Skip to main content

View Diary: Heartwarming Bipartisan Support for the Libya War (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think she is looking for names... (7+ / 0-)

    of elected officials on the left who are aligned with the PNACers, which you mentioned in your diary without names.

    Got some?

    Nothing surprises me anymore. BipartisanAwful abounds. What a mess.

    Our Libyan misadventure appears fraught with the tangled web of international quid pro quo. We need you, you need us, we use you, you use us... dont step up when we come calling, expect the same from us... next time you want us to help you screw around with some other nation/s, some other leader/s (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, etc...) Not to mention the business of business.

    The PNACers arent afraid to utter extreme Cheneyesque language. It's easy to accurately tag them as warmongers. And they dont care. Actually, they seem to like it.

    The others are trickier. Like Obama and other Dems who support the same shite. They sound more reasonable. They seem so nice. Much nicer.

    But then, there is what they DO...

    Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

    by NYCee on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 11:23:59 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ah. Actually I was referring more to (4+ / 0-)

      progressive citizens supporting the war.  The politicians are politicians.  But my sarcasm can be a bit difficult at times.

      S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

      by BigAlinWashSt on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 11:38:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Many of them put no more thought into it than... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BigAlinWashSt

        if a Democratic president is supporting it, it must be "kosher."

        Or after wrestling with it a bit, use that as the place where they will end up... skewed to a kind of predetermined safe zone for deciding on such matters.

        And who knows, maybe some think if France was pushing for it, it must pass the smell test - since it which opposed the Iraq War.

        I dont think it was sarcasm that was confusing re the diary. I think it was that the diary implied that you were thinking of politicians in with the PNACers. But no big deal.

        They are in it together, all those who support this mission... whether they wear their warmongering proudly or seem not to wear it at all. When they green light the dropping of bombs, style doesnt much matter.

         

        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

        by NYCee on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 06:23:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some really believe this is a humanitarian mission (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BigAlinWashSt

          There are progressives out there who are sincere in their belief that the Libya intervention may prevent another Rwanda, another Darfur.

          The argument is neither unreasoned nor unreasonable, and I do have sympathy for that position.

          My own skepticism about this intervention is not about the merits of protecting innocents.

          The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

          by Orange County Liberal on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 10:21:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then why arent they pushing like mad... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Orange County Liberal

            to intervene elsewhere?

            Like in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain?

            Like in Sudan?

            The Sudan Crisis: Obama’s Hypocrisy and Culpability

            Among the many incoherencies of Obama’s foreign policy, none is more glaring and appalling than his stance toward one of the worst mass murderers of our time, Omar Al Bashir, the dictator of Sudan. Al Bashir and his totalitarian political Islamic regime have conducted two eliminationist campaigns—of mass murder, mass expulsion, and mass rapes—over 20 years, first in Southern Sudan and then in Darfur. [... ]

            By any standard, Al Bashir and his political Islamic cohort are the one leader and regime in the world that must absolutely and urgently go: because of the number of people murdered, on the order of 2.5 million; the millions more expelled from their homes and regions; the untold number of women systematically raped as part of a larger campaign of terror; the devastation government forces have wrought by razing and burning towns and villages, a scorched-earth policy implemented in the South and then in Darfur. Al Bashir and his regime have been at it for two decades, and predictably, taking no one who pays attention to Sudan by surprise, he has started up another deadly eliminationist campaign, this time against the Nuba people of central Sudan (after already seizing the Abyei region and expelling Ngok Dinka people from it) [... ]

            Obama has with words or deeds made it clear: Hosni Mubarak must go. Muammar Qaddafi must go. Osama Bin Laden, of course, had to go. But must Al Bashir go? Not according to Obama.

            This commenter to this BBC piece, below, doesnt seem all that sold on our war supporters' concern, especially when contrasted with Sudan.

            link

            5. xyriach
            15TH JUNE 2011 - 10:32
            Oh we care about Sudan now do we? I thought we only toppled regimes that were not actively involved in decades of genocide. Oh wait, we're not. We're just having a quiet word and saying "fighting isn't nice".

            As most Americans couldn't find the Sudan on a map anyway, why not tell them it's in the middle east and perhaps something might actually get done.

            Where's the concern for Sudan? Perhaps we have to wait for Obama to green light it before we wax humanitarian to intervene militarily for that ravaged populace that has no "might be" genocide victims, but rather, a has been and still is massive graveyard and expulsion engine, propelled by a ruthless leader.

            Libya another Rwanda? That was a stretch. And since the US military (and allies) would be at the ready if that were to happen, why did they so quickly jump to violence/war as a solution... to a problem that hadnt manifested?

            Yes, I am sure a few gave it a lot of thought, truly believed that was the way to go. Dont think it was a sound decision on their part, but it was probably given a lot of consideration.

            However, I am not convinced that most supporters gave due diligence re their thought processes to our intervention, not what's necessary to move toward a serious, responsible, independently arrived at conclusion of "this merits military involvement".

            A few, often fleeting, feelings of sympathy and concern, even deeply felt at the time, dont necessarily equal a sober assessment of whether entering a war (preventive! regime changing!) is the way to go. I dont wish to sound too minimizing here, but I think the extent of thought behind support for this war has often been far too minimal by many of those who have voiced agreement with the decision.

            What came first, the chicken or the egg? The feeling that war was called for or the war being called for?

            (esp. when called for by those they voted for and support)

            Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

            by NYCee on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 03:28:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't disagree with anything you wrote. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NYCee

              All I'm saying is, that some of the President's regular critics are also among those who favor intervention in Libya.

              I don't agree with many of their arguments, but I also don't attribute their motivation to the all-too-common "Rah-rah! The President!" on this site.

              The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

              by Orange County Liberal on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 04:07:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That is true. And glad you agree. (2+ / 0-)

                I understand how they could feel it was right. Maybe even if he had been against it.

                I dont think they would have - most of them - made it a burning, consistent issue they would have pressed, had it never been greenlit. Do you?

                Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a lame party, or should it drive a lame party to break out? If it cant, should it break out?

                by NYCee on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 07:15:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think some cheer the President no matter what. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BigAlinWashSt, NYCee

                  I think some genuinely feel this is the right thing to do.

                  I think some would oppose it if a Republican was in the White House but not a Democrat.

                  I think some would oppose it no matter what.

                  And I think some people wrestle with the complexities and contradictions of all of these positions.

                  I also think some people are on the 'same side' of the issue for very, very different reasons. Can you imagine any other issue that would bring together Juan Cole and the neo-cons? Strange bedfellows indeed.

                  The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

                  by Orange County Liberal on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 08:19:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  For one, two weeks of, say, Afghanistan (9+ / 0-)

      we could supply every person who can use one, from Indonesia to Pakistan, and from Turkey to the Congo, with solar cookers. With which you can not only cook, but you can pasteurize water.

      Freeing up the daily lives of millions from scrounging for wood, diminishing sickness and disease, with environmental advantages from forest saving and lessening pollution... I don't know, but I'd think the world would love us for that. That's one little thing we could spend resources upon.

      How many Meals-Ready-to-Eat does one month of the War-Formerly-Known-As-On-Terror pay for? (And all the actions are just the one War, whatever the names used.)

      Somehow, these kinds of humanitarian service, and effective terrorist-suppression, nobody in the US leadership can even think about, let alone discuss.

      We can only do the humanitarian service which involves killing someone.


      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Sat Jun 25, 2011 at 12:02:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site