[ExI] remote embassies

spike spike66 at att.net
Fri Oct 23 20:35:55 UTC 2015


As I read over some of the transcripts of the congressional hearings about
the attack on the US embassy in Libya, a big question keeps coming to mind:
why do we need ambassadors?  


We have encrypted secure phone links, we have large screen 2-way
communications.  Why don't we just tell the countries, if you want a US
embassy, then build it.  If you want it safe, then guard it.  If terrorists
or guys out for a walk decide to attack it, then shoot them if you wish, but
there need not be any Americans in there to kill, for the ambassadors can do
all the business with any country anywhere from the safety of an office back
home, and they can keep their ambassadors home too, to lower the risk that
they would see women with their heads naked and shameful.


If we do it that way, we don't need as many aircraft carriers and all those
expensive floating fireworks, don't need the foreign bases as much, don't
need a lot of the expensive military installations we are currently
supporting.  We can have eyes and ears on the ground using various resources
available to us.  


So why do we need ambassadors on the ground in dangerous places?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20151023/ef094b76/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list