Actually there's plenty of documented evidence that it was actually done by them.

 

 

And there is plenty of evidence to suggest the other way, especially evidence of sloppy cover ups.

Is this what you are referring to, his response that he made -before- the killings?

 

I cannot actually recall him being apologising to anyone. He said his Govt condemns hate speech towards any race and religion, which is a good policy to have right?, nonetheless, all that drama is allowed under freedom of speech and he reiterated the fact that US govt did not sponsor the film, which is also a fact and needed to be aired because it was something that was being propagated by extremists.

 

That was bad wording on my part. I was trying to say that the Administration had done a bad job at handling the event. Most guilty would be the speech Hilary Clinton made apologizing for everything, and how Islam is a great religion. Watching the video bothers me as there is no mention about standing strong. Very little condemnation or saying how dare you violate Diplomatic rules. Torch our embassies and murder our diplomats but no worries, we will be the ones apologizing to you... I'd never thought I'd see the U.S. take such a weak stance on this issue.

 

I linked the video below with Hilary.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/sep/13/hillary-clinton-middle-east-protests-video

 

As for 9/11, I believe that it was definitely Al-Queda that caused the attacks. However, the Government new a lot more than what was let on. For those of you that haven't read the 9/11 Commission Report, it gives a lot of insight about how the varying Government agencies weren't sharing information. 9/11 could easily have been prevented if only our countries Agencies were actually sharing information. There were times that different people in the government tried to sit down and talk, but they quickly realized their meetings were fruitless. The people at those meeting simply didn't have the clearance to discuss/share information with other government agencies. As you can probably guess, it was a very discouraging process.

 

Unfortunately, even after 9/11, our Nation's information sharing abilities still aren't where they should be.

That was bad wording on my part. I was trying to say that the Administration had done a bad job at handling the event. Most guilty would be the speech Hilary Clinton made apologizing for everything, and how Islam is a great religion.

Why dont you elaborate?

 

Very little condemnation or saying how dare you violate Diplomatic rules. Torch our embassies and murder our diplomats but no worries, we will be the ones apologizing to you... I'd never thought I'd see the U.S. take such a weak stance on this issue.

It wasnt the Libyan govt or the masses, but extremists who took the oppurtunity...did you know in solidarity protests around Libya, many of the militias have been driven out or forced to surrender by the people..triggered due to the Embassy attack? I mean its a big news in that part of the world, not sure about the coverage it might have gotten on your end.

Edited September 26, 201214 yr by Shahenshah

It sounds like you're saying that's a horrendous appaling statement?

Islam itself isn't bad. Its Radical Islam is what is dangerous. And yes I realize that it had nothing to do with Libya the country, but the act was committed by extremists.

 

I could flip this around and say has America apologized for war in Iraq? 100,000+ civilians killed in the conflict, infrastructure in ruins....all that justified by lies upon lies, yet you expect apology to an event that isn't even comparable in any shape or form to the destruction forced upon Iraq. An event that was not initiated by elected govt of Libya vs one that was initiated by a re-elected democratic govt of USA. Point being, this Govt. at-least appears to be more empathetic (which does not mean being weak, but more sensible) to the people of region, where historically they have aligned (and continue to do so until ofc they're toppled) more closely with undemocratic tyrants and apartheid regimes.

I do feel that an apology towards Iraq is proper. We did declare war on their country and did a horrible job at helping them rebuild there country. Some improvements were made but we left them an incredible load to deal with. The reason I didn't think such an apology from Hilary was right because we the U.S. isn't responsible for every nut job who feels the need to offend others.

 

Either way, debating the handing on the incident is rather pointless. Whats done is done and we can only hope for the better.

 

However, this is my personal opinion, do any of us feel there's actually morality involved in IR?

Are you referring to Ireland? I'll admit that is one are of foreign affairs I'm not the most familiar with. Except that religion has been highly disputed their over the past few decades.

The government funds wars they initiatied with your taxes, if only you were so critical of them.

So are you only against people who are unemployed and get offered a job but refuse to do it?

