What we're doing in Libya apparently isn't very hostile . . .

Remove all ads!

and I'm here to help you also. Denial is more than a river in Egypt. In your wildest imagination you can't honestly believe that the anti-war movement is even a fraction of what it was when Bush was in office. Heck, even Ragusa sees that. When Bush was in office Code Pink had rallies that were measured in the thousands if not the tens of thousands. Now when you mention some protest somewhere they can't even get on to the marquee and all that is there is some labor unions.

Do you remember the good old days when the big three news networks would give nightly updates of the death totals? When protest marches were big deals and guaranteed to get national coverage? Whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan, does anybody know? She was such a part of the national debate until January 2009, now not so much.

Sorry, but I don't need the right side of the internet to tell me what is obvious. I can see it with my own eyes and ears. I probably watch one of the big three nightly news broadcasts (ABC, NBC, and CBS) four out of five weeknights. If you relied on them or The Boston Globe/NY Times for information you might not even know we are at war.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the difference is.

Just remember, there is no such thing as media bias, that is because the liberals tell me so.

 

That's right. So you should understand, or be able to figure out, that the response is measured by the level of involvement. That you are trying to even equate the invasion of Iraq with the NATO enforcement of a no-fly zone, doesn't say much for your credibility. But beyond that it is surprising at how high the level of protest has been, as well as the criticism of Obama by the Left regarding Libya. You keep saying "Egypt," but I'm guessing you mean Kadafi.

And don't start, because I have posted the links already demonstrating the criticism of Obama on Libya coming from the left.

But let's move to the more salient point about the war movement. I pretty much will always agree with you that I would like to see more protests regarding the wars in the ME, regardless of who the president is. So if you would like to join the protest movement over Libya, I can provide you the link, so that you can lend your own voice to a movement that you seem disappointed in not having enough voices at the moment. If you don't like the wars, join the protests. It's that simple.

Of course, if you actually support the no-fly zone and you are complaining that you don't hear enough protests against something that you want to see, then you lack plain old common sense. Why on earth would you want to see protests, that may be successful, put an end to something you believe in? That would be counter-productive at best and just plain stupid at worst. It's like the Republicans blocking action against over-throwing Kadafi. KADAFI!! Republicans? Tryng their best to keep Kadafi in power?

But just think where all this could lead, Snook -- The possibilities are mind boggling -- Anti-war protests held by REPULBICANS. That's right, it would be a Code "red state" instead of Pink. To that, I have to say, "Go ahead, make my day."

 

Perish the thought. I actually think we should do more bombing. It is actually one of the few (very few) things that Obama has probably done that is correct. My only concern is that I hope we are bombing the correct side.

 

Good comeback, Snook.

 

Absolutely. We should follow the example of Reagan and support the despot. Seriously, man, it's hard to imagine the rebels being worse than Qaddafi, and how much the "new Libya" will support our interests in the Middle East really shouldn't figure in to our determination of the proper humanitarian action. Qaddafi is bad, the rebels are probably bad from a certain point of view, but the rebels also weren't indiscriminately slaughtering entire cities to instill fear. Qaddafi, on the other hand?

 

In one of histories ironies one nowadays sees angst ridden Israelis and their tribesmen join ranks politically with the Saudis, who both agree that the Arab Spring and related revolts are a threat to the status quo. Some odd bedfellows they are.

For the Israelis for instance Mubarak, the classic 20th century oriental autocrat, was good because, giving a crap about public opinion at home, he was closely allied with Israel. Peace with Egypt allowed the Israelis to not have to deal with external threats so they were able to focus on subduing the Palestinians. It is no accident that the settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza emerged only then. An open door may tempt a saint.

The Israelis and their tribesmen are weary of the rebels, because the Libyan precedent, too, threatens the status quo. From Israel's point of view that can only be to their disadvantage. For instance, if Gaza wasn't isolated and under siege any more, reflecting public opinion in Egypt for instance, they'd need to change policies. They don't want that because it inevitably involved concessions, and that is a thing Israeli governments of the last decade have been utterly unwilling to make.

The Saudis see a successful revolt as a precedent for their overthrow, and find it thus unacceptable, and they are perfectly willing to be very brutal if necessary.

 

On the international front Qaddafi was basically neutralized by Reagan in the 80s. While he may be a danger to his own people, the rest of the world hasn't had to worry about him for quite some time. Now I'm not saying he is our new BFF and we should be supporting him. What I'm saying is when this all plays out we may eventually realize we were better with him still in charge. I feel the same way with Egypt which looks like the Muslim Brotherhood is talking over the country. Mubarik and Qaddafi may have been a despots, but they kept the peace and left the rest of the world alone.

While humanitarian action is nice when feasible, what really matters is our national interest. I'm not convinced that what NATO is doing is in the interest of any of the member nations.

 

Qathafi is a nuisance. Not a threat, a mere nuisance. He would have been tolerated, but this is an opportunity to good to pass up. The intervention in Libya is a war of choice, but one with prospects of success.

Besides, Qathafi didn't exactly leave the world alone. You never heard of Chad, did you? Or of Libyan arms for the IRA?

