Claiming that they're their enemies or claiming that they were behind the attack?

Narcissist-in-Chief is understanding: "The president, flanked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and four other senior State officials, spoke of the importance of the foreign service and how effective it is representing the United States abroad. He also said he understands the value of the foreign service because so much of his childhood was spent abroad..."

Russians speak the truth.

I trust you buy all your gasoline from Wal-Mart, or from us, since you seem inclined to piss on your country's Sunni allies in Saudi and Turkey.

You could just as easily label America as Israel's client state. But both countries spend huge amounts of time and money courting American politicians and American citizens (Israel) or business interests (Saudi), which suggests that they both see American (military) support as vital to their interests, which in turn suggests Saudi and Israeli client status.

I am reminded of the French diplomat who said his countries allies would be 'astonished at our ingratitude".

The problem is defining long-term strategic interests. The US is accused of backstopping various brutal despots, like the shah of Iran or the former Egyptian regime. There is some justice in that view, since these dictators force a temporary, sullen stability while neglecting to build the social and political institutions that truly produce lasting peace. However, hectoring them to establish civilk society just doesn't seem to work, and when the revolution comes, or the caudillo dies, there is nobody left to pick up the pieces except the crazies. I've always thought that if Mubarek had let the Muslim Brotherhood win a couple of municipal elections and then try to collect the garbage and fix the local potholes, the Brotherhood might have faded away. But that was Mubarek's responsibility, not ours, yet we are getting the blame.

Mubarak wasn't a "brutal despot".

He was practically toothless compared to your longed-for Mussolini. How could he have lost WWII? God must really suck. No wonder you've abandoned your Mother Church.

So, America supports tyrants in office, but it should be their fault if things go awry rather than ours? I suppose you could get Gerry and Sarge to buy that, even if no one else will.

by Egyptian Copts intentionally trying to cause trouble

I'm sure Novy would blame the abortionist if a Christian shoots him.  

If anti-abortion activists were rioting in front of some abortionist's office, providing cover for assassins, I would probably blame those rioters, just as I blame ignorant Libyan rioters for providing cover for terrorism. I doubt I would blame police for failing to protect said abortionist any more than I blame Libyan authorities for their failure to protect Stevens.

If it had been clear that that movie was made by Egyptian Copts, there wouldn't have been anti-American riots for al Qaida-inspired terrorists to hide behind in their plot to kill Americans.

If it had been clear that that movie was made by Egyptian Copts, there wouldn't have been anti-American riots

Were those Libyan riots planned or did they break out spontaneously? Get your story straight before you comment.

Planned, obviously.

Then those rioters were entirely rationale, eh? And that Grade F movie had nothing to do with anything.

...those rioters were entirely rationale...

They were just following orders, running interference for terrorists. Or do you not believe your own posts?

I wrote that they were following orders?

You didn't even write that you favoured using nukes. You were just compulsively defending crazy-right positions, as all New Jersey Independents do. You could say almost anything and deny saying it seconds later based on parsing words or other technicalities. I should understand by now.

You didn't even write that you favoured using nukes

...New Jersey Independents...

An even better response would have been to open fire on anybody who came unauthorized onto sovereign American soil, but I'm not sure about the legal status of the wall.

I'll alert the Ecuadorians.

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

It would seem prudent to avoid a violent situation with a few well-aimed rounds of 5.56 FMJ.

Because who cares if you alienate Egypt entirely after sending them billions of dollars in foreign and military aid to keep them on-side and at peace with Israel? And who cares how your friends in Saudi and Turkey react, because they can go to hell too if they don't like Bush-style ballsiness?

After you get rid of all your Arab allies, and then get rid of your European allies (except maybe for Britain) because they remind you of France, you'll be able to act like King Kong anywhere you like, anywhere on Earth. Just don't BS us about budget cuts that can never actually happen, OK?

For what?

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

I never got around to it yesterday, but I wanted to mention that I actually agree with you per the "simulated child porn".  I don't think that came across in the conversation.

