US Embassy Stormed in Cairo...

[snowcat]

Now China:

A car carrying the U.S. ambassador to China was mildly damaged after becoming the target of boisterous anti-Japan demonstrators who were expressing outrage over a territorial dispute and marking the 81st anniversary of Japan's invasion of China.

The State Department said in a statement Wednesday that Ambassador Gary Locke was unhurt in Tuesday's incident, and that diplomats have expressed concerns to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

http://news.yahoo.com/beijing-demons...012025364.html

[UtahDan]

Sam Harris now weighs in with a piece that has something for everyone to dislike, but here are the points I think are salient:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/o...-imaginary-god

Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it.

...

At moments like this, we inevitably hear—from people who don’t know what it’s like to believe in paradise—that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest. The true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate. I believe that the future of liberalism—and much else—depends on our overcoming this ruinous self-deception. Religion only works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe: that imaginary crimes like blasphemy and apostasy are killing offenses.

...

Most secular liberals think that all religions are the same, and they consider any suggestion to the contrary a sign of bigotry. Somehow, this article of faith survives daily disconfirmation. Our language is largely to blame for this. As I have pointed out on many occasions, “religion” is a term like “sports”: Some sports are peaceful but spectacularly dangerous (“free solo” rock climbing, street luge); some are safer but synonymous with violence (boxing, mixed martial arts); and some entail little more exertion or risk of serious injury than standing in the shower (bowling, badminton). To speak of “sports” as a generic activity makes it impossible to discuss what athletes actually do, or the physical attributes required to do it. What do all sports have in common, apart from breathing? Not much. The term “religion” is scarcely more useful.
Consider Mormonism: Many of my fellow liberals would consider it morally indecent to count Romney’s faith against him. In their view, Mormonism must be just like every other religion.

...

(insert argument as to why Mormonism is less plausible than most religions)

....

The point, however, is that I can say all these things about Mormonism, and disparage Joseph Smith to my heart’s content, without fearing that I will be murdered for it. Secular liberals ignore this distinction at every opportunity and to everyone’s peril. Take a moment to reflect upon the existence of the musical The Book of Mormon. Now imagine the security precautions that would be required to stage a similar production about Islam. The project is unimaginable—not only in Beirut, Baghdad, or Jerusalem, but in New York City.
The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance. And Governor Romney, though he is wrong about almost everything under the sun (including, very likely, the sun), is surely right to believe that it is time our government delivered this message without blinking.

[calicoug]

So tell me why are we even in Libya if we can't even trust a damn thing that comes out of their interim President mouth? If what you are saying is true and the dumbass Libyans, even their leaders in their highest offices, lie there asses off then why are we even there?

This goes to show that the Libertarians are again right about foreign policy. We should all just get the hell out of Libya and most of the middle-east, stop giving them aid, let them destroy humble themselves to the point they beg for help, and then let the UN French do it. What interests do we have there?

We are in a lot of countries that we don't trust. A lack of trust doesn't demand a total withdrawal of dialogue or interaction.

In no way do I see this as a ratification of the libertarian ideology on foreign policy. In fact, I think isolationism in a globalistic society is about the silliest idea to come out of any party in quite some time.

[UtahDan]

We are in a lot of countries that we don't trust. A lack of trust doesn't demand a total withdrawal of dialogue or interaction.

In no way do I see this as a ratification of the libertarian ideology on foreign policy. In fact, I think isolationism in a globalistic society is about the silliest idea to come out of any party in quite some time.

My sense is that one of the main consequences of leaving the Middle East would be the unleashing of Israel. Maybe it is a matter of time before there is another shooting war involving them anyway, I don't know. But my further sense is that disruption of Middle Eastern oil for any extended period would trigger a world with depression. I'm not anxious for that to happen. So I agree, isolationism is not a luxury we can afford.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Sam Harris now weighs in with a piece that has something for everyone to dislike, but here are the points I think are salient:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/o...-imaginary-god

Those are great points.

