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

That must be why all of the war protestors don't seem to care about all of Obama's wars. It is because they are friendly wars.

 

I think the reason you don't see any protests on the activities in Libya is because there haven't been any American deaths. That's the sort of stuff that get people involved. AFAIK, there haven't been any servicemen lost, largely because all of Libya's air defenses have been destroyed at this point.

That said, I wonder if what we're doing is working? I mean, it's working in so far as preventing the rebels from being crushed, but if the goal is that Gadaffi must go, I'm not sure this is the way to do it, because if it were, you think he either would have left or be dead by now.

You also don't hear much about this in the news anymore. Rebels take a city, rebels lose a city, rebels making progress... but what the hell does it all mean? Are the significantly closer now to toppling the regime than they were a few weeks ago? It's hard to form a hard opinion on this without all the information.

 

They don't care, period, or they don't care enough to get thousands of people protesting visibly enough for the media to notice? Aldeth may have a point - Obama is quite low-key about the whole thing, and hasn't actually sent all that much servicemen, iirc only reassigned a "nearby" carrier. For now, I'd say there is only some quiet grumbling (maybe like what there was when Bush started Afghanistan), but if this escalates and there start being American losses and deaths, things may change.

 

I'll point out that I don't think there was that much protesting when W started in Afghanistan because many people felt that was justified.

There were much more notable protests when he did Iraq.

I think people are protesting Obama now because he is making a serious effort to stabilize the mess W left him in Afghanistan.

I saw that Obama isn't a warmonger so much as he has to clean up the leftovers of one who was for starting wars but not really for setting up good governments.

Obama was pulled into Libya by European allies who could say both that they really needed help from the US and that they had supported the US in the recent past.

I think there may be more protest against Obama within political parties and the Congress because people are tired of Bush starting wars while Obama has been pulled into one. More of a war fatigue.

At the moment I'm not opposed to the US helping in Libya because it isn't like they aren't fighting against a dictator and there is a real chance the opposition will outlast him.

I think if there is a chance for a peace deal with a deeply reformed government (an elected Congress or something like that but without dragging the current lead through the streets nor his family) I would support it (provided they as willing to work within the such a government I'm not against letting some of the family members stay involved in politics).

 

One thing thats got me here, is that we are apparently enforcing a no-fly zone over libya, to prevent gadaffi from using aircraft against the rebels.... but were attacking ground targets, it is easily clear that weve joined the war on the side of the rebels - there is no way anyone can argue that were taking an unbias side to prevent civillain deaths.

 

I know we're on the side of the rebels-that is a bit obvious.

But it can also be argued that Gadaffi was going to kill a bunch of rebels and civilians. So the Europeans and US (especially since Gadaffi isn't that well liked anyway) intervened against him.

Also while I'm pretty sure some civilian deaths have come from bombing hits already the number is probably a great deal lower than letting Gadaffi have at the population of parts of Libya.

So this is not neutral, but it is also not necessarily a bad thing even while it is not neutral.

 

Yes, but are the rebels on our side? Will this turn into another Egypt where our governments and media are supporting the rebels who will end up hating us more than the original government?

 

How do you know they don't care? You don't know what's going on them. And what's all this "Obama's wars" stuff?

What support did we give the rebels in Egypt? They have some great reason to love us, with all the Muslim hate that's going on in this country? Heck, they can barely get their constitutional rights here.

 

it has also been argued that the rebels are killing loyalist civillians as well as soldiers, this isnt a majority rebellion gadaffi has huge support he may infact be the legitmate ruler of the country, it could be argued that we are infact supporting terrorists.

 

Every time a liberal fills up the gas tank in his Prius, another poor innocent Libyan dies. C'mon everyone let's start some marches on Washington and hold signs at intersections. Whose with me "No blood for oil! No blood for oil!, No blood for oil!"

Anybody?

Bueller?

Why am I only hearing crickets?

Where have all of the protestors gone?

Doesn't anybody care any more?

 

Here it is for those tone deaf fools who reside in the conservative echo chamber:

Snook - At this point I'm not sure what to make of your ignorance about the anti-war movement - or is it really just plain ignorance?

 

Perhaps but I'd like to see some polling data for that.

Now what we did have is the reports that way back when demonstrations that were peaceful started out people were shot at. From there things got worse and worse.

Also, while some dictators have a degree of legitimacy I'd argue that legitimacy is both limited to certain groups of supporters (often via ethnic lines).

