Where are the ant-war protests?
I was going to post on this, but David Warren already did at least as good a job as I would have.
In a way almost touching, the Bush administration tried to meet all the criteria of a just war, when invading Afghanistan, then Iraq. They tried to meet the Powell maxims, too. They went to elaborate and exhausting lengths to leave "democratic" and constitutional regimes, in a most unfavourable region. For this, especially, they endured the contempt of the world's most aggressively self-righteous people.Even if it is "just a no-fly zone" ... the last one worked out so well, didn't it? During this period, Saddam doubled down, genocidally gassed the Kurds, threw people feet first into chippers ... shot at our planes, and left us with a long-term military presence on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia.
Who, in turn, seem to be rallying behind the Security Council resolution of Thursday night, which "authorizes" the enforcement not only of no-fly zones over Libya, but any other uses to which military forces may be put, short of a decisive ground invasion.
Which, if you'll recall, was at the top of the list of reasons Bin Laden gave for justification for 9/11.
Which led to the 2003 Iraq invasion. You know, the one that didn't have anything to do with 9/11, the one where Iraq didn't attack us, so we shouldn't attack it. Yes, this sounds like a great idea.
6 comments:
The only thing I want to know from our leftist friends is:
Is this, or is this not, a "war for oil?" Be sure to show your work.
I've already seen trolls trotting out the meme that this... whatever it is, is so much more justified than the war in Iraq. Because... well, just because.
Nuh-uh. I don't remember a whole lot of "nuance" and "mitigating circumstances" and whatnot when "we" were bombing Iraq on behalf of Halliburton; how is it different when we're bombing Libya for TotalFinaELF?
This is the one question I will be repeating, robotically, over and over (and over and over and over) to any leftist who speaks up about this latest adventure. But sadly, we already know what the answer will be: "ooh, look! A shiny!!!" Followed by crickets.
Except somehow still nauseatingly self-righteous.
Well, you gotta hand this one to A.N.S.W.E.R.
But we'll not hold our collective breath for the ensuing ... ahem, incessant, breathless coverage from the MSM.
Fair enough.
Honestly, ANSWER and the like don't really bother me. I almost have a grudging respect for them, actually, as they don't hardly try to hide the fact that they're dictator-loving communists. But they're loons, and the rest of the left disassociates itself from them (all while happily using their resources and numbers at protest rallies against wars started by Republicans, of course).
ANSWER is, in fact, my go-to example of media bias. My leftist friends who believe there's no media bias - or that it's biased in favor of the right (ROFL) -- take "bias" to mean "deliberate, provable lies"... which rarely happen, even on Olbermann's show. Instead, it's all the stuff they don't show. The "Scott Walker is Hitler" stuff. The "Death to Sarah Palin" stuff. The "we support troops who frag their officers" stuff. You know, the stuff ANSWER waves around with impunity at every rally (cf zombietime). These are never shown...
...and, sadly, I suspect that few if any "liberals" would actually care if they were.
I was telling my sig other last night that I'm rather concerned about where this is headed.
We fired - what - a hundred or so Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libya. Don't those things cost a couple million apiece or something?
More to the point, however, I'm wondering exactly who we're protecting over there. Obama - after hemming and hawking - has apparently decided Quadaffi (or however you spell it) has got to go. My question is: why? What's he done to us lately?
Oh sure, his agents blew up that plane over Scotland about 23 years ago, but his government has at least apologized for it and paid compensation to the victims. I realize that doesn't make it all better, but what more could you ask?
That, and he got rid of his chemical weapons program after he saw what we did to Saddam. Libya is not a threat to NATO countries or their interests.
On what basis is the US supporting the actions taken by the British and French? Humanitarian ones? Okay, so why aren't we involved in all the other humanitarian crises around the globe? Are we even doing all we can to help Japan?
Sure, it's terrible what the guy is doing to the rebels and protestors, but he IS a dictator. This is what dictators do - they send the military to quash rebellion.
My biggest fear is that our no-fly zone and other military activity will eventually accomplish its goal - forcing Quadaffi from power. What then? What do we know about these "rebels?" What kind of government would they form in Libya? Do we know for certain they aren't backed by the al Queda or something?
They get into power, and they turn out to be anti-American terrorists...we're going to have egg on our faces. Russia, China, and Venezuela already oppose this action - you think they're aren't going to laugh at us and say that they told us so?
The worst of it is now I sound just like the Left during the run-up to the Iraq War.
It bears repeating, however, that Quadaffi is not Saddam. Not by a long shot.
Cylarz,
you really don't sound like the left in re: Iraq, since there actually was a case -- and a UN resolution, and a congressional resolution, and a coalition, etc. etc. -- in the run-up to Iraq. When it came to Libya, I just woke up one morning and found we're at war.
I thought that was "cowboy diplomacy" or some such. I could swear I've heard something like that before....
Post a Comment