pShould America spend more on embassy security around the world?

Next>

Results

47 %

Yes, definitely

25 %

No, we can't afford it

16 %

No, it would be pointless

1 more option

@Feb '13 c 139 comments V 250 votes

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

250 Votes

u

12 hr
johndziedzic voted

v Yes, definitely
16 hr

Brandon101

v None of the above

No. America is widely despised world-wide as bullies who incompetently strike the wrong countries and targets, demolish countries with no regard for regional histories and interrelationships, leave the countries piled with corpses and rubble and then leave and declare victory, a country that preaches freedom while imprisoning its citizens at random and at will, off shore and with no habeas corpus rights while telling the other countries about human rights. They see the buffoons of the tea party, our disinterest in international business relationships and out being consumed by re-deciding issues like abortion and celebrating Christmas while they work to improve and teac...

Post
18 hr
poee endorsed AlexMIA

v Yes, definitely
u

18 hr
CivilWarSam endorsed Waynestew

v No, it would be pointless
22 hr
warwil630 voted

v No, we can't afford it
Wed
littlewolf8469 voted

v Yes, definitely
u

Wed
RepomanGP endorsed AlexMIA

v Yes, definitely
u

Wed

sspphoto

v Yes, definitely

We have to keep in mind that no terrorist or "international guerrilla" extremist gangs including homegrown guerrillas have any national loyalty or patriotism of any kind for any nation on earth. For example, the Taliban, once the ostensible rulers of Afghanistan really used that country solely as an international base of operations because it is very mountainous with plenty of places in which to hide, both guerrilla insurgents and their weapons. It is the same with the al-Qaeda which uses Yemen as its base of operations and the emerging Iranian-supported (and possibly commanded) Muslim Brotherhood which is now using Egypt as its base of operations and the homegrown gue...

Post
May 21
Amy2723 voted

v No, it would be pointless
May 21

jessejaymes

v No, we can't afford it

First of all the solution to everything is not just to throw more money at it. The first solution should be "how can we be more efficient with the money we have?". Secondly nobody seems to want to talk about the Ambassador leaving the primary Embassy in Tripoli on his own accord to go to Benghazi which was known to be an out of control terrorist hotbed city. He did this under his own violation. There has been no suggestion by anyone that he was ordered there. They still haven't taken down our Embassy in Tripoli. Third, the CIA basically calls the shots in trouble spots where we have embassies. Not the President, not the Secretary of State, not the Marines on duty. ...

Post
May 21
9MileTrucking voted

v Yes, definitely
u

May 20
DesignerLM voted

v Yes, definitely
u

May 20

Buckfan4life2

v Yes, definitely

Yes I think we should move the fisrt family and Holders family to Banghazi after they rebuild the burned embassy into a Whitehouse replica. That way we can save money by useing the president as part time ambassador and the Holder family can be used for security.

Post
May 19

LEC

v None of the above

We could try being nice and not interfere in other peoples lives and their governments.. look if people want to overthrow their governments they will when they are ready.. Can you imagine if the Spanish had come here in 1776 and fought a war to "free" us from England? Do you really think that would have turned out well for us?

Post
May 19
BeardHero endorsed Len_in_NY2

v None of the above
u

May 17

Gatnos

v Yes, definitely

Obama's latest excuse for Benghazi is that security had been cut because of funding. Well, whose decision was that anyway? One of the fundamental purposes of government is to provide defense of our citizens and territory. In a fiscal crunch, defense should be the last thing cut, not the first. Our embassies and staff must be well guarded and reserves in place in case backup is needed.

Post
u

May 17
DrSilicon voted

v No, we can't afford it
May 17
Zach endorsed AlexMIA

v Yes, definitely
May 17
mrltrnt1972 voted

v No, we can't afford it
May 16
luna11 voted

v No, we can't afford it
May 16
Bill2E endorsed Thegrif

v Yes, definitely
u

u

May 16
Rpete endorsed Boobacall

v No, we can't afford it
May 16
falco_alba voted

v Yes, definitely
u

May 15
silentrunning endorsed Boobacall

v No, we can't afford it
u

May 15

bobrob

v Yes, definitely

My view is that things can go wrong no matter how much we spend, and less will go wrong if we shore up our embassies around the world.

Post
May 15

MarkColwell

v Yes, definitely

Benghazi wasn't an embassy, it was in all likelihood a CIA field station. Embassy security was just cut in the latest rounds of budget cuts, I believe we should fully fund this requirement. That said, we will never be able to defend every unofficial outpost setup by the CIA.