 

The wars, particularly Afghanistan is one that I believe in. I have personally made 2 trips to fight in that war. It is more than just hunting down terror groups to me. I gladly would have gone to war at the start but i was in middle school lol. Even now, with everything it costs, if you are out doing the grunt work you can see the times that it is worth it. Problem being, we didnt know it at the time, but seemingly have put ourselves into a situation in which we can not "win" 100%.

 

Im not just against the people you have described. I have seen many that have the ability to work, but simply much rather live off of the government. They dont even attempt to actually look for a job. Just collect checks and food stamps instead. I am also against paying for other people to have services that I have to pay for myself. For example health care. I am by no means wealthy. I do however, have health care for my family that I have to pay for myself with both my time and actual cash. To enact a universal health care system that provides care to those who "cant afford" health care, is against what I think should be done. I work around health care and see what happens with increased costs. When costs of providing care go up, pay for the health care workers either decreases or they attempt to increase the cost of receiving that care. Going to med school isnt exactly all that rewarding after 12+ years of classes and internships when you graduate and are now in debt for the next 20+ years and dont have the pay that you should be getting.

 

That is a very brief and somewhat scattered explanation... but I hope it makes sense Shep lol

Do you really believe that? Do you realise the healthcare in the US is the most expensive in the world? Universal healthcare is actually cheaper. And you will still pay for your healthcare in the form of taxes.

 

It is stupid to think that since you have now healthcare you're fine. Don't know your situation but most healthcare is given through the employer, so what if you're fired? Suddenly you and your entire family have no healthcare any more. And now someone gets sick and he/she has to go to the hospital.

 

You're still a hardworking person, but now with a huge debt.

 

And what do you think what happens now when someone who doesn't has healthcare and goes to the emergency room. They get send away? You should know, they get treated and get a huge bill. ... Which they can't afford, thus the hospital has to turn up for the costs. The price of the hospital will rise, so guess what. You're still paying! Even more than usual.

 

The doctor part: The debt is because your education system is also broken. But let's skip that, I don't see how UHC will decrease doctors pay. Don't forget that there are public and private hospitals so if they want to earn a ton of money they can go private. And public hospitals still let you earn more than enough to live comfortably.

 

 

 

In conclusion.

In terms of the Libyan incident, I do wonder what the administration was supposed to do. The USA, France and the UK have some tentative allies in Libya and Egypt rather than people who are on our side just for the money. How that pans out in the long run is yet to be seen, but there is one thing certain. It won't take very much to get rid of them. Appearing to back the film makers would probably do it.

 

You have to bear in mind that this was an extremist militia. The Obama administration held out a hand of apology. And now the militia has been driven from the city. Had the Obama administration held out a fist instead, that might not have happened. It could have cost the goodwill that the USA has just earned.

 

The fact is the administration is also entirely right. The film makers are in the wrong. I know that in the USA there are constitutional rights to say what you want. However, that should never be taken to mean that you have the moral right to say what you want. And that is the message that I saw coming out of the US, and it is quite correct.

 

As for Romney and the republicans, what concerns me is that the last 11 years has taught them nothing. Romney said he wanted to apply pressure to Palestine to get them to effectively surrender. That just shows that he still does not understand the basic principles of modern warfare, despite the act that the USA has been at war for the last three presidential terms.

 

The basic fact is this. And this has been seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. If you have little to live for, you will die very willingly. Half of Gaza's population are under 18. You tell them that they have to accept their lot in life, the Israeli cordons. Tell them that they will need Israel for everything, that they cannot farm, they cannot fish. And tell them that if they want peace they have to accept it on those conditions. Do you really expect anything but unending war? If your life is a life of squalor, no education, no job, no space, going out in a blaze of glory suddently sounds attractive.

 

For this reason the only way to subdue Gaza by military strength is to open up with the artillery, and then send the bulldozers in and not stop until the entire population has been driven into the sea. Otherwise, you have to reach a peaceful solution that at least offers them a future. And if you demand that they give in to force of arms, you are unlikely to find that solution (especially as that threat implies that he thinks Palestine has no claim to a better life).

