Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
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.
|
People being the citizenry. An interesting book that deals with this subject I've mentioned before is Andrew Bacehvich's "The New American Militarism."
Quote:
|
Why would we agree to such a partnership that does not allow us to defend our own in a dangerous part of the world?
|
We have diplomatic personelle in many if not all dangerous nations and can't freely operate our military. Hence, actions are either covert, with some approval like in Yemen or a calculated risk like Pakistan.
Quote:
|
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., 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."
|
Compared to Ames Iowa, Philadelphia is a "hotbed" of terrorism
Quote:
|
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."
|
It's worth noting that the security situation wasn't one where the threat of Islamic terrorism was a big topic. One problem was the local militias providing security didn't agree with the US endorsing certain political candidates. A lot of violence was the result of militias clashing to settle property or economic disputes. Not necessarily directed at Western interests...
-spence