Post
u

May 13
Brogan voted

v Yes, definitely
May 13

Prime_Meridian

v Yes, definitely

We don't really need so much to "spend more on Embassy Security" as to 1) be picky about which countries to place embassies in 2) station more armed US Service Members at embassies of countries that have seriously large numbers of hostile local nationals. These are already on-the-clock service members. All you have to do is rotate, from time to time, elite unit members to serve say 1 year of their tours of duties in embassies rather than places like Camp Gulick in Panama. Rotations should be done BY UNIT to continue the tight-knit working and social relationships of these special units, e.g. say a COMPANY, between 100-120 men. Many of the men in these elite uni...

r1 reply

Post
u

May 12
skspls voted

v Yes, definitely
May 12
Fyi1957 endorsed Thegrif

v Yes, definitely
May 12

DanielZ

v No, we can't afford it

Countries that house our embassies should take the responsibility for guarding them, and if they clearly fail to do so, we should reduce or eliminate various kinds of aid we now provide them.

Post
May 12
RoyFloyd endorsed Dan_Tien

v No, it would be pointless
u

May 11
SlimElmo91 voted

v No, we can't afford it
u

May 11
Kcincurrie endorsed Len_in_NY2

v None of the above
May 10

whatheheck

v No, we can't afford it

Close the ones down where we are not appreciated or welcome and be done with it.

Post
u

May 9
Bill voted

v No, we can't afford it
May 9
oldtimer2 endorsed AlexMIA

v Yes, definitely
u

May 9
buckilaked voted

v Yes, definitely
May 8

mudpike

v None of the above

First STOP all AID & handouts & send no monies to any country or organization UNLESS they are one of America's allies . Close down those embassies & bring all troops home & put them on our borders . Let these countries & their despot leaders sink or swim on their own . No more help . Other than normal dealings & inter-actions with our allies - 20 years of US isolationism would bring this country back & eliminate our debts . But of course the prostitute puppets in DC owned by multi-national corporations & our own big business WOULD NEVER ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN . If they even entertain these thoughts - they are quickly pulled aside & asked , ' Do you recall a little i...

Post
May 8

Companion101

v None of the above

No! Pull out of all other countries! Stop selling to them, stop buying from them, stop allowing them in. Close the goddamn borders now before Its too late! Take care of our nation, take care of our people, when we an stand on our own again ...then we can rethink the whole situation. Maybe I about fifty years or so.

Post
u

May 7

BossTweed

v None of the above

We need to realize that in the 21st Century we have NO NEED for most of the Embassys. Taxpayers shouldn't fund the lavish Ambassadorial life styles in meaningless piss ant Countrys no matter who is in the White House. We should have Embassys in Important Countries which can act as "regional embassys for their area. Such needless extravagance is worthless and horrifically EXPENSIVE both for Infrastructure and for Security in the today's World.

Post
u

May 7
LilliB voted

v Yes, definitely
May 7
RevJdubs316 endorsed Denizen_Kate

v No, we can't afford it
May 7
StanH voted

v Yes, definitely
May 7
LGRepublican endorsed AlexMIA

v Yes, definitely
May 7

twinertia

v No, it would be pointless

How much more? A billion? A trillion? A zillion? And when our reps continue to die.....how much more? No, the actuaries have figured what anyone's life is worth, and the state spends according to those figures. A universal boycott is the only way to improve anyone's lifespan odds.

Post
u

May 7
farmer_bruce endorsed AlexMIA

v Yes, definitely
u

May 7

kosmik

v No, we can't afford it

If we're spending more money at home protecting the Saudi embassy, well, the whole question is a joke. I've been to a few embassies around the world. Top notch security. Libya was the wrong place to set up an outpost having just overthrown their leader. That was typical American stupidity.

Post
May 7
ZombieMedic voted

v None of the above
May 6

Politic-n

v None of the above

To quote Hillary, "What does it matter?" If they are going to leave embassy workers out to dry in a crisis and then lie about abandoning them, then spending more or less won't make much difference.

Post

16 hr

Brandon101

v None of the above

No. America is widely despised world-wide as bullies who incompetently strike the wrong countries and targets, demolish countries with no regard for regional histories and interrelationships, leave the countries piled with corpses and rubble and then leave and declare victory, a country that preaches freedom while imprisoning its citizens at random and at will, off shore and with no habeas corpus rights while telling the other countries about human rights. They see the buffoons of the tea party, our disinterest in international business relationships and out being consumed by re-deciding issues like abortion and celebrating Christmas while they work to improve and teac...

