacuated? Why didn't he go to the annex? At what point does he have any responsibilty for not only his own safety but for the people he was responsible for. I have yet seen an e-mail ordering him to stay.

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 15:45:16   #
Ve'hoe
 
Because it has been given,, and you didn't listen the first time,,, you prefer to lie,,and cover up,,,

The pacific ocean covers more than Africa,,,, how come there aren't that many "actions" there??

Answers:
1. You are just uncivil
2. George Bush
3. Reagan
4. Both 2 and 3
5. Nanny nanny boo boo,,,

I swear,,, you act like a child most of the time,,,




RetNavyCWO wrote:
Could it be because Africa covers more than 11 million square miles and makes up over 20% of the earth's land mass? Or could it be because there was not enough information about the attack, or enough time (remember, Amb Stevens was killed within 1-1/2 hrs after the attack started) to gather the necessary forces and deploy them?

Why don't you tell us exactly how U.S. forces could have repelled the attack? Give us a timeline.

Tell us why the most senior general in AFRICOM didn't feel that there was a viable military option that night.

I think you watch too much tv.
Could it be because Africa covers more than 11 mil... (show quote)

| Reply
Mar 28, 2014 15:48:44   #
Ve'hoe
 
I only realize how deluded it makes you look that you cannot accept the reality of what you do, or that the predominance of people disagree with you,,, and like me, many of us, have careers and educations in excess of yours and experiences that equal or exceed yours, but you call us idiots, and conspiracy theorists etc...

Most of us took an oath , "To uphold and defend the constitution," Not swear allegiance to Barak Hussein Obama,, UMMM UMMMM UUUUUMMMMM

That is how you choose to appear,,,

RetNavyCWO wrote:
Why do you rightwingers insist on labeling anyone who disagrees with you as "Obama idolizers" who "glorify your despicable idol." Neither I nor anyone else on this forum says any such thing. Don't you realize how stupid it makes you look?

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.