Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is an example of internal strife on US soil where foreign intervention may have changed the outcome.
Well I would agree with you on that. But that was not the case.
The Civil War may have turned out differently had the South been helped by England.
And Lincoln made sure there was no aid given to the South.
When we talk about intervation/non-intervention, it is usually (always) in regards to US intervening in other nation's affairs, not the other way round. Libertarians like Ron Paul are strictkly against US intervening in other nations affairs, while the mainstream US policy has been pro-intervention. We invited France to intervene in the revolution, did we not. Why not, when it served our purpose?
Unfortunately it would not have helped. You can beef up the security at embassies, but the embassy in Libya (Tripoli) was NOT attacked. The ambassador was NOT killed in the US embassy in Tripoli, he was killed on a road trip to the Benghazi consulate. You might wonder why the ambassador would embark on a road trip on a day like 9/11 especially after hearing about the riots in Egypt, but it turns out the Ambassador was the fearless type, so I guess he was not concerned about his safety. Also, it turns out the Libyans LOVED the guy, so that may have added to his feeling of security. Plus he had two Navy SEALs with him. I don't know what to tell you, except that sometimes things just happen, and it is meaningless to point fingers after the fact.
I only wish people would stop using his death to advance partisan talking points.
perhaps these people you are talking about don't want to see any more american deaths.
i see that sudan refuses to allow marines in to protect the embassy. (saying they could do it on their own), so it is now time to pull out of sudan and stop their foreign aid.
will it take another tragedy until this administration gets it?
for the record, an attack by a hundred or more people didn't just happen-it was coordinated, and attacks across multiple countries didn't just happen. obviously, ambassador stevens was being moved for a reason, and the other man who tweeted about hoping he "didn't die tonight" knew something was up.
you better start pointing fingers or you will have another "after the fact".
Last edited by floridasandy; 09-17-2012 at 02:11 PM..
So is the W.H. still going to go with the movie excuse, if so, they are more pathetic then imaginable. Un friggin believable.
This administration, the liars they are, need to go now!
Hate liars who can look into a camera, and tell us a lie, they know is not true. Not the movie, may have stirred trouble, but the reason, was because of their # 2 Man who was killed.
They themselves have come out and stated the real reason, said the movie excuse was bologana.
Hey, the dems still love Clinton and he lied to them on national TV, and in court. They don't care. The end justifies the means.
WASHINGTON — US officials said Wednesday that they are investigating the four-hour *assault that killed the ambassador to Libya and three other Americans as a well-orchestrated terrorist attack, not a spontaneous reaction to an inflammatory movie about the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
I'm still wondering if some wealthy, very conservative, rather hardline right "leaning" donor out there maybe wanted Romney to get a feather in his cap on "foreign policy" and thought that little "movie trailer" (The Innocence of Mohammed) could help present that opportunity just before the election. Romney was so quick with his statement, so quick on the trigger. It's really interesting. Politics gets very nasty sometimes.
Nice try at deflecting, but not even close. However, an Obama Administration frantic to cast blame anywhere but on themselves, might buy into it. Why don't you send it to them. The liberal media would pounce on it, maybe even pay you a few bucks for it.
perhaps these people you are talking about don't want to see any more deaths.
Who does? Maybe Obama's opponents do. They are squeezing every drop of political juice out of the ambassador's death, so I wonder it a few more bodies would keep them going. I hope I am wrong, but reading some commentary here, I'm afraid I am not.
Quote:
i see that sudan refuses to allow marines in to protect the embassy. (saying they could do it on their own).
it is time we pull out of sudan and stop their foreign aid.
They are in process of getting people out of the Sudan embassy.
Quote:
for the record, attacks by a hundred or more people don't just happen-they are coordinated. obviously, ambassador stevens was being moved for a reason, and the other man who tweeted about hoping he "didn't die tonight" knew something was up.
The ambassador made a decision to leave the safety of the embassy in Tripoli and embark on a road trip to Benghazi. That was his choice, and you can blame it on someone else all day long, but he was the highest ranking US official on the ground, and was free to make calls like when to go on a road trip, and when not. He knew about the riots and probably figured they'd be no big deal even if there was one in Libya. Obviously on one knew there would be RPGs involved. Out of the dozen or so places where riots took place, Libya was the only one where there was shooting involved.
I'd say every protest or riot needs some level of coordination. Someone might declare on a radio station in Cairo that people are going to meet at the US Embassy at noon to protest the video, and encourage people to spread the word, and bring their favorite "death to America" sign. And the word spreads, and people join in spontaneously. That's just the nature of the beast. The security warning to the Tripoli embassy was about protests, not about assassination plans.
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber Yes, the words "could have" were the key words. They didn't know, and how can you expect them to know right off the bat?
I figured it would be over your head.
We have heard for 11 years that Bush didn't act on the "intelligence" he received from Clinton concerning AlQaida.
The "intelligence" DID NOT give the date, time, how, or places they intended to attack, yet the bush HATERS KEEP REPEATING, HE SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO STOP THE ATTACKS.
We have heard for 11 years that Bush didn't act on the "intelligence" he received from Clinton concerning AlQaida.
The "intelligence" DID NOT give the date, time, how, or places they intended to attack, yet the bush HATERS KEEP REPEATING, HE SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO STOP THE ATTACKS.
Your post says the same thing about Obama now.
When you make a complete departure from the topic and start talking about something else, you can pretty much count on noone knowing what the heck you are talking about and why. I haven't said anything about Bush. Unless you can prove otherwise, it was the Tripoli embassy, not the White House, who was warned about security concerns about possible riots (not assassinations).
Nope. I believe you are saying not to believe the enemy and just trust our government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
I thought you were saying that the Libyan government is really our enemy? I mean isn't that what you've been complaining about regarding the overthrow of the previous dictators.....That because we didn't support the dictators who could control the people via their oppressive rule, we are now in a mess because the new government is our enemy?
So how about this post you made? You weren't bemoaning that we did not support the dictators who had kept the people under control and let the "radicals" take control.......control of what, the government? Your post below:
What the heck is going on ? Well it doesn't take much to incite violence in countries knows for violence.
You give "freedom" to radicals who've been kept under check by their former dictators and this is what you get.
We've opened Pandora's Box in the ME. And now we deal with the consequences of giving the radicals their "freedom".
The USG created or helped to create this unstable environment over there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Romney was so quick with his statement, so quick on the trigger. It's really interesting. Politics gets very nasty sometimes.