[Uncle Ted]

We are in a lot of countries that we don't trust. A lack of trust doesn't demand a total withdrawal of dialogue or interaction.

In no way do I see this as a ratification of the libertarian ideology on foreign policy. In fact, I think isolationism in a globalistic society is about the silliest idea to come out of any party in quite some time.

Why? What interests do we have in Libya? Why should we be there when they don't even want us there (other than for the money we throw at them in the foreign aid)? Why should we give countries such as this billions in aid especially when our debt has grown faster than ever in history (our debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds 100%) and the dumbass president and congress has even pass a budget in over 3 years?

Libertarians are only isolationists when it comes to war. They believe in free trade and friendship with the world. It is no wonder the Muslims hate us when we given the policy of the republicans and democrats of bombing the hell out of them and flying drones around with "kill lists". Don't give me the BS about republicans being the only warmongers when it comes to the middle east...

[YOUTUBE]iJ7MdSHmBo8[/YOUTUBE]

The republican and democrat foreign policy, especially dealing with the middle east, is the same crap, just another day, and it hasn't worked. Please explain to me how all this bad shit that has happened to the country in the last four years is 100% Bush's fault again.

[Uncle Ted]

My sense is that one of the main consequences of leaving the Middle East would be the unleashing of Israel. Maybe it is a matter of time before there is another shooting war involving them anyway, I don't know. But my further sense is that disruption of Middle Eastern oil for any extended period would trigger a world with depression. I'm not anxious for that to happen. So I agree, isolationism is not a luxury we can afford.

The current middle east policy is what we can't afford. See http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Maximus]

The current middle east policy is what we can't afford. See http://www.usdebtclock.org/

foreign aid is so small it is irrelevant to the debt or budget.

[Uncle Ted]

foreign aid is so small it is irrelevant to the debt or budget.

http://costofwar.com/

[byu71]

We just had some "energy" investment experts in and they are totally into we will be energy independent by 2020.

We quizzed them over and over about, what if Obama gets in. They said there are just too many dems that want the exploration done and he won't be able to ignore the jobs that will be created. They will think he will have to ingore the environmentalists get on with it. Of course with a Pres. Romney it will be much easier to do.

Can you imagine if we could all our energy from ourselves, Canada and Mexico. We could move on and not give a shit about the middle east. That may sound insensitive, but those folks have hurt my feelings.

[YOhio]

Can you imagine if we could all our energy from ourselves, Canada and Mexico. We could move on and not give a shit about the middle east. That may sound insensitive, but those folks have hurt my feelings.

lol. You're a funny guy.

[byu71]

lol. You're a sensitive guy.

FIFY

[Uncle Ted]

We just had some "energy" investment experts in and they are totally into we will be energy independent by 2020.

We quizzed them over and over about, what if Obama gets in. They said there are just too many dems that want the exploration done and he won't be able to ignore the jobs that will be created. They will think he will have to ingore the environmentalists get on with it. Of course with a Pres. Romney it will be much easier to do.

Can you imagine if we could all our energy from ourselves, Canada and Mexico. We could move on and not give a shit about the middle east. That may sound insensitive, but those folks have hurt my feelings.

I suspect Romney, if he was president, would have helped a lot of these displaced coal miners transition into other energy fields rather than declaring a "War on Coal" like Obama did. His plan to bankrupt the coal industry is starting to work at the cost of jobs and paying out more unemployment.

[snowcat]

CBS News reporting that in Benghazi there was never an Anti-American protest at the American Consulate, just an attack.

[YOUTUBE]TGMlnBkUztM[/YOUTUBE]

Jay Carney on Friday:

This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.

[dabrockster]

CBS News reporting that in Benghazi there was never an Anti-American protest at the American Consulate, just an attack.

[YOUTUBE]TGMlnBkUztM[/YOUTUBE]

Jay Carney on Friday:

"The public won't get a detailed description of what happen in Benghazi until after the Presidential Election"..

How Convenient...