Post
u

Wed

sspphoto

v Yes, definitely

We have to keep in mind that no terrorist or "international guerrilla" extremist gangs including homegrown guerrillas have any national loyalty or patriotism of any kind for any nation on earth. For example, the Taliban, once the ostensible rulers of Afghanistan really used that country solely as an international base of operations because it is very mountainous with plenty of places in which to hide, both guerrilla insurgents and their weapons. It is the same with the al-Qaeda which uses Yemen as its base of operations and the emerging Iranian-supported (and possibly commanded) Muslim Brotherhood which is now using Egypt as its base of operations and the homegrown gue...

Post
May 21

jessejaymes

v No, we can't afford it

First of all the solution to everything is not just to throw more money at it. The first solution should be "how can we be more efficient with the money we have?". Secondly nobody seems to want to talk about the Ambassador leaving the primary Embassy in Tripoli on his own accord to go to Benghazi which was known to be an out of control terrorist hotbed city. He did this under his own violation. There has been no suggestion by anyone that he was ordered there. They still haven't taken down our Embassy in Tripoli. Third, the CIA basically calls the shots in trouble spots where we have embassies. Not the President, not the Secretary of State, not the Marines on duty. ...

Post
u

May 20

Buckfan4life2

v Yes, definitely

Yes I think we should move the fisrt family and Holders family to Banghazi after they rebuild the burned embassy into a Whitehouse replica. That way we can save money by useing the president as part time ambassador and the Holder family can be used for security.

Post
May 19

LEC

v None of the above

We could try being nice and not interfere in other peoples lives and their governments.. look if people want to overthrow their governments they will when they are ready.. Can you imagine if the Spanish had come here in 1776 and fought a war to "free" us from England? Do you really think that would have turned out well for us?

Post
u

May 17

Gatnos

v Yes, definitely

Obama's latest excuse for Benghazi is that security had been cut because of funding. Well, whose decision was that anyway? One of the fundamental purposes of government is to provide defense of our citizens and territory. In a fiscal crunch, defense should be the last thing cut, not the first. Our embassies and staff must be well guarded and reserves in place in case backup is needed.

Post
u

May 15

bobrob

v Yes, definitely

My view is that things can go wrong no matter how much we spend, and less will go wrong if we shore up our embassies around the world.

Post
May 15

MarkColwell

v Yes, definitely

Benghazi wasn't an embassy, it was in all likelihood a CIA field station. Embassy security was just cut in the latest rounds of budget cuts, I believe we should fully fund this requirement. That said, we will never be able to defend every unofficial outpost setup by the CIA.

Post
May 13

Prime_Meridian

v Yes, definitely

We don't really need so much to "spend more on Embassy Security" as to 1) be picky about which countries to place embassies in 2) station more armed US Service Members at embassies of countries that have seriously large numbers of hostile local nationals. These are already on-the-clock service members. All you have to do is rotate, from time to time, elite unit members to serve say 1 year of their tours of duties in embassies rather than places like Camp Gulick in Panama. Rotations should be done BY UNIT to continue the tight-knit working and social relationships of these special units, e.g. say a COMPANY, between 100-120 men. Many of the men in these elite uni...

r1 reply

Post
u

May 16

BossTweed

Cut Embassys by 3/4............sell off the properties and put that money toward security the remaining Embassies. Now that is CHANGE we can believe in.

Post @BossTweed
May 12

DanielZ

v No, we can't afford it

Countries that house our embassies should take the responsibility for guarding them, and if they clearly fail to do so, we should reduce or eliminate various kinds of aid we now provide them.

Post
May 10

whatheheck

v No, we can't afford it

Close the ones down where we are not appreciated or welcome and be done with it.

Post
May 8

mudpike

v None of the above

First STOP all AID & handouts & send no monies to any country or organization UNLESS they are one of America's allies . Close down those embassies & bring all troops home & put them on our borders . Let these countries & their despot leaders sink or swim on their own . No more help . Other than normal dealings & inter-actions with our allies - 20 years of US isolationism would bring this country back & eliminate our debts . But of course the prostitute puppets in DC owned by multi-national corporations & our own big business WOULD NEVER ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN . If they even entertain these thoughts - they are quickly pulled aside & asked , ' Do you recall a little i...