Anyway, with a dataset of n=1 I've found that porn only temporarily sates sexual appetite.  In the long term, it whets it, which leaves me skeptical about the hope that simulated child porn could serve as a release rather than enticement for pedophiles.  That alone is enough to continue to criminalize it.  Shy Elf did later make an interesting argument against black-and-white inflexibility on that point, however.

I appreciate you clarifying that and appreciate that we can disagree amicably.

I thought about what a society that accepts simulated child porn looks like and it doesn't seem good at all. I mean from a regulatory point along it seems awful. Would you have a agency or something, where people are sitting around all day viewing that stuff to figure out what is real and what isn't? Seems like a terrible job.

Anyways, I don't want to sidetrack this thread with a conversation from the other thread.

like this? ;-)

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

HAHAHAHA. I am totally saving that pic. Epic.

Well, killing Nazis seemed to work against them.

The Terrorists have a country like the Nazis did?

Saying that killing terrorists will stop terrorism is like saying that executing murderers will stop murder

Let's start with NOW, then move onto NARAL, then move onto the AFL-CIO.  Sooner or later we'll get to the Democratic Party.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

The problem is that there are plenty of people who are potential terrorists who aren't associated with terrorist organizations.  You can't kill everyone.

Allons-y!

I can't kill every bacterium in my house, but I still wash my hands.

No, that never happened.

What never happened? Obama killing terrorists (like OBL) or people like you calling him "weak" anyway?

The latter, obviously.

You never called Obama "weak"? Gerry doesn't consider Obama "weak"?

Never mind.

You never called Obama "weak"?

Gerry doesn't consider Obama "weak"?

Never mind

I did ask Gerry, and you can read English as well as I can. When you don't correct him, I assume you agree with him.

It's my job to correct Gerry? Is it your day off?

My mother developed dementia when she got old enough. I should be more understanding.

There's no contradiction. I believe "the hatred of the US is real and is based in religion" is accurate. That hatred goes beyond any particular instance which might be used to whip supporters into a frenzy, but with as large a disjoint between cultural expectations as there is, the instances which could have been used are legion. Choosing this video was just picking the tool at hand. (And that's presuming someone was determined to find cause, not just have manufacturing one by (e.g.) planting a burned Koran in an embassy's trash.)

For an analogy, consider the lynchings that took place in the early part of last century. White crowds didn't just wander around, daily stringing up every black person they saw. The murders required flashpoint events (real, or imaginged and promoted) to coalesce into mob violence. No one would seriously consider the flashpoint requirement as evidence that those people weren't really racists.

The racism comparison is actually very apt...but I think it's worth thinking about a little further.  The point I'd draw from it is that there were many, many people in the South who were racists because that was the dominant social milieu in which they lived, but they weren't really hardcore, ideologically impenetrable racists.  When you look at the 1940s or 1950s in the South, and compare it to the 1970s, it's amazing how quickly things changed in 15 or 20 years.  Not to say that racism disappeared - obviously not - but  when it became socially acceptable (even desirable) to NOT be a racist, all those people who were just responding to their environment very quickly shifted in the other direction (even if they didn't stop being racists, they certainly became significantly less likely to act on that racism).  The "southern culture" that seemed to be the root of all that intractable racism in the 1940s suddenly wasn't spurring lynchings or mass KKK rallies anymore, even though it continued to exist.  I'd say there's a very good comparison to be made between Islamic culture and 1940s "southern culture" - both of them have deep roots in their respective societies, but the meaning that's drawn from said culture isn't immutable, and can change over time.  What it's going to take is a change in how Islamic cultural elites view the outside world - if they can be convinced that it's in their best interest to join the Western system instead of reject it, I think we'll see Islamic terrorism start to die down significantly, but like we saw Marxist terrorism all but disappear as the Soviet system became discredited in the 1980s.  It's not going to happen overnight, though, and I'd also caution that even if Islamic terrorism goes away, the assholes will just find something else (maybe radical anarchism will make a comeback?  who knows?).

