• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mcclatchy: amabasador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

Grant said:
Both premises are accurate and there is much historical evidence to document them.
Click to expand...

give us some examples where the US' sovereignity has been violated without consequence
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are starting with a premise that we do not have to observe other sovereign states, and by implication, that other countries do not have to observe ours.
Click to expand...

President Obama's entire drone program is premised on not observing other sovereign states.
 
Grant said:
Both premises are accurate and there is much historical evidence to document them.
Click to expand...
Not when it comes to embassies. Beyond Iran in 79, I'm not aware of external US military forces being sent in to host states to engage in an embassy rescue without the host states permission in modern times, and as far as it happening in the US, I know it hasn't happened in modern times, but I'll be interested to see what you have.
 
CanadaJohn said:
President Obama's entire drone program is premised on not observing other sovereign states.
Click to expand...
Again, in the context of embassies?

And please, if you have objections to drones, you need to go back to Bush.....and ps, I think they are an abomination, as are CIA political murders, the AUMF.....but that is beyond the context of this discussion. If you don't think we can willy-nilly do these things, then you have negated yourself from THIS discussion.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are starting with a premise that we do not have to observe other sovereign states, and by implication,
that other countries do not have to observe ours.
Click to expand...

So your'e saying the order to stand down was made with Lybia's sovereignty in mind ?

Unbelievable.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, in the context of embassies?

And please, if you have objections to drones, you need to go back to Bush.....and ps, I think they are an abomination, as are CIA political murders, the AUMF.....but that is beyond the context of this discussion. If you don't think we can willy-nilly do these things, then you have negated yourself from THIS discussion.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear - there is far more justification for crossing a country's borders in order to rescue diplomatic representatives than there is to conduct a foray to either kill an enemy, such as in the case of bin Laden, or to fly a drone into a country to bomb out of existence an individual believed to be an enemy, often with innocents in the area being sacraficed as collateral damage. My drone reference was a bang on destruction of your argument.

I'd simply add - do you think the Israelis would have wrung their hands and said, "too bad, so sad" as their countrymen were under attack? And again, I point out that had it been Obama who was holed up in some country under a similar attack, there would have been no complaints about not having enough time to plan or not having the host country welcome you in.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Let's be clear - there is far more justification for crossing a country's borders in order to rescue diplomatic representatives than there is to conduct a foray to either kill an enemy, such as in the case of bin Laden, or to fly a drone into a country to bomb out of existence an individual believed to be an enemy, often with innocents in the area being sacraficed as collateral damage. My drone reference was a bang on destruction of your argument.

I'd simply add - do you think the Israelis would have wrung their hands and said, "too bad, so sad" as their countrymen were under attack? And again, I point out that had it been Obama who was holed up in some country under a similar attack, there would have been no complaints about not having enough time to plan or not having the host country welcome you in.
Click to expand...

hell of an example
the israelis refuse to recognize any state's sovereignity when they choose to conduct a military operation
that is an pattern we don't need to follow, otherwise we will earn - and deserve - the same international condemnation which is presently reserved for israel and its unilateral, abhorrent actions
 
CanadaJohn said:
Let's be clear - there is far more justification for crossing a country's borders in order to rescue diplomatic representatives than there is to conduct a foray to either kill an enemy, such as in the case of bin Laden, or to fly a drone into a country to bomb out of existence an individual believed to be an enemy, often with innocents in the area being sacraficed as collateral damage. My drone reference was a bang on destruction of your argument.
Click to expand...
Again, "justification" for either comes from a "victim" point of view, you wouldn't have the same viewpoint if US forces were coming into Canada to engage terrorists attacking a US embassy there....but then I don't know how fast and loose your views on this matter are, so this is an assumption.

I'd simply add - do you think the Israelis would have wrung their hands and said, "too bad, so sad" as their countrymen were under attack?
Click to expand...
Again, we are not Israel, Israel gets away with it. They get away with a lot of illegal activity, and they get a pass from ultracons.


And again, I point out that had it been Obama who was holed up in some country under a similar attack, there would have been no complaints about not having enough time to plan or not having the host country welcome you in.
Click to expand...
Is this an argument that security for all, and in this case Stevens who did not want the security should be the same.....or is this just more victim/emotional appeals?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, "justification" for either comes from a "victim" point of view, you wouldn't have the same viewpoint if US forces were coming into Canada to engage terrorists attacking a US embassy there....but then I don't know how fast and loose your views on this matter are, so this is an assumption.

Again, we are not Israel, Israel gets away with it. They get away with a lot of illegal activity, and they get a pass from ultracons.


Is this an argument that security for all, and in this case Stevens who did not want the security should be the same.....or is this just more victim/emotional appeals?
Click to expand...

Firstly, it would never happen here, but if it did Canadian forces wouldn't sit by while our strongest ally was being attacked on our soil. That said, I feel very confident that Canada would not stand in the way of any effort by Americans to rescue their countrymen.

Secondly, it's a little disengenuous of you to say the Israelis "get away with a lot of illegal activity" when America conducts it's fair share of illegal activity all over the world based on their position as the world's only superpower.

Finally, my argument is based on a belief that all people who are serving their country deserve to expect their country will come to their rescue if they find themselves in harms way and even if they are unsuccessful, they will consider their lives of sufficient worth to at least try.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Firstly, it would never happen here, but if it did Canadian forces wouldn't sit by while our strongest ally was being attacked on our soil. That said, I feel very confident that Canada would not stand in the way of any effort by Americans to rescue their countrymen.

