As the Muslim world, once again, goes mad over a perceived insult the violence against American interests gets ramped up. An attack on the US Embassy in Libya has left the Ambassador J. Christian Stevens and 3 other staffers dead

While this is tragic, it does behove us to note the timing of the attacks in Libya and Egypt as well as the response of the Obama administration. It's a story that we've seen before, in Iran of 70s, for instance. The population is getting more and more radicalized and the US just wants to talk it out and apologize for its citizens exercising their Constitutional rights. 

The question is, what do you think the correct response of the US Government should be to both attacks?

I'm of the opinion that for starters all material aid to Libya and Egypt should be cut off. That includes the favored trading status that Egypt has since the days of Camp David. Obviously, the perpetrators should be hunted down and prosecuted to extent possible. I would even go as far as to eject the Egyptian and Libyan ambassadors to the US, until such a time that the safety of diplomatic personnel can be guaranteed.  

Have at it.

Comments:


dash
Joined
May '12
dash

As mentioned above, this is an act of war and as such, it cannot be ignored; we must riposte and make no mistake, it will happen. Either now, rapidly and locally, or later on a wider scale and with graver consequences.

I don't see the Obama administration taking decisive action, so my bet is on later, and it will be ugly.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

1. Delete the expletives who did this. Find them and delete them. Do not prosecute them. Delete them. Delete all expletives who helped them, too. If it takes fifty years, delete them all.

2. Stop apologizing. Stop saying anything that in any way suggests that the expletive deleteds were provoked.  Stop making excuses for the expletive deleteds . Stop making excuses for Islam. Stop making excuses period. Stop mouthing the words that Islam is a religion of peace. Religion is irrelvant.

3. Stop trying to make nice with The Moo Slim Bros., Inc. because that ain't no Fat Free Frozen Yogurt Company. They want to destroy us. We must destroy them first. The only reason to make nice with them would be to catch them off guard so as to make it easer to kill them. That's the only reason they make nice with us.

4. Coordinate with Israel to attack Iran's nuclear capability. Don't wait any longer. Use tactical nukes if necessary to get the job done. Bring down the Iranian regime.

5. Increase military presence in the region. Stop pretending we're not at war.

6. Act like a superpower.


Joined
May '11
ctlaw

Encourage a coup by the Egyptian military. Reconfigure the Egyptian military for counterinsurgency. Right now they are configured for one thing: attacking Israel. They probably have more than ten times the heavy armor, air power, and missile forces of the rest of Africa combined.

Encourage the Gulf Arab states and Chinese to provide economic investment in Egypt. They can drop $20 billion per year.

Hire Mitt Romney to run the place like he did the Olympics.

As for Libya, the only solution might be Egyptian invasion. Such wasted promise relative to the Bush era taming of Qadafi.

Edited on September 12, 2012 at 5:45pm
ConservativeWanderer
Joined
Jun '12
ConservativeWanderer

The big problem here is that these people are more afraid of what the Muslim Brotherhood will do to them than what we will do to them.

We need to reverse that situation.

We need to put the fear of God (or Allah) into these people to the point that they lose bladder control when they even think about attacking us.

The best way to do that is to go over there and kill people and break things. Make our extreme displeasure plain, not just with a cruise missile or two, but with all the might of our armed forces.

lostingotham
Joined
May '12
lostingotham

The only appropriate response to such an event is delivered written on a warhead.  Bomb 'em to rubble and then make the rubble bounce.
Why we continue to fund the Egyptian lunacy is beyond me.

Albert Arthur
Joined
Oct '11
Albert Arthur
Jager:  or even Clinton.  · 

Somalia, anyone?

Babci
Joined
Jul '12
Babci

They kill innocent people because they have been insulted?  No, they kill innocent people because we all stand around and let them get away with it.  Where is our great foreign leader in the White House?  Oh, he just left for Las Vegas to raise money so he can continue to be our great foreign leader.  If only Romney could be as angry as I am, he'd win.  Righteous anger is GOOD!

Bereket Kelile
Joined
Oct '10
bereket kelile

As good as it might feel to cut off aid it doesn't solve the problem. We would still have embassies in those countries and there would still be people willing to do these attacks.  

I was listening to the President's statement on the radio this morning and what struck me was his tone. I know that there's nothing new about the fact that he's so "cool" that even the media finds his lack of emotion disconcerting but it really comes across when you're listening to him, rather than watching him. He talks about it almost in a mechanical way. I wonder how he would have responded if he was President during the 9/11 attacks.

dash
Joined
May '12
dash

Albert Arthur

Jager:  or even Clinton.  · 

Somalia, anyone? · 22 minutes ago

Funny you should mention it. I just read Black Hawk Down last week, after having seen the film several times and was surprised at how the book made that day's chaos seem even more chaotic than the film did, which is saying something. 

In the book, there is mention of the fact that Clinton was livid that he was not informed of the raid...uhmm, OK. He "inherited" a humanitarian  mission from The Other Bush and the UN, and let it remain a low/non priority which suffered from chronic mission creep and lack of direction, IMO.