Allons-y!

I'd say there's a very good comparison to be made between Islamic culture and 1940s "southern culture" - both of them have deep roots in their respective societies, but the meaning that's drawn from said culture isn't immutable, and can change over time.  What it's going to take is a change in how Islamic cultural elites view the outside world

I don't disagree, but keep in mind what it took to get the US there: a war which killed 10% of the country's male population, economic devastation of the losing side for generations, and a government-backed social program or ridicule and ostracize people with the wrong ideas running almost 50 years. There is no part of that which is politically palatable in the West to impose upon the Middle East, and what little impetus there is from within the Muslim world has suffered almost constant setbacks for decades.

Hell, the simplest part to enact is the "social program to ridicule", and the people who should be most willing to do so are now racing to expose the guy who made the recent video -- even though everyone knows that death threats and/or assassination attempts will inevitably follow.

Could a moderate Islamic world happen? Sure. Will it, anytime soon in the current world? Probably not.

What I want is:

A) A foreign policy that unapologetically asserts the US is exceptional and awesome. Every single person in the State Department should be an advocate for freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and practiced by US citizens, and should welcome any person and nation which chooses to join us.

Corollary to A): People/nations that do not choose to join us will be dealt with as per the dicta set by the Britian's Charles James Napier: "Let us all act according to national customs." In light of recent events, that would mean considering every singly country which hosts an embassy that was invaded to be at war. Expel the diplomats, cancel all visas, halt all foreign aid, and impound their assets. If they continue to act up, take harsher steps (viz., military) designed to end bad behavior.

Second Corollary to A): Enough with the cultural footsie when our army invades. We drink, we worship differently, we read porn, we like screwing/marrying hot local girls (no matter where 'local' is), we serve with women, and now we have gay relationships. Any nation that doesn't like all that shouldn't have run their country so badly that we feel it necessary to put our military there in the first place.

B) Develop a strategy that ends cross-border enemy infiltration. It fucked us in Korea and  Vietnam, and it's fucking us now in Afghanistan. A country that hosts training camps for our enemies is not an ally, not peaceful, and should not be bargained with. Yes, I mean you, Pakistan.

C) Forget the pussy UN containment policy. Nothing says "nuclear deterrence" like a few well-placed megatons. Countries that ain't got, don't get -- and it's up to them to prove their good behavior. We'll allay our suspicions with Trident missiles.

Corollary to C): This means Israel, North Korea, and a few other places have exactly one chance to come clean about whether they have nukes. I'm sure it'd only take one vaporization of Iran to get informative answers.

I don't actually expect much of this to happen, but we'll see.

As time goes on, it becomes clearer and clearer that Mitt Romney really could screw things up worse than Obama ever dreamed of.

How so, exactly? Obama can't even be bothered to go to foreign intelligence meetings. In light of this week's unfolding events, "worse than Obama" is becoming a harder and harder level to meet.

How so, exactly? Obama can't even be bothered to go to foreign intelligence meetings. In light of this week's unfolding events, "worse than Obama" is becoming a harder and harder level to meet.

I know you're a partisan hack Gerry, but really? You're regurgitating Mark Thiessen bs now?

The president reads the daily intelligence briefing every day. That he doesn't meet with his national security staff to discuss it isn't earth shattering when you know that many of the president's national security meetings are never put on his public schedule.

"I'd note that these are hardly the only national security meetings he has each week that include an intelligence briefing," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told me via e-mail this morning. When I asked him if he were able to tell me exactly how many national security meetings Obama has during the week, Vietor unsurprisingly replied, "I'm not."

But all this meeting scorekeeping means nothing if the commander in chief and his most senior national security aides receiving the most sensitive information in the world ignore or fail to connect the very clear dots on what they are being told. We learned the perils of this after the tragic events that befell this country 11 years ago today.

