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.
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.
jsteele wrote:
Is this strong enough for you?
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.
Anonymous wrote:Obama is like carter 1979, we are stupid to think otherwise
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!
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.
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.![]()
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.
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.