Movie 13 Hours will re-open Benghazi discussion

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, you're an actuary. Actuarial pricing is known as being as much an art as a science. No actuary can price something perfectly - there are too many unknowns. You look at risk and the potential payout for different scenarios. You don't have perfect information and there are things you know are so remote they are unlikely to happen - however, occasionally they do. When those outliers occur, your company is going to take a big hit for that. Katrina was 1 of those outliers and many Insurance Companies went out of business bc their reserves were not adequate – they did not anticipate a hurricane of that magnitude and thus didn’t reserve for that many claims. Our embassies are always going to be vulnerable bc we want them to show how open we are as a society. They are going to always be vulnerable to a mortar being shot into them. As much as we like, we can’t put them on an island with a dome over them.

Paul, as usual, you sound like you know what you are talking about. As an actuary, I also know that I need to allow for the unknown, for contingencies. I learned that my first month of my first semester at UCONN. If I told my boss that all our claims were paid and closed and told him we could therefore give ourselves huge bonuses...and then another $25 million claim comes in and now there's no money to pay for it, I'd get fired on the spot, no questions. Similarly, when you send peole to the few places on the planet that are legitimately dangerous, you cannot have the cavalry more than a 13 hour flight time away. You just can't. When you ask people to go into harm's way, you owe them more than that. You don't need a PhD in international relations to know that. If Hilary doesn't know that, she needs to stay on the lecture circuit. Just my $0.02.

"When those outliers occur, your company is going to take a big hit for that. Katrina was 1 of those outliers "

true. Which is why you need to have money set aside to pay for those outliers. You know they will occur, you just can't know when. So you set up a rainy day fund. Which is precisely what Obama/Clinton did NOT do here. We can't predict when and where the jihadists will strike. What we can do, what we must do, is have a quick recation force that i snever more than a few hours' away, if someon needs to call the cavalry. That i snot beyond our capabilities. We chose not to have that set up, because the administration didn't want there to be any outliers. Not wanting them, doesn't mean they won't occur.

I get that you can't predict every possible event. But you don't need to be Nostradamus (spelling?) to know that when you send Americans to the Middle East in a public capacity, that they are potential targets.

I think you are every bit as upset as I am over what happened. I don't claim that my side has a monopoly on empathy for the families. I just think there was evidence to suggest that teh threat was there.

"we can’t put them on an island with a dome over them."

No one suggested that. But the closest help cannot be half a world away either, it just can't.

I don't want my kids dealing with this, and they will be. Pisses me off.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What we can do, what we must do, is have a quick recation force that i snever more than a few hours' away, if someon needs to call the cavalry. That i snot beyond our capabilities. We chose not to have that set up, because the administration didn't want there to be any outliers. Not wanting them, doesn't mean they won't occur.

To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible. I believe a few weeks ago it was mentioned by one of our site Iraq vets that even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup.

During the House Armed services committee interviews, Gen Ham who was head of AFRICOM at the time said he intentionally didn't re position fighter aircraft because "he doubted their utility to any
threat his command might face on September 11."

It's also worth noting that several dozen US personnel survived the attack. Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed.

Your perspective was, is and likely will continue to be mostly wrong.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible. I believe a few weeks ago it was mentioned by one of our site Iraq vets that even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup.

During the House Armed services committee interviews, Gen Ham who was head of AFRICOM at the time said he intentionally didn't re position fighter aircraft because "he doubted their utility to any
threat his command might face on September 11."

It's also worth noting that several dozen US personnel survived the attack. Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed.

Your perspective was, is and likely will continue to be mostly wrong.

"To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible"

At any given time, how many places in the world do you think there are, that are dangerous enough where (1) western nations are evacuating their embassies, yet (2) we have vulnerable personnel? Pretty much confined to a small space. We kicked all the Nazis out of western Europe, we drove all the Japanese out of the Pacific, how much more vast in scope was that? We had a much larger military then, obviously, but we are talking about a contained area. So I don't buy that it's not possible.

"even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup." That happens. A few hours. I don't believe that anyone who agrees to go into harm's way, in that narrow slice of geography, needs to be more than a few hours away from help. It doesn't even need to be troops, and armed drone is better than nothing.

""he doubted their utility to any threat his command might face on September 11."

If you don't try, we'll never know, will we? Success in these situation isn't guaranteed. A low-flying jet is better than nothing. You don't just sit on your hands, not if you have a conscience.

"Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed."

Pertaining my posts, I'd ask you to refer to any where I implied that the loss of life was larger than 4. Just make it up as you go along, anything to discredit those who dare to question your beloved.

I answered your points. Can you show me the same courtesy?

(1) why does your party have superdelegates?
(2) why did Hilary claim she came under sniper attack?

Off topic I know, but since I have your attention, and you won't respond in the other threads, I figured what the heck.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"To provide this level of coverage in every danger zone simple isn't possible"

At any given time, how many places in the world do you think there are, that are dangerous enough where (1) western nations are evacuating their embassies, yet (2) we have vulnerable personnel? Pretty much confined to a small space. We kicked all the Nazis out of western Europe, we drove all the Japanese out of the Pacific, how much more vast in scope was that? We had a much larger military then, obviously, but we are talking about a contained area. So I don't buy that it's not possible.

"even in a full on combat zone he would wait hours for backup." That happens. A few hours. I don't believe that anyone who agrees to go into harm's way, in that narrow slice of geography, needs to be more than a few hours away from help. It doesn't even need to be troops, and armed drone is better than nothing.

""he doubted their utility to any threat his command might face on September 11."

If you don't try, we'll never know, will we? Success in these situation isn't guaranteed. A low-flying jet is better than nothing. You don't just sit on your hands, not if you have a conscience.

"Reading Jim's post or watching FOX you get the impression that everyone was killed."

Pertaining my posts, I'd ask you to refer to any where I implied that the loss of life was larger than 4. Just make it up as you go along, anything to discredit those who dare to question your beloved.

I answered your points. Can you show me the same courtesy?

(1) why does your party have superdelegates?
(2) why did Hilary claim she came under sniper attack?

Off topic I know, but since I have your attention, and you won't respond in the other threads, I figured what the heck.

Is he going to answer these in order or???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device