How long will it take

[Anonymous]

10:30 again: I see now that Secretary Clinton has made remarks about working with the Libyan government on their response to the murders. Good start. But it needs much better communication. Obama's statement included nothing about our Libyan allies putting their resources into the pursuit of the murderers. It was a form letter, with names and places swapped out for the purpose.

Remarks from BOTH sides, with specific language about the honor of the nation being at stake in cases of attacks on diplomatic personnel, would have been more to my liking.

That, or nukes.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's already issued a strong condemnation.

I'm pretty dove-ish, in general, but the murder of diplomatic personnel seems to call for something stronger than a verbal condemnation, no matter how "strong". There are lines that must not be crossed. Killing an ambassador? That's a big one.

What are you proposing? That we nuke Libya? I don't think you are going to get anything beyond a verbal condemnation for the immediate future.

Jeff, you often jump to the most ridiculous scenario imaginable, and it doesn't help the tone of your political discussions board. The above comment is little better than a statement about Obama's body odor.

As weak as the Libyan national security forces and new government are, I would be inclined to persuade them (via the aid package, if necessary) to pursue and deliver to justice the perpetrators. To be seen doing so, with open communication about WHY they are doing so, can deliver a message far more powerful than anything we or our allies could say with boots on the ground.

You do NOT fuck with diplomatic and humanitarian personnel. Period. To do so is to shame your own nation. This needs to be communicated and accepted throughout the world.

Are you serious? You honestly think there is little difference between my statement and comments about Obama's body odor? I think there is a big difference.

You said that you want something more than a verbal condemnation. But, then you go on to suggest nothing more than a verbal order to the Libyan government. Any non-verbal response is going to take time. As another poster said, it is not the time for precipitous actions.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean something isn't being done...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's already issued a strong condemnation.

I'm pretty dove-ish, in general, but the murder of diplomatic personnel seems to call for something stronger than a verbal condemnation, no matter how "strong". There are lines that must not be crossed. Killing an ambassador? That's a big one.

What are you proposing? That we nuke Libya? I don't think you are going to get anything beyond a verbal condemnation for the immediate future.

Jeff, you often jump to the most ridiculous scenario imaginable, and it doesn't help the tone of your political discussions board. The above comment is little better than a statement about Obama's body odor.

As weak as the Libyan national security forces and new government are, I would be inclined to persuade them (via the aid package, if necessary) to pursue and deliver to justice the perpetrators. To be seen doing so, with open communication about WHY they are doing so, can deliver a message far more powerful than anything we or our allies could say with boots on the ground.

You do NOT fuck with diplomatic and humanitarian personnel. Period. To do so is to shame your own nation. This needs to be communicated and accepted throughout the world.

How do you know this is not occuring. Must everything be broadcast before it happens. Where is the security measures in that. NOT!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10:30 again: I see now that Secretary Clinton has made remarks about working with the Libyan government on their response to the murders. Good start. But it needs much better communication. Obama's statement included nothing about our Libyan allies putting their resources into the pursuit of the murderers. It was a form letter, with names and places swapped out for the purpose.

Remarks from BOTH sides, with specific language about the honor of the nation being at stake in cases of attacks on diplomatic personnel, would have been more to my liking.

That, or nukes.

Do you really think we are the only ones with nukes. How many soviet nukes disappeared after the cold war. where did they end up. who has them. do you know. what about dirty bombs and the secret cells in the united states. do you not think they exist. if not, you are definitely an ostrich.

[Anonymous]

We apologise to the United States, the people and to the whole world for what happened," Magarief, president of Libya's national assembly, told a news conference broadcast live on Al Jazeera television.

Lucky we did not nuke the place!

[Anonymous]

This is why you need adults running the US. Think of how easy it would be to manipulate the US into attacking a country or group of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's already issued a strong condemnation.

I'm pretty dove-ish, in general, but the murder of diplomatic personnel seems to call for something stronger than a verbal condemnation, no matter how "strong". There are lines that must not be crossed. Killing an ambassador? That's a big one.

What are you proposing? That we nuke Libya? I don't think you are going to get anything beyond a verbal condemnation for the immediate future.