When you voice your vague concerns 'that we may not like what comes out' and vaguely refer to national interest you mean something else. I read op-eds from NRO, Commentary Magazine and the Weekly Standard too. I'm familiar with what that's alluding to. If I may be so bold: To you the Libya intervention is about Israel, not about Libya.

The concern you apparently have but never quite spell out is that something anti-Israeli comes to power in Libya. So what? There is the Mediterranean Sea in-between, unlike Libya Israel has a navy (it's subs German funded), a (US funded, equipped and supplied) air force worth the name, and nukes, and so forth. Should the Muslim Brotherhood come to power in Libya they won't be able to establish the caliphate across the Greater Middle East and Europe. Israel shouldn't care less, even more so since Libya wasn't exactly pro-Israeli before, and Israel managed to live fine with that. But no, the sky is falling. Oh no, not the sky, the dominoes.

 

They still do - it's just that lately, there haven't been many American casualties. There were five US troops killed in attack last week, and that made headlines on the liberal MSNBC.com. They still are reporting on it, there is just less to report. And while I agree you haven't heard much about Libya, I will re-iterate, that there haven't been any US troop casualties in Libya.

 

That's because, conveniently, the Libyans have no effective air defence, and should any US Special Forces die or have died, the US won't know anything about that any time soon. That goes for CIA, too.

<thesis> The perceived lack of reporting is not because of media bias, but because from the notoriously US centric point of view in US media, there is nothing to report. Who cares if dark skinned people in Libya die as long as no Americans are involved? US media are for domestic consumption after all. That's why the Libya war only matters as far as its domestic considerations are concerned. That's why US conservatives are aghast, just aghast, that Obama dared to usurp from congress the power to bomb Libya. Not to mention the treasure expended! It doesn't so much matter that people get killed. It's all about the con-stee-too-tion (and day-to-day politicking). The reporting is then framed that way, with - to use two stereotypes - FOX and MSNBC - both catering to the preferences of their respective viewers - framing it according to their editorial line.

Judging from viewing US tv news, with a few exceptions, they appear to largely be be made because they allow commercials to be aired and anchors to show off their awesome hairdo. It has probably become infotainment because that allows to place commercials even better. I urge all Americans on the board to compare reporting on a given international issue on CNN domestic with CNN international. The latter, however flawed, shows that CNN is capable of more serious news work, implying that on CNN domestic the point is that they don't want to do it. Since this is probably market tested, they in this probably respond to US market preferences i.e. there is no decent reporting because nobody wants to see it. So they don't air any. It's not the darn Liberals but the bloody market. </thesis>

 

True, but Mexico puts the US to shame in that regard. For some reason, hotels always have at least one Mexican TV news cable channel running, which features daringly clad and incredibly proportioned Mexican weather babes prominently delivering their weather forecasts for hundreds of miles away while we all breathlessly take in their findings.

 

Gaear,
so true. And I didn't say that that brand of TV is without its redeeming qualities.

 

Snook, I really wasn't talking about Mubarak or Qadafi. I was making a reference to Reagan's record of opposing potentially unfriendly South American democratic governments in favor of despots more in line with US interests. I was making a not-unsubtle dig at the neo-conservative foreign policy of placing American interests on a higher pedestal than American values. We should never oppose a democratic uprising, even if the people's government will be less "friendly" than the despot that preceded it, and we should never, as Reagan did, actively support a despot seeking to strip the people of a nation of its right to self-govern. Reagan, as you point out, didn't support Qadafi. That wasn't my point.

 

I think I'm much like most Americans in that the situation in Libya fills me with a great sense of...wait, what was I talking about? Nodded off there.

Like, I know I should care. And I care about my lack of caring. But yet...

Yeah.

I just hope it ends soon. Bombs cost money, and radicalize people--who then use bombs of their own that end up radicalizing even more people. And it just goes on and on until eventually Kevin Bacon walks into the Oscars wearing a suicide vest. Not good.

And yes, I much prefer non-commercial news. Since I moved to Michigan, I now have access to Canadian radio--good stuff! CBC-2 ftw.

Has NATO defined any sort of endgame? If/when Gaddafi is killed, has any sort of post-Gaddafi plan been put forth?

 

Hi dmc Hope you are doing well.

And yes, it turns out Obama is rather centrist. It's because he has no fear of being out-flanked to his left. At least today he announced a large troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

 

I also got a chuckle out of how everyone hates Obama's pullout plan for Afghanistan. This guy is taking flak from all sides on it. The Dems don't think it's quick enough, and the Reps think it's too quick.

It was all too predictable - if you try to find a compromise that makes everyone happy, no one will end up liking it.

And to get back OT, I think NATOs only real plan is the killing or at least permanent removal of Gaddafi. I don't know of any plan that NATO has as to how to replace the power vacuum that Gaddafi's departure would certainly bring.

 

DMC, I don't think I agree with your criticism. Congress actually abdicated its authority in advance on the Iraq war front, so Bush never actually dragged us into a war without congressional approval. He did, however, lie when making his case for the war in Iraq, which Obama (in my opinion, rightly) took issue with. Obama didn't make a 180 on the Patriot act, either, unless you want to go all the way back to 2003, when he supported scrapping it as a Senatorial candidate. Obama the presidential candidate did not feel that the Patriot Act needed to be repealed, so his (in)action as president is consistent with his platform as a presidential candidate.