It’s going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. I bet the U.S. pussies out though, which will only embolden future attackers. If the U.S. is not careful, it’s going to be open season on its citizens and consulates.
At the very least, the U.S. should threaten to pull out its diplomats and all foreign aid, seize all assets of Libyan citizens (especially politicians or their families), lean on other developed countries to prevent all Libyan citizens (especially politicians or their relatives) from travelling, as well as perhaps even set up an economic embargo on the country (and threaten to attack – militarily, economically, diplomatically – any convoys that try to break that embargo). Bring it to its absolute knees economically until the government in Libya gets serious about fixing this problem and makes restitution. Likewise for Egypt over their efforts. It’s very bad form to attack diplomats or consulates, and it’s technically an act of war. The U.S. can’t let people fuck it around over stuff like this.
Punish the citizens who have nothing to do with it? Why on earth would you do that?
Because in a democracy, people are responsible for their governments. Give them a reason to start putting pressure on their government. They can’t cynically play both sides when it suits them.
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]It’s going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. I bet the U.S. pussies out though, which will only embolden future attackers. If the U.S. is not careful, it’s going to be open season on its citizens and consulates.
At the very least, the U.S. should threaten to pull out its diplomats and all foreign aid, seize all assets of Libyan citizens (especially politicians or their families), lean on other developed countries to prevent all Libyan citizens (especially politicians or their relatives) from travelling, as well as perhaps even set up an economic embargo on the country (and threaten to attack – militarily, economically, diplomatically – any convoys that try to break that embargo). Bring it to its absolute knees economically until the government in Libya gets serious about fixing this problem and makes restitution. Likewise for Egypt over their efforts. It’s very bad form to attack diplomats or consulates, and it’s technically an act of war. The U.S. can’t let people fuck it around over stuff like this.[/quote]
If the US pussies out, I smell a Romney victory by a large margin. This reminds me of 1980 all over again. Carter sends the rescue mission in April 1980, it fails miserably, and Reagan comes from behind (he was 20% behind in the summer) as more and more people become disarrayed with Carter’s leadership and the economic malaise/foreign policy blunders.
The Europeans ran the show in Libya to help locals overthrow Gaddafi, the US stayed in the background, and now lives are lost in Benghazi because it was done halfassed (sort of like the first half of Vietnam where the US politicians put constraints on the military from doing their jobs).
If ever there was a call for more active leadership in foreign policy that promotes American exceptionalism–it is now.
Romney was spot on in criticizing Obama’s piss weak response.
I am also entertained with the historical hypocrisy. Dumbass Democrats and their liberal fluffers in the media criticized Bush for claiming victory on the aircraft carrier after the Iraq invasion. Will they criticize Clinton for her early enthusiasm in Libya? youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
Intervening is a dirty business that sometimes takes decades to build institutions and promote economic development! :bravo: Let’s just hope that out of this tragedy the Republicans prevail in November and some heavy hitters get back in foreign policy positions. Then the job will be done wholeheartedly.
Chewy, you’re getting the sequence of responses and criticisms mixed up, just like Romney did.
How about instead punishing the criminals responsible? That’d make a lot more sense.
The largest party in government, who have more than twice as many seats as the second largest, is basically a liberal, pro-democracy, pro-western government. They are not to blame. Neither are the everyday citizens who seek to live in peace and freedom. The only people to blame are the terrorists and criminals who planned and carried out the attack.
Chewy: It could allow Romney to turn things around completely. The Democrats would be kicking themselves if that happened. These kind of situations have a habit of going pear-shaped at the most (in)opptune time. At the same time, I don’t think a repeat of Iraq would be advisable. I’d suggest fucking shit up without fucking around on the ground, or if fucking around on the ground is necessary, get in and out quickly. More “Don’t fuck with us!” and less “nation building”. Who can and can’t fuck shit up is all those idiots have ever subscribed to or responded to since the seventh century. It’s Barbary pirates all over again.
cfimages: I’m not buying that for a second. Plenty of supposedly liberal and/or pro-Western governments, openly declared allies of the U.S. and all the rest of that hoopla have played the U.S. for a complete fool many times before. Pakistan, anyone? Are you that naive?
Make all of these fuckers put their money (or rather, the money America gives them) where their mouths are. So-called moderate Muslims act as a smoke screen for all this other bullshit, and if the chips were down between Islam and liberalism, we know which side they’d take.
Sorry, Obama already had his mission- remember, when he got bin Laden?
[quote=“MikeN”]
Sorry, Obama already had his mission- remember, when he got bin Laden?[/quote]
Oh right. And what was revealed in the new commando book about the raid? Almost all commandos were hesitant because they did not want to get Obama reelected. That shows how strong his support in the armed forces is! 
so what’s new there? people who like guns and killing people are often Republican voters.
Anyway, taking out Bin Laden won’t matter if it becomes open season on American embassies and citizens. People will be baying for blood in America.
