Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I think people have become so used to the US acting with impunity in Iraq and Afghanistan that they believe we can just do what ever we please.
Which "people" would that be? Half the people in this country criticize the other half's politics on a regular basis. Politicians have to go through the smoke screen of various channels and regulations before they can act with "impunity." Except when they can get away with cover-ups of malfeasance. Iraq and Afghanistan required a great deal cooperation and not done with impunity. There was and still is much push-back against those wars and prices to be paid politically as well as in blood and treasure. It is, by the way, becoming easier and easier for our governments to act against the will of the American people with greater degrees of impunity since the old bounds that limited government were breached.
The Libyan government didn't want US uniformed troops on their soil. We are trying to help rebuild the country as a partner rather than an invader.
Why would we agree to such a partnership that does not allow us to defend our own in a dangerous part of the world?
And I don't see how you can describe Libya as a "hotbed of terrorism" in fact I think that's something that Jim just made up.
Don't blame it on Jim. I was uncharacteristically being relativistic. Compared to Ames Iowa, Libya is a "hotbed" of terrorism. Compared to Afghanistan, maybe not so much.
Ambassador Stevens used to go running outside in the streets of Benghazi. Certainly the security conditions were deteriorating but a "hotbed?". Does anyone think Stevens would have traveled on his own free will to a lightly protected facility if he thought it was a "hotbed of terrorism?"
-spence
|
Yeah, conditions were "deteriorating." He asked for help. Guess he was worried and maybe stopped running outside in the streets. Probly second-guessed his free will decision to go to a "lightly protected facility."