This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Pulling out of a few embassies in unstable Middle East countries would likely save money.
Holy Diplomatic Note, Batman!!
He's already declared war on Iran and Russia. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb IRAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!So Romney will destroy planet earth because of what happened in Libya and Egypt if elected?
That one was already destroyed, so I guess it's back to earth. And really we've done more to deserve destruction than Alderaan, eh? Reading the wiki about Alderaan, we could learn a lot from them.
Physical embassies are obsolete, but I think they still have great symbolic value.
You're in fine form today. Didn't know presidential candidates (non-sitting) can declare war.
It sounds like the Emperor was going to pull an Israel with the survivors and compound a genocide by stealing somebody else's planet for them. The parallels become more and more eerie.
In the end, the host country has to bear responsibility, as we can't station armies in every country to protect all our embassies. Since these Muslim countries are either unable or unwilling to do what needs to be done to protect our embassies, we pull out until we're confident of their willingness/ability to provide protection.
You mean a democratically elected Emperor would show great restraint as terrorists regularly attack his nation even though he could wipe them out if there was no concern for the civilian toll? I'm missing the parrallels here. I think you've gotten them flipped around.
That's a fuzzy line these days.FYP. Check out the Constitution.
I agree that if the host country cannot guarantee the physical safety of the embassy personnel or grounds then we should not have an embassy there. The question then becomes what do you do when the host country guarantees that safety and then something happens? I think it is best to see whether the host country (1) publicly and strongly condemns the attack, (2) makes a good faith effort to find the perpetrators including sharing all information they have with us, and (3) helps us in our effort to ensure it does not happen again.
Having U.S. embassy staff in their country or not isn't going to make or break them. If they become a failed state (to the extent they haven't already), it's not because we have an embassy there or not. I do agree that if a country takes all the right steps then you don't yank an embassy. But, I have little faith that these countries can take all the right steps and ensure our embassy's safety. There are ways to stay engaged without providing a sitting duck target for the next tantrum the populace of a given Muslim country decides to throw.
Sorry for looking for the parallels you said there were.
I think we're largely on the same page. I've had relatives in foreign places that are far from safe, so I understand your sentiments. Really, in a lot of the Middle Eastern countries, I don't know how we can be certain that our embassy will be safe. Egypt and Libya are the poster children, but this could have happened other places.