It is also quite possible that the current Libyan dictatorship gained power as an understandable response to European Imperialism but frittered away that legitimacy as to focuses on maintaining its hold on power rather than allowing the nation as a whole to move forward.

 

I stand corrected. I just seem to remember when Bush was in office they would take pictures of the protests from helicopters so they could show the sea of humanity protesting. Now they seem to be able to get all six protestors in the shot with a cellphone camera. I had no idea that the anti-war crowd was as active today as they were four years ago

 

I support the NATO intervention in Libya. Legality under international law is a mixed bag for which there are no short answers, and I'll spare you.

As for legality under US law, President Obama is probably completely wrong (and ignoring good advice) in arguing that the US role in that intervention does not suffice to compel him to notify Congress under the War Powers Resolution. However, there is continuity in what Obama does now to what previous presidents did. The blame is as much on Obama (and his predecessors) as on congresses past and present for not having asserted their authority on this before, usually fort craven day to day political considerations.

As a result, the current drive to reassert congress authority is laudable only in principle. With the probably exception of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich and a few stalwarts, is in my view probably petty opportunism that drives the opposition to Obama's view on his powers. Republicans in that past didn't have any problems with Bush doing about the same thing, if them hectoring the unitary executive branch (if anyone here still remembers that) by giving Bush a pass on numerous grave breaches of the law (starting with illegal domestic spying etc pp) is any indication. If they have now changed their mind, I'd be positively surprised, but I have a hard time to persuade myself.

In that sense, Snook frustrated quip has a point somewhere: R's and D's are not very different in the way that they elevate party politics and support for their party's president over principle. A lot of the opposition to Iraq was about opposition to Bush, not about pacifism. 'Hardcore pacifists' like the people from Code Pink have lamented that themselves, and I think they're right.

 

I do not recall anyone from the US or NATO stating otherwise... In fact, from the beginning the NATO involvement was to prevent Gadaffi from unleasing his military against the civilian population. So while I agree with you as to what "side" NATO is on, I didn't think anyone was arguing otherwise.

Also, this is not an "Obama war". It's technically not even a US war. It's a NATO war - the US is not shouldering the entire burden or cost of this thing.

 

Legally, it is opportune to claim to be on the rebel's side in order to claim justification for actions against Qathafi. NATO invokes R2P, but I don't really buy it. In reality it's regime change by another name, at a comparably low price. I see the appeal of the end. If Qathafi is gone, well, good riddance to that nut. But then, I still think that R2P is corrosive to the international order and that expedience dictates the legal preferences. The precedent so set may come to haunt us. I don't think the concept of R2P is a wise one in the long term.

Now, Snook will crawl out of his cave and accuse me of lacking principles after all I opposed the Iraq war but am now for this one! Gotcha!

Or not. Iraq was a folly from the onset, in particular in light of the highly ambitious (utterly unrealistic) goals set (reshaping the Greater Middle East yada yada yada), and it was not cheap by any means. By empowering the local population to purple their fingers the US installed the majority in power to lord it over the minority, reversing the previous situation where a minority lorded it over the majority. The exodus of Christians from Iraq during the last decade speaks a clear enough language. Iraq is today politically closer to Iran (reflecting the religious kinship) than to the US, and common sense should have suggested that from the onset. In effect the US in Iraq fought the Shia's civil war for the Shia against the Sunni.

Nobody is doing that for the Libyans. NATO is far more likely to succeed in Libya, and probably will. Deposing Qathafi is a far less ambitious goal than, say, building a new Iraq.

Much unlike in Libya, violence in Iraq will simmer on for many years, with neighbouring countries funding the Sunni minority to fight against the Shia regime in Baghdad. The types they will fund for that end will be Al Qaeda in Iraq types. Charming.

 

Snook - The anti-war movement is made of many different groups, mostly all kinds of people who just want peace and prosperity for everyone. Were you expecting some epic Glenn Beck extravaganza? Some big show for the media? No of course you weren't, since you didn't really know that much about the movement, except what you see from the odd and ends footage from FOX, which is many times, and has been proven in the past, not even from the event being discussed by their talking heads. You just wanted to spread some of the typical propaganda about the left from the echo chamber. I get it.

But don't despair, Snook, I am here to help you. You can still be educated about the REAL left, not the phony one you hear about in the conservative news media.