Thread: The White House says it "deeply regrets'' Scottish government's decision.

Did it say his prognosis? How long he had left to live?
If its a very short time, ie a few months. I wouldn't mind. If we're talking 1-2 years. Well. No, let him sit a until it's more urgent.

Originally Posted by Muthsera

Did it say his prognosis? How long he had left to live?
If its a very short time, ie a few months. I wouldn't mind. If we're talking 1-2 years. Well. No, let him sit a until it's more urgent.

Less than 3 months

Originally Posted by Cari

Since these compassionate releases are a provision in UK law, and almost always granted by Scottish ministers, what possible purpose could aggression by our president have served?

I find it very disappointing when people equate diplomacy with being a wimp.

Added in: For the record, I don't think it's right. I think this guy deserves die a miserable death behind bars. I have no right, and neither does our president, to force or coerce other countries to feel the same way.

How about this response - I will remember this later, you people just released a psycho because he had cancer for 'liberal' reasons and I think its wrong.

"Regret" isn't the right word.

Sorry to tell you diplomacy doesn't work. Diplomacy always rewards people for immoral and selfish acts.

Kim Jong Ill has nuclear weapons thanks to good old diplomacy.

:rolleyes:

Of course talking about shit is always an option with in reason but you just don't make diplomacy a policy for everything.

This is where liberals have it all wrong when it comes to the geopolitical spectrum. Sometimes you have to be a dick or put your foot down and say "this isnt happening anymore, we have ZERO tolerance for this type of behavior and their will be no diplomacy involved in it"

Yes, sometimes you have to just say NO and their will be no reward for that type of behavior.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

So what would you have done? Just stronger language, or would you have actually taken some sort of action? The guy is a dead man soon anyway, how important is this?

Andrew

How about "disgrace?"

How about a word that actually in common form voices displeasure?

You have to make a point and "regret" in my opinion at least is too subtle.

This fuck Obama is in Afghanistan right now hunting terrorists (which I agree with but not for his reasons but the ends justify the means), using "regret" is just political pandering, or IMO, being weak.

Originally Posted by Swoop187

How about this response - I will remember this later, you people just released a psycho because he had cancer for 'liberal' reasons and I think its wrong.

"Regret" isn't the right word.

Sorry to tell you diplomacy doesn't work. Diplomacy always rewards people for immoral and selfish acts.

Kim Jong Ill has nuclear weapons thanks to good old diplomacy.

:rolleyes:

Of course taking about shit is always an option with in reason but you just don't make diplomacy a policy for everything.

This is where liberals have it all wrong when it comes to the geopolitical spectrum. Sometimes you have to be a dick or put your foot down and say "this isnt happening anymore, we have ZERO tolerance for this type of behavior and their will be no diplomacy involved in it"

Yes, sometimes you have to just say NO and their will be no reward for that type of behavior.

I am not a proponent of compassionate release, I am a proponent of not telling other coutries what they can and cannot do, especially when they are doing something perfectly legal and accepted within their country.

I realize that in some cases, yes, intervention by the US is warranted, just not in this case.

Originally Posted by Cari

Less than 3 months

I'm ok with that. No reason why he shouldn't be allowed to die and be buried in Libyan soil.

By giving him respect as a human being we show we are indeed better than him. (at times at least) Raises our moral high ground and lowers his.

Originally Posted by Cari

I am not a proponent of compassionate release, I am a proponent of not telling other coutries what they can and cannot do, especially when they are doing something perfectly legal and accepted within their country.

I realize that in some cases, yes, intervention by the US is warranted, just not in this case.

Well when geopolitics becomes rational I will support your idea, and it is the right and correct idea but you have to play ball in the arena you're in and Obama wants to play in a sandlot while other big leaguers laugh and point fingers at the T ball player.

Originally Posted by Cari

While it does sound fishy, it's hard to prove ulterior motives when Scotland grants these compassionate releases 90% of the time.

Ulterior motives do not have to be proven here. The benefits for Britain will be considerable. That is not a debate. It is a fact as stated.

Percentages are unimportant in this case - indeed, irrelevant. The Lockerbie attack is not comparable to other crimes.

Dressing this shrewd and clever political move in the sheep's clothing of 'compassion' is in appalling taste, and simply a cover for a maneuver intended to placate and impress Libya and those who believe the release of this man is a wonderful thing.

The people of Scotland gave of their time, love and energy to help the families of the victims of this massacre. It is disgraceful that this legacy has been polluted with this travesty of justice.

Originally Posted by Swoop187

How about "disgrace?"

How about a word that actually in common form voices displeasure?

You have to make a point and "regret" in my opinion at least is too subtle.

This fuck Obama is in Afghanistan right now hunting terrorists (which I agree with but not for his reasons but the ends justify the means), using "regret" is just political pandering, or IMO, being weak.

I thought Scotland was an ally? Why would he risk a pointless row over some dick who is dead soon anyway?

Andrew

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Well when geopolitics becomes rational I will support your idea, and it is the right and correct idea but you have to play ball in the arena you're in and Obama wants to play in a sandlot while other big leaguers laugh and point fingers at the T ball player.

I realize that this is a fairly recent news story, but I am not aware a leader of any other country who has come forth and condemned this decision. Has there even been another leader come forth and say the regret it?

Originally Posted by Muthsera

I'm ok with that. No reason why he shouldn't be allowed to die and be buried in Libyan soil.

By giving him respect as a human being we show we are indeed better than him. (at times at least) Raises our moral high ground and lowers his.

There is no 'our' for you. They were US citizens on that plane. We don't need to raise our moral highground... as has already been said. We have the moral highground because we don't plant bombs on planes filled with innocent people.

You might see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to go home to die, but since he didn't give his victims that chance, I would suggest that the family of the victims might have a slightly different view.

After all, it was their family who were murdered, not yours and not mine.

"America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation." Yes indeed, we should carpet bomb Scotland. Bush wouldn't let them push us around like this.
No more single malt for me for a day or two!

Originally Posted by Andrewl

I thought Scotland was an ally? Why would he risk a pointless row over some dick who is dead soon anyway?

Andrew

I agree that there is nothing the White House can do.

Scotland is part of the UK, not an independent nation. The UK has technically been an ally but there is no reason to assume that is still the case. There may be some remnants left, but in the future we can be certain there will be no alliance between the US and Britain.

Their interests lie with Islam for many reasons. This act was disgraceful and profoundly offensive. But it does make sense from the perspective of the new balance of power that is rapidly emerging. Pleasing and placating Libya is very important.