'How dare Serbia not protect our embassy!'

[peace13]

'They are not following International Law.' Words spoken by a talking head. What is wrong with Americans when they don't understand that when the US ignores Treaties and International Law we cannot expect protection from those same laws. When will the everyday people realize the we are on our own now, with a military that we have pushed hard and backed into a corner? So sad.

[tekisui]

1. I can hear the outrage now, "Someone rendered, tortured and held w/out charge

an AMERICAN!!!!" How dare they violate International Law.

[ThomWV]

2. How dare us for not being able to protect our own Embassies?

[northzax]

5. we chose not to

depending on the Serbs. You don't think the 100 Marine embassy guards could have made short work or that crowd? legally, this was an invasion of the United States, and you are legally allowed to repell such force with deadly force. We wisely chose not to. 100 armed Marines against a mob of civilians? it would not have been pretty for the mob, me thinks.

[northzax]

3. this is a different standard of international law

honestly. it is in Serbia's best interests to protect our embassy in Belgrade, since we are a lot more capable of protecting ours there then they are of protecting theirs here.

this protection is in place so that countries don't have to have military presences in each other's capitals. technically, embassies are the territory of the country that posesses them, so legally and morally, the US would have the right to shoot anyone entering the embassy without permission on sight (just as if someone was rushing the US-Canadian border while armed) you have local protection to avoid that scenario.

[peace13]

6. I understand your point.

It is in Serbia's best interest, that is if they believe that we are still operating under any form of International Law. The flaw is that you are forgetting that whether or not the law permitted America to shoot people entering other embassies America will shoot who they want to, when they want to,where they want to. We have no laws because our leader has chosen to ignore the point of law across the globe.

[atreides1]

10. It's called Blowback

You said US and morally, that's an oxymoron! First off the embassy was closed according to reports and no staff were present, so it was just an unoccupied building. There were Serbian police officers there at first but they thought that discretion was the better part of valor and they left.

Whether they pulled out because they didn't want to be beaten or killed, or they agreed with the mob, doesn't really matter.


"honestly. it is in Serbia's best interests to protect our embassy in Belgrade, since we are a lot more capable of protecting ours there then they are of protecting theirs here."

That's an interesting statement, someone could possibly regard it as a threat to the Serbian embassy here in the US! Is it a threat, or are you just describing a possible scenario that would be carried out by a group?

"this protection is in place so that countries don't have to have military presences in each other's capitals."

But wouldn't you consider the Marine guards assigned to an embassy as a military presence?

The ambassador makes the final decision on what actions are to be taken in the defense of the embassy, and that decision has to be based on the lives of all staff members not on a building, which can always be replaced.

As for legality and morality, the US lost any right to those concepts once it became acceptable to thumb its nose at International Laws, including the Geneva Conventions.

[northzax]

12. it's not a threat

it's reality. if I wanted to attack the Serbian Embassy just down the street, it is US Secret Service that would stop me, not the Serbian National Police Force. happens all the time. embassies are the soveriegn territory of the country they belong to. throwing a firebomb at the US embassy in Belgrade is the exact same thing as throwing a firebomb over the US/Mexico border. would we tolerate that? it doesn't matter that the embassy was basically vacant, it is still part of the United States. is it any less of a crime to firebomb your house if you are at work?

and this isn't 'blowback,' it is a sign of the rebirth of the not-so-late-and-lamented fervent nationalism in Serbia. You do remember Slobodan Milosevic, right? died awaiting trial for genocide in Kosovo? that guy? nice chap.

[Squatch]

15. ...

:thumbsup:

[gratuitous]

4. Can you remember who it was?

Because that's such world-class buffoonery, it's a wonder the person's skull doesn't just cave in from the vacuum. But there is a strong, seemingly irreducible nut of our country so persuaded of American exceptionalism that this sort of outrageously uninformed whining will resonate in their mean little souls.

[peace13]

7. No, sorry.

We were flipping around to get a flavor of the coverage. I think our heads imploded when we heard it, actually. Sorry.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Are you suggesting that American Embassies are fair game for rioting crowds?

I seem to remember someone else who held a similar view:

[peace13]

11. Funny you should post a picture of our cohort in crime.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that we have lost all ground to stand on any International Law. We cannot pick and chose. * has put the globe in a lawless thunder. If we expect this to turn around any time soon we will have to address our international issues regarding torture, and preemptive invasion of other nations. Pretty straight forward stuff.

[Smith_3]

9. Probably has something to do with bombs falling on their country from miles high. nt

[northzax]

13. yes, how dare we intervene

Slobo had a perfectly good genocide going on until the US decided to finally do something. if only they'd been allowed to finish, those pesky Kosovo people wouldn't be bugging them anymore.

[tuckessee]

14. And now the Kosovars can ethnically cleanse the Serbs.

Ignorant Americans should just keep their noses (and bombs) out of other nations.