The USA and War

LIBYA

MSNBC V FOX-NEWS

One of the most striking aspects of this clip is the absence of rancor or cynicism. With the Libyan conflict now into its second week one would expect to find the American based global commentators banging on endlessly about the need to bring “democracy” to this lowly Arab sate. Instead we find two of the big hitters in the American news business involving each other in what looks like a set piece confrontation. This is a relatively good-humored slanging match with no fatalities anywhere to be seen. As gentle a romp through the political periphery with a selection of “has been’s” and one or two “also ran’s”, like Sarah Palin, there just to make up the numbers. I doubt if Palin knew there was a war on and if she did she wouldn’t know where it was, not even when told. Be that as it may the real question is why? Why nothing more serious than this burlesque style verbal slapstick? On the face of it nothing seems to be taken too seriously, again we must ask why?

The answer is simple enough; there is nothing, for the Americans in particular, to be concerned about. For the first time in over twenty years of global conflicts the Americans are letting someone else call the shots. Sarcozy was happy to oblige by taking it upon himself to run the show ‘till he managed to get NATO to take over. The serious decision-making has centered on Paris with an occasional stopover in Brussels. However there is still a much work to be done. The domino effect as applied to the Middle East region has been halted, at least for the moment. Small wonder then that the Yanks were in frolicsome mood. Although we find the media in an agreeable and carefree state there is no denying the message. What’s been mediated here under the heading of “war reportage” is that we, the Americans, have begun to wise up. We are trying hard to kick the “bully boy” habit. It is only recently that we’ve started to call the Iraq war like we always should have. The absence of body bags and daily shots from Arlington goes a long way towards assuaging their sense of power loss. Their message now is, we like it simple, we like it quiet and we do like it clean. Long may it last.

Media discourse

This is a link to MSNBC I'll be having a look at their perspective and take on the Libyan war.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42261399#42261399

The ED Show on MSNBC

A look at the Guardian Thursday 24/03/11

The main thrust of the article is that France was the only country to step up to the plate and take a firm position on the developing scene in Libya.

On the face of it this looks like good leadership and indeed it is, but is it only about leadership?

Why didn’t any of the other European leaders take a firm stand and declare their intention, which was to annihilate Gaddafi ASAP and this, was the first sign of weakness?

They all know him well

They have been doing business with him for 40 years. Was he all good for all that time? and has suddenly gone off the rails? Of course not:

As always there is at least one other side to it.

France has a much greater need to keep Libya as a going concern

(1) It imports oil from Libya and the French oil giant Total controls an important Libyan oilfield.

(2) For France, Libya is important because it borders four French-speaking countries of strategic importance to France: Tunisia, Algeria, Chad and Niger.

This makes good economic sense. The cynics would say that this is all about posturing on the world stage. “Look good internationally and the chances are you will benefit at home”.

Sarkosy needs to improve his poll ratings at home and this one move will help that process.

Is this what it’s all about –vanity? Well yes ---- mostly. It’s also about power, the narcotics of the vain.

As this story unfolds we will see many more “hidden agenda’s” surfacing.

The Guardian though has treated this with something of a sneer.

Cameron like the rest of Europe and the USA didn’t push to the front, happy to rely on well-delivered rhetoric. The paper seemed a bit miffed about that so they had to have few sideswipes at Sarkosy. We can’t do our side up so lets do the other side down.

Two quotes:

"Above all, it was a question of ego but he [Sarkozy] wasn't unhappy. The whole debate turned around him. After the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions and the fiasco of French diplomacy, he believed he had taken the initiative."

France's diminutive leader was in desperate need of a boost to his political stature.

This was petty stuff, way below the normal elegance that is this papers hallmark. That they resorted to this sort of Tabloid/schoolboy type sniggering. “mine is bigger than yours” attitude is disappointing.

A Guardian report 24/03/11

Kim Willsher in Paris

French president Nicolas Sarkozy delivers a speech after a summit on enforcing a UN resolution against Muammar Gaddafi's forces. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features

As Rafale and Mirage fighter planes screamed over the skies of Libya, enforcing a UN resolution pushed through by France and confirmed by an emergency "war summit" convened in Paris, it became increasingly clear that this is very much a French-led military operation.

After weeks of posturing and grandstanding, not to mention upsetting his own colleagues and allies, Nicolas Sarkozy has assumed the role he does so well: that of an incisive, decisive and determined world leader.

Some European allies were in no doubt as to who was running the Libyan military operation. The Belgians came right out with it, saying France was "heading" the assault.

With his popularity at a record low and facing a presidential election next year, France's diminutive leader was in desperate need of a boost to his political stature. On Saturday he got it.

Having called world leaders to an emergency war council at the Elysée Palace to agree on military action against Muammar Gaddafi, his 20 guests had barely come to an agreement when Sarkozy announced French planes were in the air – and had been for some hours – preparing to strike Libyan targets.

Sarkozy said France had "decided to assume its role before history" in stopping Gaddafi's "killing spree" against people whose only crime was to seek to "liberate themselves from servitude".

"Libyans wanting nothing else but the right to decide their own future find themselves in danger of death. We have a duty to respond to their anguished call," he said. Ever since France became the first and only nation to recognise the rebels as the "legitimate representatives" of the Libyan people earlier this month, cynics have pointed out that Sarkozy is desperate to atone for France's incompetent handling of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. Desperate, too, to make people forget that just three years ago he gave Gaddafi the red carpet treatment in Paris, welcoming him with open arms, bringing half the capital to a standstill and allowing the Libyan leader to pitch his bedouin tent near the Elysée.