By the way Gerry, how many meetings had Bush and Cheney attended when 9/11 happened on their watch?

Also, what exactly about Obama's foreign policy is troubling to you? I mean other than the completely made up shit about apologizing and junk?

(A) So, you want to be at war with almost all Middle Eastern countries at once? But you also want to cut deficits? (No conflict there, I guess.) And you want presidents to act like emotionally-damaged twits, like Bush Jr. You miss him already, eh? Iraq went so well you just can't get enough. Trillions for "defence" but not one cent for poor people.

(B) But why just declare war on every non-nuclear Islamic country when you can also declare war on Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons. Not to worry, you could somehow (but certainly) prevent them from ever being used against U.S. targets by terrorists. (And you should also have declared war on China, and perhaps also on Russia, during your brilliant incursion in Vietnam. People who fear nuclear wars have NO GUTS, eh?)

(C) Nuke countries you don't like, eh? That'll show 'em. All those stupid scientists and their "pussy" fears about "nuclear winter" can screw themselves. Hell, humanity can screw itself if it doesn't do as America tells it to. And if other countries start using nuclear weapons too, great. Good thing "karma" only applies to "pussies".

Oh, and threaten to nuke Israel if they don't tell us what we want to know. Your Christian-right buddies will go for that, hook, line, and sinker.

You offer strikingly strong reasons to recoil from Romney's candidacy, if he would want to represent people like you.

But hey, at least Zyx must agree with you, so long as he doesn't correct anything you have to say. Maybe when he finishes modding up Alf for his racist rants, he can mod you up too.

at least Zyx must agree with you, so long as he doesn't correct anything you have to say

And surely Pakistan's nuclear weapons could never find their way into terrorist hands if America started nuking Muslim countries.

How does one distinguish "conservative values", "Christian values", and "Hitlerian values"? Conservatives and Christians can advocate killing millions of people and still feel morally superior.

How does one distinguish "conservative values", "Christian values", and "Hitlerian values"?

So Inquisition-style mass murder works for you because pre-Reformation Catholics weren't "progressive", eh? And starting nuclear wars ("nuclear winter", like "global warming", could NEVER happen) works for you as long as someone you LIKE pushes that red button first?

I wonder how much pro-Romney Super-PAC money will be devoted to propagating views like yours and Gerry's. Not nearly enough, I suspect.

So Inquisition-style mass murder works for you because pre-Reformation Catholics weren't "progressive", eh?

You say "a couple hundred kilotons would suffice" but you don't actually ADVOCATE nuclear attacks on other countries (a/k/a mass murder) like Gerry? Disingenuity, anyone?

Why so serious?

I pull BFF's chain, you pull my chain. Karma, I suppose.

So, Heath Ledger or Jack Nicholson? (So you remember Jack's version?)

For liberals Muslims are The Other, so it's wrong to offend them. Christians, on the other hand, need to be offended.

It strengthens our faith.

One would think they would've found it in Born-Again Christianity.

Sort of like American right-wingers have been searching for new Public Enemies to replace Soviets and justify enormous military budgets? I guess those Muslims have something important to offer Americans after all.

If fascists were running Britain, surely they would have contacted you and offered you some position by now.

what like nat geo, mtv 5, or bravo?

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

Spike TV. Bar Rescue is a a good show.

Animal Planet. Specifically, Call of the Wildman. The 'Turtleman' is an infectiously happy hillbilly whose gig is pest control. Most people in that line of work use live traps to get possums, raccoons, etc., but the Turtleman likes to take a more first-person approach, and use his hands to physically capture them.

One of the episodes is entitled MONSTER IN THE POO POND. I'm not going to spoil the plot. I'm just going to say that while I'm sure Andre Breton could write a manifesto about the surrealist implications, I can't think of a way anyone could not watch that based on the title alone.

It's things like this that prove that American culture is superior to anything the Egyptian Coptic Christians have put out in the last 200 years.