Joined
Sep '12
jarhead

tabula rasa

Frozen Chosen: Why were our marines not allowed to defend our people?  Did the State department tell them to stand down?  Why have marines at our consulates and embassies if they are not allowed to defend them? · 1 hour ago

I had the same questions. · 1 hour ago

As an embassy Marine from many years ago, I can only tell you that the Marines are under the direct authority of the State Department.  If the State Department wants them to hold their fire, the Marines won't fire on embassy attackers.

Edited on September 12, 2012 at 6:37pm
RightinChicago
Joined
Jul '12
RightinChicago
At The Rubicon: The arab world respects only strength. There is only one way to get that respect.  Do to them what we did to Dresden. Do to them what the Greeks did to Troy. · 4 hours ago

Do to them what the Romans did to Carthage.

William Laing
Joined
Jun '11
William Laing

Wasn't there some song, once, about The Shores of Tripoli? Can't seem to remember how it goes.

So Jefferson suppressed piracy halfway around the world, and little wooden ships was all he had to do it with.

Something about defending our country's ... oh, it'll come to me.

Miffed White Male
Joined
Mar '11
Jeff Richter
Tom Lindholtz: Two words: Tactical nuke. 

Why limit ourselves to tactical?

Frozen Chosen
Joined
Aug '10
Frozen Chosen

jarhead

tabula rasa

Frozen Chosen: Why were our marines not allowed to defend our people?  Did the State department tell them to stand down?  Why have marines at our consulates and embassies if they are not allowed to defend them? · 1 hour ago

I had the same questions. · 1 hour ago

As an embassy Marine from many years ago, I can only tell you that the Marines are under the direct authority of the State Department.  If the State Department wants them to hold their fire, the Marines won't fire on embassy attackers. · 30 minutes ago

Edited 29 minutes ago

I assumed this was the way it works, Jarhead.  My point is that it makes no sense to put our brave boys in harm's way under the authority of the quislings at the State Dept, who won't allow them to do their job.

If the State Dept won't protect our soil abroad let them hire their own private security teams - if they can find any suckers to take that no-win job.

Edited on September 12, 2012 at 7:16pm
Sweezle
Joined
Feb '12
Sweezle

I am not smart enough to answer the question "What should the American response be." But at the very least, how about a President that stands up and says 'the murder of the American Ambassador (suffocation?) in Libya and the killing of three other American Embassy staff is disgraceful, unforgivable and will not be tolerated." 

And can we stop sending Egypt & Libya millions of dollars in foreign aid?  I hate rewarding bad behavior.

Mont McNeil
Joined
May '10
Mont McNeil

Suspension of all foreign aid to Egypt for four years, with an additional year tacked on because it was on 9/11. 

Forgiveness of existing debt?  Not just no.

Horace Svácz
Joined
Jul '12
Horace Svácz
John Murdoch: Less gratifying, but more effective? An Israeli-style campaign to kill every single person involved--no matter how long it takes, or how far the trail leads.

Exactly right. Go after the leaders. Islamists don't care much for their rank and file, who are just cannon fodder. They do fear retaliation directed at them. Kill the leaders. Let's ask them if they feel lucky. Then kill them.

Tom Lindholtz
Joined
May '10
Tom Lindholtz

Jeff Richter

Tom Lindholtz: Two words: Tactical nuke. 

Why limit ourselves to tactical? · 2 hours ago

After the tactical nukes, then we can go on the air and say, "That was just a warning of what we can do when we're really not even trying. Don't press your luck".

We need to make the world sincerely believe that we're very strong and completely crazy. 

Edited on September 12, 2012 at 9:59pm
Tom Lindholtz
Joined
May '10
Tom Lindholtz

Aaron Miller

John Murdoch:

An Israeli-style campaign to kill every single person involved--no matter how long it takes, or how far the trail leads.

Agreed. And I would state clearly to the Libyan government that we will not tolerate interference in any way. We are putting Spec Ops on their soil whether they like it or not.

I agree on ending financial aid to those governments, but that should have been done anyway. It should not be tied to good or bad will on their parts.

Our response must take into account that the killers and vandals are not alone to blame. People were cheering in the streets. It's a national problem, not just a problem with a few terrorists or hoodlums. · 4 hours ago

I prefer a nuke.  I'm not willing to trade the life of a single SpecOps guy for the heads of everyone involved.  A nuke would carry the message that we will not only reply in kind, and then some, we will make your world, as you've known it, uninhabitable. 

Albert Arthur
Joined
Oct '11
Albert Arthur

Tom Lindholtz

I prefer a nuke.  I'm not willing to trade the life of a single SpecOps guy for the heads of everyone involved.  A nuke would carry the message that we will not only reply in kind, and then some, we will make your world, as you've known it, uninhabitable.  · 50 minutes ago

Who was it who told Musharraf on 9/12/01, "you're going to help us or we're going to nuke you back to the stone age"?

Let's find that guy and put him in charge of our response.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In