Russian roulette, anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
Peter, as Steve Metz has already said in another thread of yours:
If you have something to say about another thread of mine then I suggest you say it there in that other thread where it is appropriate for me to reply and I may do but only if your comment is worthy of my reply.
Certainly there is no value in quoting from another thread a comment which consists of a platitude and a non-specific, unjustified criticism.
If you parrot a meaningless comment it doesn't make the comment any more worthy for repetition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
I would offer that you have gone to great lengths to ignore the reality that one does not focus on the MOST DANGEROUS course of action that any enemy may employ, but the MOST LIKELY.
So was the reckless fool who thought Ambassador Stevens should gamble his life in a Benghazi death trap focusing on the "most likely" action of the enemy?
So was the thinking that it was most likely that the enemy would not kill Stevens in Benghazi? So just chance it?
Well before you go advising anyone about security I suggest that you spend your spare time playing a solo game of Russian roulette.
After all, there is only one bullet in the six chambers of the revolver so really it is "most likely" that each time that you pull the trigger that you won't shoot yourself in the head. :rolleyes:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../4d/SW-629.jpg
Russian roulette anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
It is a time-proven measure that allows one to apply the resources at hand; whether it be at 10 diplomatic mission or 100 does not matter.
Peace is a very forgiving environment for utterly incompetent security and military personnel who can get away with foolish recklessness because no enemy is trying to kill them or the VIPs they are tasked to protect.
So fools may well think themselves as applying peace-time-proven measures and so long as there is peace they may live and their VIPs may live too.
War provides a different standard of proof for security. Foolish recklessness which has stood the test of peace-time in war-time suddenly gets proven as the foolish recklessness it always was and the VIP gets killed.
Do you keep your house front door unlocked at each night because it is "most likely" you won't be robbed? I don't.
Do you drink and drive because it is "most likely" you won't get in an road accident and won't be stopped by the police and breathalysed? I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
I could button an ambassador up in a 70-ton main battle tank to reduce the risk from a wide range of threats as he moves about a host country, but there are a host of other reasons why that approach would be neither practical or prudent. As the saying goes, "just because you can does not mean you should."
It doesn't mean you should assume an Ambassador will be OK in a Benghazi death-trap either.
Just because you can take reckless risks with your and someone else's personal security, it doesn't mean you should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
I will give it to you that you've applied a great degree of thought to your position.
Thanks. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcustis
Are you related to anyone with the last name of Sparks?
No.
International Satellite TV Broadcasting Agency
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wyatt
Id rather our strategy allow a market place of ideas to work rather than try to create some nebulous america borg that seeks to control everything. partially because if we did that our enemy would be proven right.
In war, you don't seek to control everything, just the enemy.
If we the people of the world don't want to leave America or NATO to end satellite terror TV using unilateral military power then I suggest we set up a United Nations Security Council regulatory authority along the lines of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and to inhibit its use for any military purpose, including nuclear weapons. The IAEA was established as an autonomous organization on 29 July 1957. Though established independently of the United Nations through its own international treaty, the IAEA Statute,[1] the IAEA reports to both the UN General Assembly and Security Council.
So I propose the International Satellite TV Broadcasting Agency (ISTBA) to be an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of satellite TV broadcasting, and to inhibit its use for any terrorist purpose, including the killing of diplomats.
But if we the people of the world can't be bothered doing something like that then don't complain when America gets tired of having its diplomats killed and starts taking out TV satellites.
I am cool with "no" to the plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wyatt
if the US wanted to do this, which it doesn't, what does the us do when libya says "no" to the plan?
Diplomacy can be done over the internet and telephone, or in the USA or Europe, Libyans visiting us, until such time as they are ready to say "yes" to the fortress embassies base plan.
Meanwhile the US should halt all military aid to Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq etc. and save some of that billions of dollars a year which the US could spend on reconstruction projects back home.
While our forces remain in Afghanistan some of the $6.8 billion per year military aid to Karzai should instead be spent on NATO setting up an NATO-Afghan auxiliary force, to help to defend NATO-ISAF supply lines. Karzai's army should get nothing.
While "no" to the plan is the prevailing answer, we should not be terrorised into giving war-on-terror countries any military aid whatsoever or disproportionate development aid in response to acts of terrorism.
The US has been bled white by vampire state-sponsors of terrorism for years and giving US blood and treasure so freely simply encourages those countries to think that they need terrorists as proxies to squeeze more cash and influence out of Washington.
It is time to stop paying for this protection racket. It is time to stop exposing diplomats to such risks. Bring them home.
If and when one war-on-terror country says "yes" to the plan and then that country would be the only one to benefit from an intensive and rewarding engagement with the West. In time the rest would follow not wishing to miss out and be left behind.
My apologies to jcustis and to forum readers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Dow
Well before you go advising anyone about security I suggest that you spend your spare time playing a solo game of
Russian roulette.
I must apologise to jcustis and to forum readers because it seems that I have been misunderstood.
I could have and would be happy to rephrase my point as a question asking - "Would you think it wise to pay Russian Roulette?"
I don't actually really want jcustis to play the Russian Roulette game. I wish him well and good health!
I was asking readers to think of a hypothetical thought experiment to illustrate a fault in jcustis's logic and I regret that I have been misunderstood.
The point I was trying to make is that I do want jcustis, and other readers, to think about the foolishness of assuming that "the most likely" outcome will happen and betting your, or someone else's life on an assumption that "the most likely" outcome will always happen.
So my post wasn't an ad hominem attack against jcustis. It was meant to be a vivid explanation of the dangers of anyone gambling with personal security.
Once again my apology if I have been misunderstood.