I guess it's the "degree" to which the U.S. involves itself that may or may not rile protestors up. Under Bush, Iraq was a full fledged invasion and occupation in which civilian and military deaths were constantly reported. Same with Vietnam (started by Kennedy) for that matter and Korea.Clinton positioned it in a way it didn't feel like war. Even The Economist called it as close to military altruism as one can get. 'Air strikes' sounds far less worse than attack or invade. And that word crept up again in Libya. Notice Obama said 'limited' involvement. Please. The United States is the King Kong of the world. They don't do 'limited.' Obama wants to show America will work within international institutions. What I'm saying this keeps people at bay.It's still war though, so I think the video makes a good point and one I definitetly observed.
T.C., there's another observation that can be made, and that's this: The war (and occupation) of Iraq continues under Obama, but as soon as he was in office, the visible "anti-war" movement that we saw when Bush was President, pretty much disappeared. It seems too many "anti-war" protesters only get really angry about US wars when a Republican is in the White House.
Oh, I don't doubt that.
If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.