[quote=“ChewDawg”][quote=“MikeN”]
Sorry, Obama already had his mission- remember, when he got bin Laden?[/quote]
Oh right. And what was revealed in the new commando book about the raid? Almost all commandos were hesitant because they did not want to get Obama reelected. That shows how strong his support in the armed forces is! [/quote]
yeah, so patriotic, wanting to bunk a mission that is essential to national security, because they dislike the president. i didn’t know that’s how the chain of command works… if it’s true, it’s sad. if it’s made up for some political agenda, it’s even more sad.
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“ChewDawg”][quote=“MikeN”]
Sorry, Obama already had his mission- remember, when he got bin Laden?[/quote]
Oh right. And what was revealed in the new commando book about the raid? Almost all commandos were hesitant because they did not want to get Obama reelected. That shows how strong his support in the armed forces is! [/quote]
yeah, so patriotic, wanting to bunk a mission that is essential to national security, because they dislike the president. i didn’t know that’s how the chain of command works… if it’s true, it’s sad. if it’s made up for some political agenda, it’s even more sad.[/quote]
Gimme a break. Everything has a political agenda. Do you think the military ever gets to do what makes sense for national security/interests without political interference (under any administration)? Getting to be the top brass these days must be an absolute minefield in terms of political correctness and general arse kissing.
[quote=“hansioux”]
yeah, so patriotic, wanting to bunk a mission that is essential to national security, because they dislike the president. i didn’t know that’s how the chain of command works… if it’s true, it’s sad. if it’s made up for some political agenda, it’s even more sad.[/quote]
Do you feel the same way about Obama politicizing the Iraqi war dead during the campaign in 2008? Didn’t think so? Perhaps being educated past first year political sciences courses with expand your sense of fairplay and provide you with more balance!
[quote=“ChewDawg”][quote=“MikeN”]
Sorry, Obama already had his mission- remember, when he got bin Laden?[/quote]
Oh right. And what was revealed in the new commando book about the raid? Almost all commandos were hesitant because they did not want to get Obama reelected. That shows how strong his support in the armed forces is! [/quote]
Really? Can you give us a few quotes? Not that I don’t trust you implicitly to be fair minded of course … 
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“ChewDawg”][quote=“MikeN”]
Sorry, Obama already had his mission- remember, when he got bin Laden?[/quote]
Oh right. And what was revealed in the new commando book about the raid? Almost all commandos were hesitant because they did not want to get Obama reelected. That shows how strong his support in the armed forces is! [/quote]
yeah, so patriotic, wanting to bunk a mission that is essential to national security, because they dislike the president. i didn’t know that’s how the chain of command works… if it’s true, it’s sad. if it’s made up for some political agenda, it’s even more sad.[/quote]
I actually just read that book. None of them were hesitant about it. In fact, they were all excited and honored to have been the ones chosen.
[quote=“cfimages”]
I actually just read that book. None of them were hesitant about it. In fact, they were all excited and honored to have been the ones chosen.[/quote]
Then you have piss poor reading comprehension. Some excerpts:
But “Mark Owen” (the pseudonym of one gutsy, transgressive member of the SEALs, who served 13 consecutive combat deployments) began to want to set the record straight. He hoped to deliver firsthand a visceral and often surprising version of the bin Laden raid and other SEAL stories. The emphasis of his “No Easy Day,” written with Kevin Maurer, is not on spilling secrets. It is on explaining a SEAL’s rigorous mind-set and showing how that toughness is created.
More excerpts :
It is only after the George W. Bush presidency that the author begins complaining about the slow-moving “Washington machine” that members of the SEALs found frustrating. That irritation mounts in 2011, when the SEALs anxiously awaited their signal to raid Abbottabad, but this account is determined to steer clear of serious politics or leave itself open to election-season manipulation. The worst it has to say about President Obama is that none of the fighters who caught bin Laden wanted to help re-elect him …
[quote=“cfimages”][quote=“hansioux”][quote=“ChewDawg”][quote=“MikeN”]
Sorry, Obama already had his mission- remember, when he got bin Laden?[/quote]
Oh right. And what was revealed in the new commando book about the raid? Almost all commandos were hesitant because they did not want to get Obama reelected. That shows how strong his support in the armed forces is! 
[/quote]
yeah, so patriotic, wanting to bunk a mission that is essential to national security, because they dislike the president. i didn’t know that’s how the chain of command works… if it’s true, it’s sad. if it’s made up for some political agenda, it’s even more sad.[/quote]
I actually just read that book. None of them were hesitant about it. In fact, they were all excited and honored to have been the ones chosen.[/quote]
In this NYT book review, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/books/no-easy-day-by-mark-owen-with-kevin-maurer.html?_r=2&hpnear the bottom of the page, it says:
This implies that they were more repub types. Actually this doesn’t exactly surprise me. What I didn’t like in Chewy’s post was his use of the word “hesitant”. This just doesn’t seem appropriate for commandos on a military mission of this kind.