View Full Version : Sudan refuses US Marines entry....
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/160018
Another Obama/national democratic socialist party accomplishment...
IYAAYASwarrior
09-16-12, 00:02
BO is a doormat. He is walked on here in the states and around the world. The man is a joke.
This doesn't have a Goddamned thing to do with Obama. Perhaps before putting a military force on an airplane to a sovereign nation, regardless the rationale, we should have let the Ambassador and his staff negotiate the requisite country clearances and diplomatic nuances to make the movement possible without insulting the government of said nation. This is tantamount to me walking through your front door, sitting on your sofa and saying, "I'm here to protect your end tables", without running the matter past you first and giving you the opportunity to invite me in.
Moose-Knuckle
09-16-12, 03:33
This doesn't have a Goddamned thing to do with Obama.
Since when has the CINC not had a goddamned thing to do with the DOD?
Perhaps before putting a military force on an airplane to a sovereign nation, regardless the rationale, we should have let the Ambassador and his staff negotiate the requisite country clearances and diplomatic nuances to make the movement possible without insulting the government of said nation. This is tantamount to me walking through your front door, sitting on your sofa and saying, "I'm here to protect your end tables", without running the matter past you first and giving you the opportunity to invite me in.
I bet the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens wished the Marines had protected his end tables.
They are going to protect American end tables in a American Embassy.
Suwannee Tim
09-16-12, 07:11
..... Perhaps before putting a military force on an airplane.....
I do not make personal observations about other members of the forum. If I did I would make a few about you. It would be a target rich environment. The first paragraph of the linked article states that Sudan refused a request to add Marines. We did not put Marines on an aircraft.
...."I'm here to protect your end tables".......
To compare the death of Ambassador Christopher Stephens and his colleagues with the loss of end tables is a deeply, deeply stupid remark.
This doesn't have a Goddamned thing to do with Obama.......
This has everything to do with Obama. He is weak and our enemies are exploiting this weakness. The person responsible for this debacle, Secretary Clinton is Obama's immediate subordinate and she is following his policies of weakness and appeasement. If the President is not responsible for the actions of his immediate subordinates then who is responsible?
Why are we in Sudan? To secure oil rights that China has negotiated.
It's a grand chessboard, guys.
Too few choose to believe it but all of the evidence is there.
Littlelebowski
09-16-12, 08:37
This doesn't have a Goddamned thing to do with Obama. Perhaps before putting a military force on an airplane to a sovereign nation, regardless the rationale, we should have let the Ambassador and his staff negotiate the requisite country clearances and diplomatic nuances to make the movement possible without insulting the government of said nation. This is tantamount to me walking through your front door, sitting on your sofa and saying, "I'm here to protect your end tables", without running the matter past you first and giving you the opportunity to invite me in.
Yup. I'm not a fan of Obama whatsoever but can we at least be rational when hating on him? I suppose the drought will be blamed on him next.
High Tower
09-16-12, 10:42
No, the drought is still Bush's fault.
Business_Casual
09-16-12, 10:51
Problem
Reaction
Solution
Dirk Williams
09-16-12, 11:25
Old partner of mine is running a gig in south Sudan. Says they are not armed, they are guarded by Gurkas. I was kinda concerned, he says he sleeps well at night knowing these guys got his back.
Our mil has a presence. A member of the 34th special ops USAF was recently killed running something there. A young capt, who was raised in Bend Or.
DW
Clearly, Obama is the CINC, that has never been in dispute. What is in dispute is his hand in every action that occurs originating from the executive branch.
Now, regardless of how inconvenient it is, Sudan is a sovereign nation. Sending people there requires their concurrence and sending a military force into a sovereign nation is a very sensitive issue on its own, requiring quite a bit of negotiation at the ministerial level. Having spent several years at an embassy and having been involved in the process and seen it in action, just getting the mail delivered requires an inordinate amount of interaction between the post and the host nation for what we here in the States might consider a matter of routine.
Here in this forum I have read quite a bit of bluster and indignation in the past about foreign troops and foreign aircraft in, on, or above the U.S. (just here for training, mind you), how would such a situation be any different in any other country? don't you think having them armed would be a matter elevating the issue, requiring quite a bit of finesse? Do you think there might be a huge public perception issue to be overcome, not unlike here at M4C?
Regardless the reason, we cannot just do as we wish in any country that we are not occupying militarily, anyone who thinks the real world works that way need to step outdoors, preferably outside our borders, and grow up.
I do not make personal observations about other members of the forum. If I did I would make a few about you. It would be a target rich environment. The first paragraph of the linked article states that Sudan refused a request to add Marines. We did not put Marines on an aircraft.
To compare the death of Ambassador Christopher Stephens and his colleagues with the loss of end tables is a deeply, deeply stupid remark.
This has everything to do with Obama. He is weak and our enemies are exploiting this weakness. The person responsible for this debacle, Secretary Clinton is Obama's immediate subordinate and she is following his policies of weakness and appeasement. If the President is not responsible for the actions of his immediate subordinates then who is responsible?
Tim,
If you''re going to quote, quote in context. The entire sentence sets the tone of the message, read it here again in full, the words are small and easily understood.
"This is tantamount to me walking through your front door, sitting on your sofa and saying, "I'm here to protect your end tables", without running the matter past you first and giving you the opportunity to invite me in."
The rest of your diatribe isn't worthy of a response. If you don't like what I write, ignore it.
DeltaSierra
09-16-12, 13:41
Yup. I'm not a fan of Obama whatsoever but can we at least be rational when hating on him? I suppose the drought will be blamed on him next.
Yeah, all the fires here are Obama's fault too, didn't you know that...?
See, if only a republican were in office, it would rain, and.... :D
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-16-12, 13:45
Sudan is a sovereign nation, and the US no longer has the pull and muscle that it used too. Combine those and it means we dotn get what we want all the time.
VooDoo6Actual
09-16-12, 13:51
Old partner of mine is running a gig in south Sudan. Says they are not armed, they are guarded by Gurkas. I was kinda concerned, he says he sleeps well at night knowing these guys got his back.
Our mil has a presence. A member of the 34th special ops USAF was recently killed running something there. A young capt, who was raised in Bend Or.
DW
Sorry to hear of your loss. My list continues to grow unfortunately as well. I knew one of the KIA GD @ Bengazi Embassy from some ATAP's programs/training we had done etc.
I turned down some unarmed PSD work in Somalia/Nigeria/Sudan & 'Jo Berg' as well. I thought to myself sheep/slaughter/stupid etc right ?
Interestingly enough a Anti-Piracy GOA Maritime Contract I did in 10' we replaced the Gurkas who were on the prior contract because they were unarmed. Our cargo was deemed too high risk/high value for unarmed security elements & had a DSP 73.
Now, regardless of how inconvenient it is, Sudan is a sovereign nation
Simple question for the paulbotic youth cultus, do you think that Sudan would have refused George W. Bush?
Checkmate...
This doesn't have a Goddamned thing to do with Obama. Perhaps before putting a military force on an airplane to a sovereign nation, regardless the rationale, we should have let the Ambassador and his staff negotiate the requisite country clearances and diplomatic nuances to make the movement possible without insulting the government of said nation. This is tantamount to me walking through your front door, sitting on your sofa and saying, "I'm here to protect your end tables", without running the matter past you first and giving you the opportunity to invite me in.
I agree with your assessment one of the the root causes for the denial, however, I disagree with your analogy. It's more along the lines of you stating that you are here representing a security company that guards end tables and then your company not accepting responsibility for your actions even though they authorized your actions.
Obama is CINC and therefore responsible for the actions of his people. He is either unaware of what his subordinates are doing or unaware if how things work or the clout he has. Neither of those is acceptable to me as his employer. I will concede that he can't know everything that goes on in this country, but when it comes to the movement of our military across sovereign borders he should be aware of what's happening.
For the record I'd be of the same opinion no matter who was in the office. I didn't like Ronnie Rayguns Iran Contra dealings, but at least he had the balls to get on TV and accept responsibility for what happened. You can argue that he did it after he was boxed in with damage control was under way and they figured out who to run the bus over, but he still did it.
I agree with your assessment one of the the root causes for the denial, however, I disagree with your analogy. It's more along the lines of you stating that you are here representing a security company that guards end tables and then your company not accepting responsibility for your actions even though they authorized your actions.
Obama is CINC and therefore responsible for the actions of his people. He is either unaware of what his subordinates are doing or unaware if how things work or the clout he has. Neither of those is acceptable to me as his employer. I will concede that he can't know everything that goes on in this country, but when it comes to the movement of our military across sovereign borders he should be aware of what's happening.
For the record I'd be of the same opinion no matter who was in the office. I didn't like Ronnie Rayguns Iran Contra dealings, but at least he had the balls to get on TV and accept responsibility for what happened. You can argue that he did it after he was boxed in with damage control was under way and they figured out who to run the bus over, but he still did it.
Taz,
Let's use another. Let us use an analogy that many here at M4C rave about. Let's use the castle doctrine. A home, like a castle, is in many way not unlike a country, just on a much smaller scale. The walls, like borders are sacrosanct to the sovereign, be that homeowner or head of state. People do not enter your home at will, regardless their intent or rationale. Are countries any different? If two guys barged in your front door to guard the table you were holding for a neighbor would you have a problem with it? Would your wife, children, and the mother-in-law living upstairs take issue, not unlike the people in a country?
If someone did that I think the members of your household would take issue, even if you did not, just like the populace of whatever country our forces might try to enter unannounced or uninvited.
I find it amusing the contradiction and hypocrisy between the expectations of many here concerning what may happen at their home and that of someone else. Funny how rules that work one way are fine but when they run counter they are ignored.
K
High Tower
09-16-12, 14:37
The castle doctrine is an excellent analogy. However...
If I gave millions of dollars or more (not even loan, straight up give you the money) you can expect me to walk into your house and grab a beer out of your fridge without me asking.
It is entirely reasonable for us to expect them to let our troops in when we want to since we finance their entire ****ing country. I'm not saying its the right thing to do, but it is a reasonable expectation since its already been done.
Taz,
Let's use another. Let us use an analogy that many here at M4C rave about. Let's use the castle doctrine. A home, like a castle, is in many way not unlike a country, just on a much smaller scale. The walls, like borders are sacrosanct to the sovereign, be that homeowner or head of state. People do not enter your home at will, regardless their intent or rationale. Are countries any different? If two guys barged in your front door to guard the table you were holding for a neighbor would you have a problem with it? Would your wife, children, and the mother-in-law living upstairs take issue, not unlike the people in a country?
If someone did that I think the members of your household would take issue, even if you did not, just like the populace of whatever country our forces might try to enter unannounced or uninvited.
I find it amusing the contradiction and hypocrisy between the expectations of many here concerning what may happen at their home and that of someone else. Funny how rules that work one way are fine but when they run counter they are ignored.
K
I find it amusing that you don't understand the theory behind a U.S. Embassy. It's not Sudan's house, it's ours. This is tantamount to you telling me that I can't defend my house because it's within the drawn boundaries of your enforcement jurisdiction. That's like saying to me, the homeowner, "You aren't allowed to protect your house, but don't worry, we got this."
The Marines should've been sent in with diplomatic credentials and their weapons in diplomatic pouches, end of story. You refuse and we pack up our house, our people AND our money and leave you holding the bag. Your indigenous people get out of line and hurt our people? We hit you back ten-fold, period.
I wouldn't have a bit of trouble with other countries protecting their embassies in the U.S. with their troops. Fact is, they don't need to because ridiculous shit like what we're seeing in the Islamic world right now does not happen in the U.S. One of a thousand ways we're far superior to them in terms of civility. :mad:
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-16-12, 14:44
I find it amusing that you don't understand the theory behind a U.S. Embassy. It's not Sudan's house, it's ours. This is tantamount to you telling me that I can't defend my house because it's within the drawn boundaries of your enforcement jurisdiction. That's like saying to me, the homeowner, "You aren't allowed to protect your house, but don't worry, we got this."
The Marines should've been sent in with diplomatic credentials and their weapons in diplomatic pouches, end of story. You refuse and we pack up our house, our people AND our money and leave you holding the bag. Your indigenous people get out of line and hurt our people? We hit you back ten-fold, period.
I wouldn't have a bit of trouble with other countries protecting their embassies in the U.S. with their troops. Fact is, they don't need to because ridiculous shit like what we're seeing in the Islamic world right now does not happen in the U.S. One of a thousand ways we're far superior to them in terms of civility. :mad:
Glocktogo, as usual, you are spot on.
The castle doctrine is an excellent analogy. However...
If I gave millions of dollars or more (not even loan, straight up give you the money) you can expect me to walk into your house and grab a beer out of your fridge without me asking.
It is entirely reasonable for us to expect them to let our troops in when we want to since we finance their entire ****ing country. I'm not saying its the right thing to do, but it is a reasonable expectation since its already been done.
So, you're saying the mortgage holder to your house can come and go as they please? I thought not. Welcome to the grown-up world.
I find it amusing that you don't understand the theory behind a U.S. Embassy. It's not Sudan's house, it's ours. This is tantamount to you telling me that I can't defend my house because it's within the drawn boundaries of your enforcement jurisdiction. That's like saying to me, the homeowner, "You aren't allowed to protect your house, but don't worry, we got this."
The Marines should've been sent in with diplomatic credentials and their weapons in diplomatic pouches, end of story. You refuse and we pack up our house, our people AND our money and leave you holding the bag. Your indigenous people get out of line and hurt our people? We hit you back ten-fold, period.