Others praised Sarkozy for pushing through the UN resolution – in stark contrast to his predecessor Jacques Chirac's determined opposition to the UN resolution on military action in Iraq – and for summoning an impressive "war summit" at the last minute with key figures from four continents.

Following the Paris meeting of European heads of state to discuss Libya 10 days ago, Paris Match reported: "Above all, it was a question of ego … but he [Sarkozy] wasn't unhappy. The whole debate turned around him. After the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions and the fiasco of French diplomacy, he believed he had taken the initiative."

Le Figaro newspaper explained it thus: "With Libya, Nicolas Sarkozy is in the process of proving once again his ability to impose himself on the international scene in moments of extreme crisis … the summit taking place in Paris is the moment for him to reiterate that France cannot be a force for the status quo, paralysed by chance, but the opposite; to be a motor pushing forward historic causes like the Arab spring."

For France, Libya is important because it borders four French-speaking countries of strategic importance to France: Tunisia, Algeria, Chad and Niger. France imports oil from Libya and the French oil giant Total controls an important Libyan oilfield.

But for Sarkozy himself, Libya is important in a different way. He hopes that – if he can restore French stature in the international arena – the intervention could turn out to be for him what the Falklands war was to Margaret Thatcher: a vote winner.

A diplomat told Le Parisien newspaper it was good news for Sarkozy's re-election chances in 2012. "If all goes well it will be a great victory and show he is the man to have in a crisis."

Wag the Dog

In this film we get a good insiders look at the media machine at work and the lengths it’s prepared to go to for a “story”. That the story line was barely plausible didn’t seem to connect with them (the media generally, and in this case TV in particular). Even if it did it wouldn’t have mattered since the prospect of either war and or scandal excites the viewing public in roughly equal measure. In the production and presentation of the pseudo war the Hollywood media did their mediation with flare and finesse. By contrast the TV and Press media fell lamentably short in their handling of the “breaking news”. In their failure to check the facts, before deciding to run with the story, they displayed a serious lack of professionalism, so much so that they could reasonably be accused of complicity. Recent history tells us that this (non) story is far too close to reality for comfort. Think here of Iraq and Afghanistan and you get the picture. Facts were manufactured when needed and the few snippets of “reality” that did exist were massaged beyond recognition. A war was needed, so a war we had. Our (the public) bulwark against the extravagancies and extremes of our leaders (elected) failed in their basic job namely, to inform, to keep us abreast of the real reality that life is. They failed miserably. The great bulldog “fourth estate” turned out to be little more than a pussycat and neutered to boot.

One big question though, are we the public, entitled to better, do we care? Perhaps not; have we become too complacent, perhaps yes. An increasing diet of reality shows on TV, Big Brother and the “X” Factor etc., portrayals of a life so lowly and dysfunctional as to beggar belief. The following in-depth analyses in the Press the next day seems to have left many of us without the ability or desire to differentiate between fact and fiction.

We have become careless, compliant and therefore complicit, an uncomfortable place to be at. For the moment though we seem happy enough with our fate. C’est la vie.

http://www.urlesque.com/2011/03/07/jennifer-aniston-sex-tape-smartwater-ad/

Smartwater is a brand name for electrolyte-enhanced water. The company was founded in 1996 by one Darius Birkoff. It maybe worth a critical look regarding some aspects of taste touched on in the video.

See what you think

Paxman v Howard

This is a quite difficult piece to look at with total objectivity. We have two very able exponents of the debating genre close to the top of their game.

Bias

The platform for this confrontation was set in the preceding interview with Ann Widdicombe, and straight away Paxman set out his stall very clearly. Did Howard suspend Lewis, threaten to suspend him and/or bully him or anyone else in connection with the dismissal of the prison governor. In the initial Q&A interlude both men seemed happy with the format. There was no evidence of bias on either side.

Answering style

For the first four or five questions Howard’s answering style was straightforward and open, putting his side of the discussion with forceful candor and lucidity. It wasn’t until the “balling off” question was put to him that he audibly bristled. From then on the styles on both sides became more confrontational; swords were now drawn.

Specifics

There is one specific question, as to the wording of the dismissal of Derek Lewis from his position as head of the prison service, which has the most significance, the sort of loaded question where a simple yes/no answer would have sufficed; and very likely closed out that aspect of the interview, but it was not to be.

Avoidance

Howard refused to give Paxman his desired answer but instead went on to display a deft and elegant touch in the art of obfuscation. Here was a man who could give Gen. Jackson a master class in stonewalling.

Violation

The interviewee here was a professional lawyer in a previous incarnation and at the time of the interview was an MP and running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, that would suggest a man with questionable integrity on at least two counts; its difficult to imagine how he could be violated, or even what would constitute violation in such a case. In any event Paxman put his questions with his usual incisive vigor and Howard answered as a politician rather than a lawyer, all perfectly acceptable. In that arena and on that occasion any attempt at violation would have been foolhardy in the extreme. On the day honors even I’d say.

Use of language

The interview was conducted with the highest standards of both content and delivery adhered to, neither condescending nor mawkish. While both sides defended their individual positions with zeal, the language was measured and controlled. A mini verbal slugfest that left the viewer feeling something of a voyeur, peeking into the inner workings of two very athletic minds.