Post
May 8

Companion101

v None of the above

No! Pull out of all other countries! Stop selling to them, stop buying from them, stop allowing them in. Close the goddamn borders now before Its too late! Take care of our nation, take care of our people, when we an stand on our own again ...then we can rethink the whole situation. Maybe I about fifty years or so.

Post
u

May 7

BossTweed

v None of the above

We need to realize that in the 21st Century we have NO NEED for most of the Embassys. Taxpayers shouldn't fund the lavish Ambassadorial life styles in meaningless piss ant Countrys no matter who is in the White House. We should have Embassys in Important Countries which can act as "regional embassys for their area. Such needless extravagance is worthless and horrifically EXPENSIVE both for Infrastructure and for Security in the today's World.

Post
May 7

twinertia

v No, it would be pointless

How much more? A billion? A trillion? A zillion? And when our reps continue to die.....how much more? No, the actuaries have figured what anyone's life is worth, and the state spends according to those figures. A universal boycott is the only way to improve anyone's lifespan odds.

Post
u

May 7

kosmik

v No, we can't afford it

If we're spending more money at home protecting the Saudi embassy, well, the whole question is a joke. I've been to a few embassies around the world. Top notch security. Libya was the wrong place to set up an outpost having just overthrown their leader. That was typical American stupidity.

Post
May 6

Politic-n

v None of the above

To quote Hillary, "What does it matter?" If they are going to leave embassy workers out to dry in a crisis and then lie about abandoning them, then spending more or less won't make much difference.

Post
u

May 6

commonsense51

v None of the above

America needs a President who is not a spineless pacifist who would not allow his own ambassador to die without a fight a few months before his election. He wanted everyone to believe that he had controlled the terrorism problem. He is beyond reprehensible. He lives & breathes politics & would have done anything to secure his re election.

B1

Post
May 6

Calfkiller

v None of the above

We need qualified people at all levels of embassy security, be they on site, or watching in the situation room.

Post
May 3

NoAmnestyEVER

v Yes, definitely

More embassy spending, more defense spending, more border spending, wayyy less on welfare and other socialist programs. Obama has made this country weaker than ever, and gained us more enemies that any president in U.S. history.

Post
R Load more comments...

Feb '13

AlexMIA

v Yes, definitely

This type of spending is necsessary. Embassies are needed to support Americans abroad, they are also a place we send diplomats who negotiate withother countries suposedly/hopefully in our countries best interest, and they can also serve as hubs for our intelligence community. They should be secure.

B1

e27 endorsed

Post
Feb '13

Waynestew

v No, it would be pointless

If the host nation cannot provide adequate security maybe we should not have Ambassadors in those locations. We provide security for foreign embassies in our country. They should do the same for us.

B3

r40 replies

e10 endorsed

Post
Feb '13

Denizen_Kate

v No, we can't afford it

Do we need all the embassies we currently maintain?

r1 reply

e10 endorsed

Post
u

Feb '13

Boobacall

v No, we can't afford it

Come back home and support America's interests

e8 endorsed

Post
Feb '13

Thegrif

v Yes, definitely

Judging by Benghazi, I would think this is a no brainer, yes of course.

r1 reply

e7 endorsed

Post
Feb '13

Len_in_NY2

v None of the above

How about just getting out of countries that don't really want us there and take our aid with us. While people here suffer, we're spending millions of $$$ rebuilding mosques over in these places and propping up dictators who admittedly feel that they are on the wrong side of the conflict.

B1

e3 endorsed

Post
o

Feb '13

NTBFW

v Yes, definitely

If we are going to have an embassy it deserves proper security.

e4 endorsed

Post
Feb '13

ASmith

v No, it would be pointless

The US causes terrorism with its own terrorism against other countries. The US goes around murdering populations, invading sovereign countries, overthrowing democracies, imposing dictators, all in the name of "US interests", and then has the gall to act surprised that people retaliate.

e3 endorsed

Post
Feb '13

PNWest

v Yes, definitely

This should not be a political issue but a moral one. We owe it to our people overseas to give them the protection needed to do their jobs safely.

B1

r1 reply

e1 endorsed

Post
Feb '13

Corey

v Yes, definitely

If we are going to put our people on the ground in hostile environments then we have a duty to support them and give them the protection they deserve. Problem is we have a weak commander in chief. No backbone what so ever.

B1

e1 endorsed

Post