I wouldn't have a bit of trouble with other countries protecting their embassies in the U.S. with their troops. Fact is, they don't need to because ridiculous shit like what we're seeing in the Islamic world right now does not happen in the U.S. One of a thousand ways we're far superior to them in terms of civility. :mad:
No, apparently I understand it better than you do. An embassy is a representational outpost inside another country. Although the grounds of an embassy are treated as "home turf", the comings and goings are not without limits, as are the actions of the representatives. The rules of this game are centuries old and just because we have a big checkbook and carry a big stick doesn't get us around the requirement to play by those rules. To further clarify the role of U.S. Marines abroad assigned to U.S. posts, they are not there to protect the embassy, simply not their job, end of story. What they are there for isn't for this forum.
Foreign citizens and embassy personnel have been injured and killed in the U.S. Would you advocate Chile (just an example) flying in a contingent of Chilean Marines without prior approval to man the Chilean Embassy? Allow then to travel across the U.S. to their consulate(s) at will? Sorry, it doesn't work that way and it has never worked that way.
Further, we can hand out all of the black passports we want to that does not mean that the host nation is going to put visas in them. A passport and a visa are nothing more than permission to knock on the door of the other country, they do not guaranty admittance.
Problem is WE DON'T PLAN ON LEAVING.
It's about the oil vein that runs thru the south of that nation.
The oil we don't wish China to have access to.
Had we been honorable, reasonable people we would. Of require force but the last admin was full of war hawks (like a large percentage of this admin).
The game is ****ing up. Realize it, come up with godly solutions or it all leads to NBC exchanges. Then we shall find that war hawks die just like cowards, liberals, Muslims, Africa s and any other despised group on the planet.
High Tower
09-16-12, 15:16
So, you're saying the mortgage holder to your house can come and go as they please? I thought not. Welcome to the grown-up world.
I wish the cash we spread around were mortgages. That would mean we would get the money back. However it is not and we will not.
You can leave your retarded insults at the door. There is no reason we cannot have a grown up discussion about this topic.
This doesn't have a Goddamned thing to do with Obama. Perhaps before putting a military force on an airplane to a sovereign nation, regardless the rationale, we should have let the Ambassador and his staff negotiate the requisite country clearances and diplomatic nuances to make the movement possible without insulting the government of said nation. This is tantamount to me walking through your front door, sitting on your sofa and saying, "I'm here to protect your end tables", without running the matter past you first and giving you the opportunity to invite me in.
has everything to do with him and his policies and how others view him !
mostly from his actions over his term so far they know they can do whatever they want with no fear from him
would love to have seen if they did this in Reagan times :)
I think you dont understand what a embassy is in other countries
This is just another Obama blunder due to his incompetence. And it is exactly what we deserve for electing a person with no accomplishments or achievements. The affirmative action president with an empty resume.
No, apparently I understand it better than you do. An embassy is a representational outpost inside another country. Although the grounds of an embassy are treated as "home turf", the comings and goings are not without limits, as are the actions of the representatives. The rules of this game are centuries old and just because we have a big checkbook and carry a big stick doesn't get us around the requirement to play by those rules. To further clarify the role of U.S. Marines abroad assigned to U.S. posts, they are not there to protect the embassy, simply not their job, end of story. What they are there for isn't for this forum.
Foreign citizens and embassy personnel have been injured and killed in the U.S. Would you advocate Chile (just an example) flying in a contingent of Chilean Marines without prior approval to man the Chilean Embassy? Allow then to travel across the U.S. to their consulate(s) at will? Sorry, it doesn't work that way and it has never worked that way.
Further, we can hand out all of the black passports we want to that does not mean that the host nation is going to put visas in them. A passport and a visa are nothing more than permission to knock on the door of the other country, they do not guaranty admittance.
No, apparently, you don't understand. I know exactly what they're there for and their protection doesn't begin and end inside the embassy walls. Your silly assertion on the Marines "What they are there for isn't for this forum" is pathetic. You can find it easily on the web. Here's a quick excerpt found on page 1 of a Google search:
The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide internal security at designated US diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States. The secondary mission of the MSG is to provide protection for US citizens and US government property located within designated US diplomatic and consular premises during exigent circumstances (urgent temporary circumstances which require immediate aid or action). All Marine Security Guards are members of the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG).
They have their own frigging webpage for Christsake!
http://www.mcesg.marines.mil/
They're in over 130 countries and what they're there for is well known. A Marine FAST team isn't the same as a MSG detail, true. However, had command decided to send 50 MSG reinforcements instead, they'd be well within justification. Having 5,000 screaming religious fanatics protesting outside our embassy IS an exigent circumstance. If I had to guess, I'd say the reason they were denied entry is because we hadn't arranged to PAY Sudan to let them in.
