The ridiculous post was the one claiming there was some act of war that happened. I agree with chris that foreign relations are a complex set of things to deal with. We don't have boots on the ground there, so it's not like we have any real control over things. The situation in a number of countries in the Middle East is unstable and dangerous that only a fool would be american and go there. So we have no need of embassies in those places. When the situation stabilizes, we should reconsider. I find a lot of fault with the administration. We had no business intervening in the affairs and civil wars of other nations, particularly when we don't have any US wrongs done there that need to be made right. We lived up to agreements we made with the former governments, including large cash payments and arms shipments. I don't see the point in living up to these deals when the other party doesn't exist anymore. You and I (and many others) may not like how the people in these countries figure out to govern themselves. But that's THEIR business to figure out. If they're friendly to us, deal with them. If they're not, don't deal with them.
An act of terrorism is an act of war under the Bush Doctrine. We still don't know who did it, but intel suggests that AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood played a role. I find it funny that you say we shouldn't be in those countries when, quite literally, the US and Obama fundamentally changed those two countries within the last year. You're talking ideology, and of course foreign policy is complex, but if we're going to oust leaders, we have to deal with the consequences. I actually subscribe to your line of thinking, except I'd just turn most of those worthless countries into glass, and let them live in the stone age that they long for.
We'll never see eye to eye on anything not Blazers related, Papa. I find your worldviews distasteful and ignorant, and you apparently see mine as the same. Let's agree on this point forward to see each other's posts as the garbage we assume them to be and not even be bothered with a reply. You aren't going to convince me to see the world in your white-male-christian-anger eyes, and I'm apparently never going to convince you to see the world through my eyes of tolerance, acceptance, and live-and-let-live. Yes, I know both of those are loaded statements, but that's how *I* see it. It may not reflect reality. Take care.
Thank you for your wisdom. However, sometimes pulling out the Hans Morganthau toolbox is the right one. Diplomacy oftentimes becomes so nuanced as to lose the very essence of right and wrong. Ken Waltz and Sam Huntington have written numerous dictates on this subject. If you're looking for something more region-specific that takes into account the Arab mind, read Fouad Ajami.
Bingo. Jeane Kirkpatrick wrote the definitive treatice on this subject with "Dictatorships and Double Standards".
I think we stop dealing with them and they won't have american $$$ to maintain a standard of living beyond "the stone age." And I'm in no hurry to go to war with these people. It takes time and (unfortunately) blood to come around to an effective means of ruling themselves. If they choose anarchy, so be it. The thing is, it IS their choice. One of the less complex things about foreign policy to figure out is that the more we meddle, the less reason they have to like us.
What I found so interesting about the "Arab Spring" was that the "Persian Spring" was ignored by this administration. I wonder why?
“When the political winds shift, I will stand with the Muslims.” -Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, pg. 261 Time to put up or shut up, President Failure
Denny, those embassies were American territory invaded by foreigners. It may not be a formal declaration of war, but it was a hostile act by people aligned with the governments in each country that requires a strong response.
Funny. You call yourself tolerant and accepting of others, yet you seem remarkably intolerant and unaccepting of white, male Christians.
Unsurprisingly, we haven't heard a word from the Libyan leadership regarding this attack on the American embassy. That's what is called a tell. Instead of that wimpy anti-1st Amendment statement Obama gave this morning in the Rose Garden about some stupid movie that is a red herring excuse for these attacks, he should have told both Egypt and Libya that they won't get a single dollar of US aid until those responsible for these attacks are brought to justic. I won't hold my breath waiting on that fantasy.
It's not so simple. Stop the money, and you lose influence, and Egypt controls the Suez Canal. Nature abhors a vacuum, and money we don't like will fill the void (see Nasser, Gamal Abdel). Instead, you use the money as a weapon, as well as our Navy with their ability to blockade ports and our economic might to strangle trade. Get the Mukhabarat and the people running Libya to tell us who perpetrated these acts, have them arrested and tortured by their governments and let that be the message. This is an opportunity for the new governments of Egypt and Libya to show they are still friendly toward us.
Obviously they're all mad at him for um...shit that the US has done over there for 50+ years? sound logic you got going there. Yeah, because Bush or the Republicans never celebrated anything to do with "mission accomplished" or used 9/11 for any political gain..
It's a few billion a year. It's money well-spent to keep the Suez Canal open and to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
I'm surprised it took 50-odd posts to finally get to the logical conclusion/blame for anything bad that happens during the Obama presidency.
LOL, an apology? "Hey, your embassy was attacked. Sorry!! lololol" How about a condemnation of the attacks, and a statement that the killers will be handed over to the US?
Sorry that it doesn't satisfy your bloodlust. Refer to my previous post about not understanding fuck-all about foreign relations.
I don't want them handed over to us. I want them to stay in the hands of the Egyptian and Libyan authorities with their laws and treatment standards toward prisoners. We get to supervise, we get to ask questions, but once we have these people handed over, Eric Holder will want to read them their Miranda rights, give them counsel and try them in New York City.
