US ambassador 'killed in Libya'. US consulate Benghazi stormed. 4 US officials "dead"

[BigRob]

BigRob, et al,

This is true.


(COMMENT)

Yes!


(COMMENT)

There is always a risk. And the risk of doing business with Egypt is becoming greater then any expected return we might expect to receive. We always see a need to intervene when we should stay away. The risk is exemplified by the event in Libya. The US did no harm to Libya, yet the activities of the US we received in a negative context. So it will be in may countries of the Mediterranean, Middle East and Persian Gulf.

I can agree we always see a need to intervene when we sould stay away, and I adamently opposed intervention in Libya. If there is no clear national interest at stake, then there is no point in intervention.

By pursuing aligned interests, you aggravate the already damaged reputation of the US, and amplify the way the US interferes with the domestic complexion of Arab nations.

I disagree. When we pursue aligned interests, we are enhancing our reputiation among those we have those aligned interests with. Certainly there will be winners and losers, but the gain will outweigh the costs I feel.

Back away slowly, and reduce the Foreign Service footprint in the nation. Do not encourage further US aid development. Reduce contacts, putting the burden to reach-out on those of the Mediterranean, Middle East and Persian Gulf. If they truly want US involvement, then they will make the effort to establish a dialog. In the mean time, all this money and effort we expend - to little or no avail - can be diverted to US domestic nation building.

I see what you are saying -- but we need to reach out and protect our interests just as much as they might want/need us there. I think protection of our interests outweighs anything else.

We need to alter the paradigm if we are to expect a true change in the way the US is perceived. Remember how Einstein defined insanity; by doing the same things over and over again, expecting a different result. If we want to make a dramatic improvement, we need to the way we do business both politically and diplomatically. Otherwise, we can expect business as usual.

Most Respectfully,
R

I would argue that perceptions are merely an offshoot of aligned interests. When Mubarak was in power, the elites in Egypt, and the Army were very friendly...I would argue because they got what they wanted, power and aid, and we got what we wanted, a moderate voice in the region, intelligence sharing, overflight rights, Suez Canal access etc etc.

 

[BigRob]

All Presidents do what the Pentagon tells them to do--as they should.
They are merely the proxy. The rubber stamp.
Go against the Pentagon--and your risk of betrayal is so enormous no one dare risk it.

Not all President's rubber stamp what the military wants....if they did we would have had multiple nuclear wars at this point. The Constitution is clear, the President is the Commander in Chief -- not the Pentagon.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Not all President's rubber stamp what the military wants....if they did we would have had multiple nuclear wars at this point. The Constitution is clear, the President is the Commander in Chief -- not the Pentagon.

I am just describing the reality of the situation.
Obama ia a total and complete idiot--as are most of them--to military matters.
He will do whatever they say is correct.
A total fool--he has not a clue how to do anything.
Even his Stalinist leanings won't help him.

 

[Cruella]

....yes its not likey Obama will go to war with Egypt because they protested.

Of course not. They are his buddies.

State Department Considering Talks to Transfer ‘Blind Sheikh’ to Egypt

 

[Cruella]

NBC News: Obama Administration Not Telling the Truth on Benghazi Security Lapses

The president has fielded precisely zero questions on this matter (one wonders if he's eager to respond to inquiries about how often he does or does not read the intelligence memos about which he's rarely briefed). He has outsourced the whole Q&A annoyance to various underlings, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice -- who ironically once admitted that her boss was "not ready" for a proverbial 3 am phone call on a pressing international crisis.

 

[dogtowner]

All Presidents do what the Pentagon tells them to do--as they should.
They are merely the proxy. The rubber stamp.
Go against the Pentagon--and your risk of betrayal is so enormous no one dare risk it.

LBJ micromanaged in Vietnam against recommendations and to horrible effect.
Jimmy Carter micromanaged the botched Hostage fiasco against recommendations and to horrible effect.
Bubba Clinton micromanaged Bosnia etc against recommendations and to horrible effect.
Obama micromanaged the OBL hit against recommendations and gave the world our secret helicopter.

Some C-I-C's know to listen to the experts and allow them to do their job, others don't.

 

[dogtowner]

I did say t in an earlier post that Libyan did not want the US to stay. However since them they had allow American marines and help in the investigation. However I think once the investigation is finish they do not want them to stay

yes that is what they will demand.

cant have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Aus22]

I cannot see the contradiction. The British help America before the revolution but were told to leave. Same with the French who were you allies during the revolution. After a successful revolution countries must stand eventually on their ow feet.The same applies to Egypt and Libya.

 

[dogtowner]

I cannot see the contradiction. The British help America before the revolution but were told to leave. Same with the French who were you allies during the revolution. After a successful revolution countries must stand eventually on their ow feet.The same applies to Egypt and Libya.

england did not "help" the US, they did what happens to all colonies, exploit them for all they're worth. oh amd they were made to leave.

France was an ally.

no colonies any longer just a new sort of sphere of influence.

 

[Aus22]

I canot see the contradiction. All countries after a successful revolution want to eventually stand on their own feet.

 

[dogtowner]

I canot see the contradiction. All countries after a successful revolution want to eventually stand on their own feet.

the only reason their "revolution" succeeded was US firepower and expertise. the US beat England by making them realize that its hard to project strength that far.

we bailed Libya & Egypt out after they begged for it. apples and refrigerators mate.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Bet you're a "chicken" as well--an unhinged one--imagine that!

wow did you come up with that all by yourself? good boy...thats a good boy!

 

[BigRob]

I canot see the contradiction. All countries after a successful revolution want to eventually stand on their own feet.

I am confused on your point....is there some vast American military presence in Libya that is preventing them from standing on their own? Surely your point is not that the presence of an Ambassador and a few marines is somehow preventing Libya from taking action.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

LBJ micromanaged in Vietnam against recommendations and to horrible effect.
Jimmy Carter micromanaged the botched Hostage fiasco against recommendations and to horrible effect.
Bubba Clinton micromanaged Bosnia etc against recommendations and to horrible effect.
Obama micromanaged the OBL hit against recommendations and gave the world our secret helicopter.

Some C-I-C's know to listen to the experts and allow them to do their job, others don't.

Carter micromanaged? really so its his fault that the chopper crashed?
Clinton mismanaged Bosnia...lets see..genocide ended and how many dead americans?
And I think the crashed helicopter gave the world the helicopter..wait I know we should never fly it so no one ever knows ( who did not know we have choppers made more stealth?) But I guess you would have said fly a normal one and risk being shot down and starting a war with Pakistan?
And the thing about Vietnam is...we lost because we got in a civil war, and we picked the side that was against what the people wanted...no change in policy was going to win..unless your idea of winning is destroy a nation that never attacked us because we don't agree with its idea of how to run its nation. You don't fight a war to save a people..by killing them all.

By the way, how did Bush's Afganistan go, you know that war that was almost already lost by the time he left office? And Man Iraq worked great did it not? I mean sure there was no WND..and you guys all hate Muslims being able to vote and have democracy...and its now in the spear of Influence of Iran...but yea...Bitch about how Obama's policy got Osama dead...and Bosnia did not have a death toll of nearly 5000 Americans.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Not all President's rubber stamp what the military wants....if they did we would have had multiple nuclear wars at this point. The Constitution is clear, the President is the Commander in Chief -- not the Pentagon.

Korea would have been the end if not for the president...McCarther let his ego go to his head and wanted to nuke China...so Agree 100%