Jeff, you often jump to the most ridiculous scenario imaginable, and it doesn't help the tone of your political discussions board. The above comment is little better than a statement about Obama's body odor.

As weak as the Libyan national security forces and new government are, I would be inclined to persuade them (via the aid package, if necessary) to pursue and deliver to justice the perpetrators. To be seen doing so, with open communication about WHY they are doing so, can deliver a message far more powerful than anything we or our allies could say with boots on the ground.

You do NOT fuck with diplomatic and humanitarian personnel. Period. To do so is to shame your own nation. This needs to be communicated and accepted throughout the world.

How do you know this is not occuring. Must everything be broadcast before it happens. Where is the security measures in that. NOT!

Communication produces change. To reinforce that a grievous breach of international protocol has occurred is a LOT different than saying "we're sad people died".

It's entirely possible that the Libyan attackers aren't aware of the deep, historic and human rules of diplomacy. Heck, posters here seem to be unaware than this is beyond the business-as-usual violence that goes on in conflict regions. The principle of diplomats as sacrosanct and untouchable cannot be oversold, over-messaged. And as far as I can see, it's not really being sold much at all in the current situation. "We're sad. We're sorry. Condolences." Not the same thing, and will have no effect on longer term attitudes and behavior.

[Anonymous]

I am almost certain they were Salafists in both Libya and Egypt. Political Islamists who see their chance to gain footholds across the middle east. And so these breeches of U.S. embassies/consulates on 9/11 were organized by those who want to do political damage and/or gain political power in those respective countries. They used the movie as a tool to motivate people to cause harm. There are almost certainly serious political underpinnings to these incidents. It's not just about religion. Religion was used as an evil too. But there is more to it than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama is like carter 1979, we are stupid to think otherwise

Yes.

Fortunately, Hilary Clinton made a strong statement. Our president is a puss.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Communication produces change. To reinforce that a grievous breach of international protocol has occurred is a LOT different than saying "we're sad people died".

It's entirely possible that the Libyan attackers aren't aware of the deep, historic and human rules of diplomacy. Heck, posters here seem to be unaware than this is beyond the business-as-usual violence that goes on in conflict regions. The principle of diplomats as sacrosanct and untouchable cannot be oversold, over-messaged. And as far as I can see, it's not really being sold much at all in the current situation. "We're sad. We're sorry. Condolences." Not the same thing, and will have no effect on longer term attitudes and behavior.

Here is a report of Obama's spoken statement:

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack," Obama said, adding that he was working with the Libyan government to improve security and ordered increased security measures at other diplomatic posts around the world. "Make no mistake we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-consulate-attack-libya-20120912,0,7597593.story

Is this strong enough for you?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Is this strong enough for you?

Nope. I read the statement. It contains no language about the fact that diplomats are under a different set of rules, and always have been, in all civilizations for all of history. Usually, killing someone's ambassador is a clear and outright act of war. I do not mean to suggest we mobilize the troops, understand.) This statement could have been (and probably has been) applied to the killing of uniformed soldiers in combat zones, or tourists on vacation.

We are dealing with something fundamentally different here, yet the response is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Is this strong enough for you?

Nope. I read the statement. It contains no language about the fact that diplomats are under a different set of rules, and always have been, in all civilizations for all of history. Usually, killing someone's ambassador is a clear and outright act of war. I do not mean to suggest we mobilize the troops, understand.) This statement could have been (and probably has been) applied to the killing of uniformed soldiers in combat zones, or tourists on vacation.

We are dealing with something fundamentally different here, yet the response is the same.

What am I missing here? Why do diplomatic rules matter right now? Do you think the people who killed the Americans care about rules??

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Is this strong enough for you?

Nope. I read the statement. It contains no language about the fact that diplomats are under a different set of rules, and always have been, in all civilizations for all of history. Usually, killing someone's ambassador is a clear and outright act of war. I do not mean to suggest we mobilize the troops, understand.) This statement could have been (and probably has been) applied to the killing of uniformed soldiers in combat zones, or tourists on vacation.

We are dealing with something fundamentally different here, yet the response is the same.

You moved the goalposts. Initially you demanded something more than a verbal condemnation. Now, you are complaining about insufficient verbiage.