On 10/17/2012 02:28 AM, geoff wrote:
We wouldn't send in the army or air-force into another country's sovereign
territory to do so. That is an act of war which of course is how you think.
But also, we dont act like arrogant pricks, ignoring everyone elses laws and
rights as you do. That is the cause of the problem. the rest of the world
can manage not to get their embassies attacked. Why cant you?
Hi Geoff,
I have been reading here and there that this or that country closed an
embassy "temporarily", which I would advocate our doing. Say we had one
middle east embassy in Israel. Anyone in the middle east wants to do
business with the US government, drop on by - nice central location.
It would be a secure facility with only one window in the compound wall,
a sort of bank teller or jail visit arrangement. If anyone were to
shoot, the glass would be 6" thick. A mail room to receive documents
where the military would screen them.
Of course, this would cost a few in the third world their jobs, but they
would have brought it upon themselves.
This latest episode would not have happened.
--
Regards,
Pete
http://pete-theisen.com/
http://elect-pete-theisen.com/
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
