Shhh

Arab Spring said:
And why, pray tell, can we not? Must we involve ourselves in the concerns of other nations, violating their inherent right to sovereignty? You certainly wouldn't like the Canadians violating the Alaskan border with impunity because they feel that they must involve themselves in something isn't any of their goddamned business.

As the great statesman Jefferson said, trade with all, alliance with none.
Click to expand...

Trade. It is the only reaon we can not be isolationist by definition, but I agree with you on staying out of their political affairs.
 
Rana said:
Trade. It is the only reaon we can not be isolationist by definition, but I agree with you on staying out of their political affairs.
Click to expand...

Then you're an isolationist. That's what we wanted 200 years ago when we coined the phrase.
 
Superfreak said:
How so Christie?

Intel prior to the two attacks you compare to intel prior to the two attacks.

Intel after to Intel after

Response after to response after.
Click to expand...


I see each attack having way different circumstances and the only commonality was Americans being killed.

9/11: an unforeseen attack (to the populace, not the govt.) where people from unfriendly countries attacked Americans on American soil. Out of the blue, so to speak, and a massive but limited attack on a couple of selected sites, not an invasion.

Libya: a country in the hotbed of the ME where war, tyranny and uprisings are SOP, and where our embassy on their soil was attacked as part of a larger series of attacks throughout that area. Attacks related to US killings of Libyans by drones.

The way I read it (and this might be totally wrong) is that the RW critics are looking at it simply as the death of Americans, and the LW critics see it as the death of Americans within the broader turmoil in the region, some of which was exacerbated by the US.
 
christiefan915 said:
I see each attack having way different circumstances and the only commonality was Americans being killed.

9/11: an unforeseen attack (to the populace, not the govt.) where people from unfriendly countries attacked Americans on American soil. Out of the blue, so to speak, and a massive but limited attack on a couple of selected sites, not an invasion.

Libya: a country in the hotbed of the ME where war, tyranny and uprisings are SOP, and where our embassy on their soil was attacked as part of a larger series of attacks throughout that area. Attacks related to US killings of Libyans by drones.

The way I read it (and this might be totally wrong) is that the RW critics are looking at it simply as the death of Americans, and the LW critics see it as the death of Americans within the broader turmoil in the region, some of which was exacerbated by the US.
Click to expand...


Its quite irrational to say that the US government had prior knowledge that aircraft would be hijacked and flown into the WTC and/or the Pentagon before it happened.....
Its insane conspiracy nonsense....along with the controlled demolition of building seven and all the other crazy theories....

Its not comparable to the attacks on 9/11/2012......the unrest in the region was well known and real.....and a complete show of stupidity to not
foresee the dangers to US interests worldwide, especially in places like Egypt and Libya.....to pull out some of the what little security there was and
deny the plain requests by diplomats that on on site and saw the turmoil first hand was a dereliction of duty....
 
Arab Spring said:
And why, pray tell, can we not? Must we involve ourselves in the concerns of other nations, violating their inherent right to sovereignty? You certainly wouldn't like the Canadians violating the Alaskan border with impunity because they feel that they must involve themselves in something isn't any of their goddamned business.

As the great statesman Jefferson said, trade with all, alliance with none.
Click to expand...

Actually, that was the great warrior Washington. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top