And let's get something else straight. Sudan isn't Great Britain or Germany or Russia or China, it's ****ing Sudan! It's a despotic 3rd world shithole that is a state sponsor of terrorism! However:
The US State Department acknowledges that Sudan has fully cooperated with the United States to reduce the threat of terrorism. However, citing concerns that the nation's security gaps have allowed terrorists to remain in the country, the US State Department decided to keep Sudan on the list in 2011.
According to Country Reports on Terrorism 2010, Sudan remained a cooperative partner of the USA in global counterterrorism efforts against al-Qaeda (AQ) in 2010. During that year, the Government of Sudan worked actively to counter AQ operations that posed a potential threat to US interests and personnel in Sudan. Sudanese officials indicated that they viewed continued cooperation with the United States as important and recognized potential benefits in US training and information-sharing.
In other words, they're on the damn payroll already! Failing to allow the Marines entry to protect our embassy is tantamount to non-cooperation. Were they not already working with us, we probably wouldn't even have an embassy there.
Look, you're not going to talk down to me on here. I'm on the payroll. I've been a MEU(SOC) member. I once took a VERY hard look at doing embassy duty. The only reason I didn't was a final straw, red tape snafu that would've required me to do an additional 1yr extension to my contract. So stop acting like you have some special unobtanium knowledge that the rest of us unwashed masses aren't special enough to have and you can't share. It just makes you look foolish :rolleyes:
VooDoo6Actual
09-16-12, 17:36
Here's another link w/ more info that was posted a few days ago that went unnoticed/acknowledged for it's actual content & TRUTH.
It's definitely not TS/SCI info or SMU stuff. To even infer that is.....whatever
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88396.pdf
First pic of Sam Bacile aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula I have seen, on the set of film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ with actress Anna Gurji
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/3BaxT.jpg
No, apparently, you don't understand. I know exactly what they're there for and their protection doesn't begin and end inside the embassy walls. Your silly assertion on the Marines "What they are there for isn't for this forum" is pathetic. You can find it easily on the web. Here's a quick excerpt found on page 1 of a Google search:
They have their own frigging webpage for Christsake!
http://www.mcesg.marines.mil/
They're in over 130 countries and what they're there for is well known. A Marine FAST team isn't the same as a MSG detail, true. However, had command decided to send 50 MSG reinforcements instead, they'd be well within justification. Having 5,000 screaming religious fanatics protesting outside our embassy IS an exigent circumstance. If I had to guess, I'd say the reason they were denied entry is because we hadn't arranged to PAY Sudan to let them in.
And let's get something else straight. Sudan isn't Great Britain or Germany or Russia or China, it's ****ing Sudan! It's a despotic 3rd world shithole that is a state sponsor of terrorism! However:
In other words, they're on the damn payroll already! Failing to allow the Marines entry to protect our embassy is tantamount to non-cooperation. Were they not already working with us, we probably wouldn't even have an embassy there.
Look, you're not going to talk down to me on here. I'm on the payroll. I've been a MEU(SOC) member. I once took a VERY hard look at doing embassy duty. The only reason I didn't was a final straw, red tape snafu that would've required me to do an additional 1yr extension to my contract. So stop acting like you have some special unobtanium knowledge that the rest of us unwashed masses aren't special enough to have and you can't share. It just makes you look foolish :rolleyes:
Regardless of your indignation and bluster, no one is landing in the Sudan until they say it is okay. Get over it, that is how it works.
Regardless of your indignation and bluster, no one is landing in the Sudan until they say it is okay. Get over it, that is how it works.
So long as Obama and Hillary are making the decisions, we're in agreement on that point. :(
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-17-12, 00:20
No, apparently I understand it better than you do. An embassy is a representational outpost inside another country. Although the grounds of an embassy are treated as "home turf", the comings and goings are not without limits, as are the actions of the representatives. The rules of this game are centuries old and just because we have a big checkbook and carry a big stick doesn't get us around the requirement to play by those rules. To further clarify the role of U.S. Marines abroad assigned to U.S. posts, they are not there to protect the embassy, simply not their job, end of story. What they are there for isn't for this forum.
Oh man, I'd love to hear the story behind this! Can you PM it to me? I have a bit of a history with MSG, and a family member formerly with FAST now w/1st LAR, so I'd LOVE to see what we were really doing on the job. Dress Blue Deltas for secret squirrel missions....
Suwannee Tim
09-17-12, 07:45
I would like to be President for a day. I would politely ask Sudan to permit a platoon of Marines to go to the embassy. I would inform them that if permission was not promptly granted that a Marine Expeditionary Unit would be evacuating the embassy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.