 

The depressing thing is that this is how Iraq was fought, and how Afghanistan is lost. Iraq was not won by force of arms. It was won by making peace with the militia's. It was a political victory that ended 8 years of blood and misery. In Afghanistan the coalition struggles because it cannot offer anything different. They brought fire to the opium plants that were the only source of income. They offer no peace and only war. And in that backdrop, the Taliban, who are effectively the armed wing of the Pashtun people appeal to the Pashtuni villagers, as they have always had a horrible life and a corrupt Kabal offers them nothing else. You cannot subjucate such a people without killing every last one of them, so again a political solution has to be found. And yet the Republicans seem not to have noticed this and just want more war.

 

This is the same as happened in Vietnam. The US bascially offered more corruption and misery. And the Vietnemese were willing to fight because what they had under that was so bad.

Eventually the system is gonna come to revolution once enough people are pissed off with inaction and lies of government, until that happens for this election I am voting for Obama, Romney among many other republicans scare me in what they seem to believe in and how they view this country moving forward.

 

And I am an avid supporter of socialism, the idea is well, unfortunately humans are too stupid and greedy to make anything work correctly but when all is said and done I favor socialism over anything really.

socialism (or as stretch communism) only works as long as there is money. As such: robot work force o/

So much 2 read and so much to answer, here goes:

 

Comm Shep; no such thing as Radical Islam only Radical ppl and those r no longer Muslim yet foolishly claim 2 b. Islam clearly states that killers of innocent ppl r not Muslims no matter wat they say. Our Prophet Mohammad ORDERED the Muslim troops not 2 touch women, children and even men who were unarmed in battle nor even torch buildings or trees and fields even. Nuff said.

 

 

Socialism> Capitalism. Simply that ain't justice and equality better than every1 giving all the money to one guy who keeps making mistakes and doesn't work hard ( refer bailouts here ). FU wall street and Eurobank ur taking the world economy 2 hell. Nuff said.

 

Oh and I dunno y I do this and I seriously hav no answer for it but...................#RomneyRyan2012.

I think Obama is doing a good job, it might take some time for the prices to drop again but his building a strong economy. I think what romney wants to do is lower the prices fast but not have a strong economy which can lead to stock market crash again like what happened with Bush.

As an outsider, I notice with worry that a superpower like US has a growing and stronger right-wing that borders radicalism in some aspects i.e. Tea party peeps and how a main stream political party is catering to that vote bank.

 

This is being a trend in most of the world, we've seen right-wing parties with some radical aspects make inroads in Muslim countries, then we saw it in Israel, now we're seeing it in Greece and some other parts of Europe and finally in USA. Since it started first with Muslim countries, you can see the catastrophe the right wing extremists have created, it will only be more damaging if they get more control in stronger countries. How they work is they're radicals first and slowly they change the spectrum in such a way that right-wing 20 years ago starts becoming your centre today.

Edited November 1, 201213 yr by Shahenshah

The NDAA's passed through the Senate and Congress. All that remains is for Obama to sign or veto it. I have little hope of him doing the latter, as he said he'd veto last year's NDAA, too.

 

Rand Paul went on a rant on it. I find it really disturbing that I find myself agreeing with him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWApGqE_T-k

 

This is why I want to leave America as soon as possible, but of course, my father doesn't agree with me because MURRIKA **** YEAR

hmm...not familiar with the bill.

This is being a trend in most of the world, we've seen right-wing parties with some radical aspects make inroads in Muslim countries, then we saw it in Israel, now we're seeing it in Greece and some other parts of Europe and finally in USA. Since it started first with Muslim countries, you can see the catastrophe the right wing extremists have created, it will only be more damaging if they get more control in stronger countries. How they work is they're radicals first and slowly they change the spectrum in such a way that right-wing 20 years ago starts becoming your centre today.

 

So, basically, we are seeing a general return of Fascism in the world.