That photo was disturbing and sad. It's hard to tell from it what was happening to the Ambassador. As for Romney's countenance, do you really think he was smirking and happy about these developments? If so, I think we'll agree to disagree. I watched his press conference and he didn't seem happy at all.
BTW, if we can (and should) crush the "Arab Spring" - shouldn't we be sending aid to the Syrian government? Just asking....
Iran does not wish to protect the status quo. Pakistan does not wish to protect the status quo. Russia does not wish to protect the status quo. Hamas does not wish to protect the status quo. Sudan does not wish to protect the status quo. Venezuela does not wish to protect the status quo. I could go on and on and on and on. International relations are about expansion being resisted by other forces. It's dynamic. Nations don't have to deal with us. There are plenty of other customers. I care. Do you wish to live under a Fascist- (Germanic/Italian/Japanese), Soviet- or Chinese-dominated world order? Our wars haven't been futile. We're enriched by them because free trade makes everyone weathier. Denny, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. That isolationist foreign policy is what separates me from the Libertarians the most. I could get past the drug issue, but the naivete on international affairs to me is just too much.
International relations are about dealing with devil all the time. Do you really think we supported Iraq in the 80s because we liked them? We offered them support because we saw the Iranians as the larger threat. It's the same with the Soviet Union during WWII.
It wasn't about stopping the Arab Spring, it was about helping to shape it. Part of foreign relations is working with revolutionary groups to ensure if they come to power that you have friends and supporters among them. We let Mubarak go without thinking about what would replace him.
Chris' philosophy on international affairs applies here. There's a lot going on that doesn't make it to the news.
The status quo is "who is running the nation." Take a look at the trade deficit and get back to me on this one. You got the "free trade makes everyone wealthier" part right. As for the fascists, there's no evidence they could have maintained a world domination. Their economies were entirely funded with the gold of nations they conquered. The soviets couldn't dominate Eastern Europe for all that long. And when they did, look at East Germany vs. West Germany - it was a sharp contrast in success. So I'd think the Russkies would ultimately want to deal with us. You spoke of a void to be filled. Who left the void we filled, and where are they now? The answer implies that we'll end up following that same path, if history repeats itself.
the Arab spring is bad for US interests and this is somehow Obama's fault because he hasn't invaded yet one of the stupidest fucking things I've heard today.
Most of the middle-east (regardless of their religion or political leanings) despises the US government simply due to the fact that over the last several decades we've managed to slaughter friends and relatives of virtually anyone who is still alive there. Any President and every congressman who has waged war there shares the blame, as does any American who has supported these wars. It's not something that can be changed overnight, or even in our lifetimes, but it should be obvious even to the dimmest bulb that it's not something that can be solved by more killing.
ANIMALS!!! ALL OF THEM! Hold on, I just read what the signs said. I stand by my statement. derp derp derp.
I haven't been in a church for years, and it's fairly well-known here that I'm agnostic in terms of any religious or spiritual views. Chris can't even get his stereotyping right.
