Hillary

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're taking this personally rather than simply look at it from the perspective of the Libyan people.

It is obvious that "the Libyan people" are ideologically divided. Which perspective should we take, or should we take any or either perspective? How about the perspective of the American people? Do we, as a people, as a nation, have a perspective re the perspectives of the Libyan people? Do we The People have a say about our perspective? Are we even told all of the facts which would allow us to have a perspective? Or is our government acting with impunity, deciding what our perspective is or should be?

Not to mention the common sense aspects.

Let us not mention the common sense aspect of providing security for our people in a dangerous place, or at least a backup plan for emergency support/evacuation. I doubt that if our ambassador had known that he would become a martyr for the cause of being a partner with an unformed nation which wants our help, or doesn't, depending on which perspective we should take, and that his staff would also be martyrs, I doubt that he would take such an assignment. And if he was so deluded, such a mind should not be in charge of a mission where others could suffer the same fate. Nor should a government who would accede to the delusion that all was safe and no support was needed, be in charge of taking in mind the perceptions of Libyans or Americans, especially when it acts with the impunity of disregarding all perspectives but its own .

Radicalization in Libya was obviously a concern post Khadaffi. I think we'd all agree that visible US troop presence would simply accelerate this further and make things even more difficult for the new leadership.

-spence

Radicalization? From the Khadaffi perspective the government that took his place was radical. Liberation from one perspective to another is radical, depending on which perspective you take. I suppose any perspective that deviates from that of a government which acts with impunity would be considered radical by that government.

I don't think "we'd all agree" that US troop presence would make things more difficult for "the new leadership." If we were "partners" with that new leadership, and it reflected the perspective of the Libyan people, our troops could make it easier for it to succeed against opposing perspectives. If the perspectives, on the other hand, are not so clearly defined and delineated, how on earth could we be a partner and with whom? And if we partnered in order to suppress radicalization, isn't that choosing with impunity who to help? So, would nation building with military presence and aid, as in Iraq, be unacceptable and ineffective or more difficult than by partnering in some weak shadow presence that is totally at the mercy of conflicting perspectives?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

t is obvious that "the Libyan people" are ideologically divided. Which perspective should we take, or should we take any or either perspective? How about the perspective of the American people? Do we, as a people, as a nation, have a perspective re the perspectives of the Libyan people? Do we The People have a say about our perspective? Are we even told all of the facts which would allow us to have a perspective? Or is our government acting with impunity, deciding what our perspective is or should be?

Have you been reading Fox in Sox?

Let us not mention the common sense aspect of providing security for our people in a dangerous place, or at least a backup plan for emergency support/evacuation. I doubt that if our ambassador had known that he would become a martyr for the cause of being a partner with an unformed nation which wants our help, or doesn't, depending on which perspective we should take, and that his staff would also be martyrs, I doubt that he would take such an assignment. And if he was so deluded, such a mind should not be in charge of a mission where others could suffer the same fate. Nor should a government who would accede to the delusion that all was safe and no support was needed, be in charge of taking in mind the perceptions of Libyans or Americans, especially when it acts with the impunity of disregarding all perspectives but its own .?

We have diplomats all over the world in dangerous situations, it's part of their job. The ARB has already determined mistakes were made and issued a pretty scathing report, anything more is just Monday morning quarterbacking or worse...

From the Khadaffi perspective the government that took his place was radical. Liberation from one perspective to another is radical, depending on which perspective you take. I suppose any perspective that deviates from that of a government which acts with impunity would be considered radical by that government.

So?

I don't think "we'd all agree" that US troop presence would make things more difficult for "the new leadership." If we were "partners" with that new leadership, and it reflected the perspective of the Libyan people, our troops could make it easier for it to succeed against opposing perspectives. If the perspectives, on the other hand, are not so clearly defined and delineated, how on earth could we be a partner and with whom? And if we partnered in order to suppress radicalization, isn't that choosing with impunity who to help? So, would nation building with military presence and aid, as in Iraq, be unacceptable and ineffective or more difficult than by partnering in some weak shadow presence that is totally at the mercy of conflicting perspectives?

That assumes the partnership in place hasn't already been rationalized which I believe it has.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Have you been reading Fox in Sox?

Wrong.

We have diplomats all over the world in dangerous situations, it's part of their job. The ARB has already determined mistakes were made and issued a pretty scathing report, anything more is just Monday morning quarterbacking or worse...

Oooooo . . . a scathing report. That takes care of that. Let's move on. Nothing further to report, or consider, or look into. Matter resolved by a scathing report.

So?

So . . . why did you bring up that radicalization in Libya post Qadaffi was a concern? If radicalization is merely a matter of "perspective" why bother or care about it? Unless you choose to take sides, and then on what basis, by what perspective, do you choose?

That assumes the partnership in place hasn't already been rationalized which I believe it has.

-spence

Wrong again. The "partnership" is not rational. It has no solid, meaningful basis, nor predictable outcome. It's a roll the dice and hope it doesn't come up Muslim Brotherhood or Al qaeda.

[basswipe]

Been awhile I've since been here and now I know why.261 responses later and I'm dumbfounded into what this thread has become.

My initial post:

This is direct quote from her after her '96 Balkans visit:

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

We now know that the above statement was a complete and total LIE.

And we're supposed to except what she said during the Benghazi hearings as truth?That would be like handing a crack-head a 20 spot and he/she promises to spend the money on food.How can anything this woman says be trusted?

Next post by Spence:

I'm not sure that really matters. A lot of fairly honest people are guilty of sensationalizing things along the way. It would be more disconcerting if it was important...

We didn't really learn that much new in the Clinton testimony. It's been investigated to death...

The woman is a complete and total liar,of course it matters.And yes we've actually learned much.How do you "sensationalize" a combat experience?

"Its been investigated to death".Really,has it?So why is it still under investigation to this day?Don't answer its a rhetorical question...SHE LIED!!!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

"Its been investigated to death".Really,has it?So why is it still under investigation to this day?Don't answer its a rhetorical question...SHE LIED!!!!!

Politics.

-spence