Libyans storm American consulate and murder Ambassador

[Patroklos]

It's also the basis for the foreign policy of every nation on earth. Even Obama, he is just doing it wrong.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

It's also the basis for the foreign policy of every nation on earth. Even Obama, he is just doing it wrong.

Oh, that's rich.
Obama is "doing it wrong" becasue he's smart enough to mask his realpolitik.
Do you really believe that from 2000-2008 the USA have internationally gained more than they have lost with their neocon approach ?

 

[Quackers]

Thats just how most foreign policy operates. Each nation is fighting for it's best interests in a Darwinist world. Instituitions like the UN are just ineffective tools used by the do gooders to change that.

 

[Glassfan]

(a protester said...) "I just want to say, how would the Americans feel if films insulting leading Christian figures like the pope or historical figures like Abraham Lincoln were produced?" -CNN coverage

Of course we in America constantly experience and yet tolerate attacks on persons, deities and institutions that some of us dearly cherish by critics/cynics/denigrators (Piss Christ, South Park, Micheal Moore, Westboro Baptist, etc.). Freedom is messy. Yet we don't usually kill the denigrators. Professor Dawkins is free to speak his mind, and while I take exception, I don't burn down the British Embassy.

Perhaps these rioters in the Middle East, living in countries where governments control the media and prevent dissent, assume it must be so in the West as well. They can't understand why President Obama didn't stop this movie or arrest it's makers. They understand us even less than we they.

 

[Borachio]

If only...things were simple.

Just for example:

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work [, Piss Christ,] as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ":

So, what we have, in general, is a particular act related to religion, people's perception of that act, and their consequent actions in relation to that perception.

Then other people's reaction to that reaction.

 

[Glassfan]

If only...things were simple.

If only...

 

[Bamspeedy]

http://www.upworthy.com/we-saw-the-v...ove?g=2&c=ufb1

Look at these awful Muslims *tut tut*

No one ever said ALL the muslims hate the US. But out of curiosity, how many different people is the same sign going to be passed to? Sadly, these pictures only show a crowd of about a couple dozen people.

*snip*

(dates of embassy attacks during the Bush Administration)

So in the first 4 years of Bush there were 4 attacks. During the first 4 years of Obama there have been 6.

What will the next 4 years hold in store for us? (waiting for a classic one-liner response).

About previous 'warnings'....

Ok. If Obama is blamed for his failure to act before the attack, then you can also blame Bush for not acting on intelligence briefings regarding 9/11. One would have to be very convincing why one should get the blame and not the other.

 

[Glassfan]

During the Bush Administration it was popular to blame Clinton. The 911 Commission spread the blame around pretty universally though. Why didn't Carter prevent the Embassy takeover in '79? Why didn't Caesar anticipate the Ides of March? Why didn't the Neanderthals nip that Sapians uprising in the butt? It seems like all leaders underestimate the bad guys until it's too late. By which we mean their advisors/intelligence operatives/wives. And it's not like any of us knuckleheads know any better. Did the New York Times or CNN predict any of this. Did any of you? I didn't notice anything on the Prophecy thread...

 

[DinoDoc]

I think that this view should be called out for what it is.

Hysterical hyperbole. Thy name seems to be lovett.

 

[DinoDoc]

Ok. If Obama is blamed for his failure to act before the attack,

If you have intelligence that an attack on American missions is imminent within a specific time frame (if this report from The Independent is to be believed), why would you not ramp up security at American missions during that time? Too busy fundraising? Golfing?

 

[FriendlyFire]

It's also the basis for the foreign policy of every nation on earth. Even Obama, he is just doing it wrong.

walk quietly but carry a big stick ?

 

[Cutlass]

I think that this view should be called out for what it is.

It is a reprehensible view. It is a despicable and immoral view. It represents an utter lack of concern for one's fellow man. It represents an abrogation of the most basic of one's moral obligation and an abandonment of human decency. In short, it is a view which should be rejected with all possible force.

If we are to take Dino seriously, we should stand by in the face of genocide. We should do nothing whatever the human cost, as long as it is not in our interests to intervene. If we are to take Dino seriously we should aid and abet governments which kill their own people. We should support and succour such governments just as long as it helps us to do so. Indeed, if we are to take Dino seriously we might as well cut out the middle man; we should yield to restraints in neither war nor politics. If it is in our interests to poison children or massacre cities then are foreign policy should enact just that.

It is on this view, or one very much like it, arguments were made to ignore the genocide in Rwanda. Millions of people have died because people have held the view to which Dino ascribes. If this view had won the day Britain would have massacred Gandhi in 1928 and allied with Germany in 1940. If this view had won the day the US would never have given up the Philippines and there would have been no embargo against Apartheid South Africa. Thankfully, it did not.

Dino has said that there is absolutely no fashion in which foreign policy or military intervention should be governed by morality. That when engaging in such things we should care not a whit for our moral obligations. We should show none of the characteristic moral concern owed our fellow man. His view is like that of the unscrupulous murder, who when asked how he could possibly do the things that he did, wonders aloud how his interlocutor is so blinded by morality not to see the clear light of his own self-interest. In Dino's view nations should act like that; nations should not be blinded by the allure of morality but instead pursue the golden path of self-interest.

As I said, this view should be rejected with all possible force. Anybody with a shred of human decency should discard it as the reprehensible piece of drivel it is. Anyone with an ounce of moral sensibility should leave it, and its exponents, well enough alone.

This is all a really good point. When we have taken the realpolitik approach of only doing what appears to be in our immediate best interest, with no morality in the consideration, in the long run that has rarely turned out to be in our best interest. Morality should always be a consideration, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is in our best interest in the long run. It's all well and good to back a Batista instead of a Castro, but eventually a Castro replaces a Batista, and then what have we got?

 

[Crezth]

It's also the basis for the foreign policy of every nation on earth. Even Obama, he is just doing it wrong.

That makes it no less disgusting. Say what you will about "reality" and politics, but without principles then what is it all for?

 

[DinoDoc]

but eventually a Castro replaces a Batista, and then what have we got?

A new voting block in Florida?

 

[Cutlass]

A new voting block in Florida?

Which cost the US far more in the long run than forcing a decent government on Cuba when we controlled the place.

 

[Traitorfish]

Morality should always be a consideration, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is in our best interest in the long run.

Then it's not morality, just a more nuanced self-interest.

 

[Farm Boy]

Egoism?

 

[Cutlass]

Then it's not morality, just a more nuanced self-interest.

Not really. Doing what is moral because it is moral, and has practical benefits is not just an act of cynicism.

 

[El_Machinae]

(a protester said...) "I just want to say, how would the Americans feel if films insulting leading Christian figures like the pope or historical figures like Abraham Lincoln were produced?" -CNN coverage

Mohammed vs. Vampires!

That'll balance the books.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Thats just how most foreign policy operates. Each nation is fighting for it's best interests in a Darwinist world. Instituitions like the UN are just ineffective tools used by the do gooders to change that.

Emphasis mine.

You do realize that soclal Darwinism was debunked long ago?

If you have intelligence that an attack on American missions is imminent within a specific time frame (if this report from The Independent is to be believed), why would you not ramp up security at American missions during that time? Too busy fundraising? Golfing?

I take it you didn't vote for GWB in 2004?

There are incessant such warnings. They occur on a nearly daily basis. Should the State Department have hired a few more ex-SEAL mercenaries, such as the two other victims were, as a precaution? Wouldn't Republicans have whined about the additional expense?