Secondly, it's a little disengenuous of you to say the Israelis "get away with a lot of illegal activity" when America conducts it's fair share of illegal activity all over the world based on their position as the world's only superpower.

Finally, my argument is based on a belief that all people who are serving their country deserve to expect their country will come to their rescue if they find themselves in harms way and even if they are unsuccessful, they will consider their lives of sufficient worth to at least try.
Click to expand...
here is why i cannot subscribe to your proposal
Operation Eagle Claw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
justabubba said:
give us some examples where the US' sovereignity has been violated without consequence
Click to expand...

Here is what was said
You are starting with a premise that we do not have to observe other sovereign states, and by implication, that other countries do not have to observe ours.
Click to expand...

This is how I responded.
Both premises are accurate and there is much historical evidence to document them.
Click to expand...

Now you've added "without consequence" which changes the discussion entirely. Rather dishonest, non?
 
Grant said:
Here is what was said

This is how I responded.

Now you've added "without consequence" which changes the discussion entirely. Rather dishonest, non?
Click to expand...

so you've got nothing
quelle surprise
 
CanadaJohn said:
Firstly, it would never happen here, but if it did Canadian forces wouldn't sit by while our strongest ally was being attacked on our soil. That said, I feel very confident that Canada would not stand in the way of any effort by Americans to rescue their countrymen.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think Canada would have a LOT to say if US forces entered Canada without permission from the govt, and I would wager many would object even with the permission.

Secondly, it's a littel disengenuous of you to say the Israelis "get away with a lot of illegal activity" when America conducts it's fair share of illegal activity all over the world based on their position as the world's only superpower.
Click to expand...
Uh, no...you see you just can't remember what I already said, I do NOT approve of US actions counter to international treaties.

READ, GD it!

Finally, my argument is based on a belief that all people who are serving their country deserve to expect their country will come to their rescue if they find themselves in harms way and even if they are unsuccessful, they will consider their lives of sufficient worth to at least try.
Click to expand...
I don't think Stevens had any illusions about the dangers he faced or had expectations of the US being able to swoop in Superman style and save him. He had daily jogs through the countryside, he wanted exposure to political elements in Libya. This compound was being turned over to the Libyans, he was only there to hand it over to their govt and was only going to be there for 5 days. There was no sizable force that could have made any difference since this was a hit and run attack. Your generalized premise just has little application in this example.
 
justabubba said:
hell of an example
the israelis refuse to recognize any state's sovereignity when they choose to conduct a military operation
that is an pattern we don't need to follow, otherwise we will earn - and deserve - the same international condemnation which is presently reserved for israel and its unilateral, abhorrent actions
Click to expand...

Does anyone really care about this "international condemnation"? Did the American people receive international congratulations for not defending or rescuing their own people?
 
Grant said:
Does anyone really care about this "international condemnation"? Did the American people receive international congratulations for not defending or rescuing their own people?
Click to expand...

that our government does not give a **** about what others think of us is what led to incidents such as osama bin ladens fatwas and the 9/11 tragedy
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Not when it comes to embassies. Beyond Iran in 79, I'm not aware of external US military forces being sent in to host states to engage in an embassy rescue without the host states permission in modern times, and as far as it happening in the US, I know it hasn't happened in modern times, but I'll be interested to see what you have.
Click to expand...

The Libyans were responsible for protecting the American Embassy and they were obviously not up to the task. At that point American forces should have stepped in. It was the Libyans who provided American leadership with the Intel, despite the lying liars saying it was the result of a youtube video.
 
Grant said:
Interesting! So you feel that no country's sovereignty has ever been violated.

I rather expected that.
Click to expand...

as usual you misunderstood
never did i assert that "no country's sovereignty has ever been violated"
there are places which can help with reading for comprehension
 
Grant said:
The Libyans were responsible for protecting the American Embassy and they were obviously not up to the task. At that point American forces should have stepped in. It was the Libyans who provided American leadership with the Intel, despite the lying liars saying it was the result of a youtube video.
Click to expand...

our people were dead soon after the libyans assigned to protect them abandoned their post
tell us how and why you believe an American military operation could have prevented their deaths
 
justabubba said:
that our government does not give a **** about what others think of us is what led to incidents such as osama bin ladens fatwas and the 9/11 tragedy
Click to expand...

So the American people should be apprehensive because some third world religious crackpot says he doesn't like them? You feel Americans should appease religious crackpots? At one time any American would have laughed at this slobbering dickhead but now there are those who, like BHO himself, bow to kiss their rings.

How things have changed in this once proud country.
 
Grant said:
The Libyans were responsible for protecting the American Embassy and they were obviously not up to the task. At that point American forces should have stepped in. It was the Libyans who provided American leadership with the Intel, despite the lying liars saying it was the result of a youtube video.
Click to expand...
See now, I expected you to provide historical precedence to back up your claims of "historical evidence"....but you haven't, instead you give a weak excuse and off topic tangents.
 
justabubba said:
our people were dead soon after the libyans assigned to protect them abandoned their post
tell us how and why you believe an American military operation could have prevented their deaths
Click to expand...

They would have tried. No one knew how long the Americans there would be able to hold out against far superior numbers but they could have tried to help. They could have tried.

Would you want to fight for a country knowing that when the chips are down you will be abandoned if there is a chance of anyone getting hurt?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
See now, I expected you to provide historical precedence to back up your claims of "historical evidence"....but you haven't, instead you give a weak excuse and off topic tangents.
Click to expand...

You want historical evidence of countries ignoring the sovereignty of other countries? Do you not have access to a history book?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom