Saddam Hussein: Dictator for 24 years.
Muammar Gaddafi:  Dictator for 42 years.

Bush got Congressional approval for attack on Iraq.
Obama did not get Congressional approval for attack on Libya.

Bush gave exact date attacks would start (allowing for civilians to evacuate) along with option for Saddam Hussein to leave to avoid attacks.
Obama launched attacks without warning (not giving civilians times to evacuate) with no option for peace by asking Gaddafi to step down. 

Sorry liberals.  You can’t have it both ways on this one.  Either both Bush and Obama were wrong, or both Bush and Obama were right.  You can’t have one be right and one be wrong just because of their political party.  This is what you get for basing your entire ideology on the hatred of Bush for 8 long years.  It has come back to bite you with the painful sting of cognitive dissonance.  Granted, there are some liberals out there who are at least honest enough to turn on Obama on this one.  I think the idiot Michael Moore said Obama should give his peace prize back.  I don’t ever want to agree with Michael Moore.  The Nobel Peace Prize has long been a joke, just as Obama’s presidency is, so it is only fitting he keep it.  

I have no problem with the U.S. helping the cause of liberty by taking out tyrant dictators if there is a chance the people of the nation will then step up and fight for freedom.  I do think both Bush and Obama should have demanded Congress make an official declaration of war in each case.  So in that regard, both were wrong, and especially the Congress in each case was wrong.  Bush’s asking for—and getting—Congressional approval was a start, but go all the way and declare war if they are going to do it!  But hopefully Gaddafi will join Hussein as worm food shortly and the Libyan people, like the Iraqi people, can start to move toward a freer way of life for themselves.  If Islamic theocracies around the world start to crumble, the world can only become a better, safer place.

I love to learn, to change my mind for the better, to see my current limits and try to step beyond them. So much to learn, so much fun to be had.

traveler - 22 March 2011 11:42 AM

I love to learn, to change my mind for the better, to see my current limits and try to step beyond them. So much to learn, so much fun to be had.

That was a pretty good debate between Rocinante and Pragmatic Naturalist.

brightfut - 21 March 2011 08:50 PM

Gnostikosis; I agree with you that a just war is based on moral values.  Moral values come from people.  I would like to think that moral values are not as blatantly self serving as you make them out to be.  People also decide what is a legitimate government and what is not.  In the early years of the US, George Washington had to use troops to quell uprisings among the US’s own population.  This was considered just because the government was considered legitimate.  This issue is sounding dangerously close to an appeal to the populace fallacy, but if most of the people consider a government such as the Mubarak government in Egypt to not be legitimate then doesn’t that make the government not legitimate?  If most of the people in Libya don’t consider Gaddafi to be the legitimate government and not that many people fight for Gaddafi then doesn’t that make him no longer legitimate?  If lots of people fight for Gaddafi then the issue is not so clear.

I like the analogy that brings to mind… Democracy is an appeal to popularity logical fallacy. 

Something in my mind may make the government legitimate whereas something in your mind may make it not legitimate. Get enough people behind it and it makes it true or not, er well legitimate or not. The truth is dependent on who can enforce what they believe either by numbers or force of arms. The truth being the future of Lybia. The truth of what we believe doesn’t matter as much as the ability to enforce what we believe. Our at least convince enough other to believe the same thing.

As far as Bush and Obama go, I believe they both did/do what they believe was the moral thing to do. I don’t know if there was any universal correctness to either’s action. However I’m biased as I don’t believe in a universal right and wrong. Right and wrong exist by popular appeal. 

Ok, that’s not universal either, but in some cases.

The real “debate” now is between Obama and Gaddafi.  I hope Obama wins.

Yeah, let’s hope it doesn’t turn out like the conflict between Reagan and Gaddafi.  (The British Airways Lockerby bombing).  Gaddafi won that one.

Occam

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 21 March 2011 08:43 AM

The problem I have with all of this for the moment at least is there doesn’t seem to be anything on the table which a reasonable person might confuse for a plan.

and how is that different from our other past adventures?

and how is that different from our other past adventures?

It isn’t. Doesn’t that just give you the warm and fuzzies?

Please don’t get me wrong I’m not claiming USA is the bad guy here (though we sure as hell were invading Iraq…  R).
Gaddafi is the ass hole. Rather than relinquish power he’ll destroy his country, at least what he hasn’t driven into the ground already. 

But it is still very disheartening to see yet another country get blasted to smithereens.  I guess if they manage to keep it to military sites, but it isn’t like past history offers much hope.

For me what’s so bizarre is that the back drop to all of this is that society will be really challenged by our planet’s environment.  And that date is barreling down on us really fast, yet all our society seems capable of producing is more wars.  So why am I increasingly depressed?

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 22 March 2011 11:18 PM

and how is that different from our other past adventures?

It isn’t. Doesn’t that just give you the warm and fuzzies?

yea don’t it though, just like the one that happen before you raulf.

But it is still very disheartening to see yet another country get blasted to smithereens.

What I find unsettling is that there is no clear cut objective beyond pasting Libya’s air defence capabilities and it’s air force. No definition of victory, no exit stratagy.

I could argue that there are some national interests at stake to a point but that doesn’t deal with the larger issues. Seems the administrations which followed Reagan’s don’t want to pay heed to Casper Weinberger’s advice on this, but then Reagan wasn’t always so swift in this regard either.

Oh well, more of the same old thing!

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 22 March 2011 11:28 PM

But it is still very disheartening to see yet another country get blasted to smithereens.

What I find unsettling is that there is no clear cut objective beyond pasting Libya’s air defence capabilities and it’s air force. No definition of victory, no exit stratagy.

I could argue that there are some national interests at stake to a point but that doesn’t deal with the larger issues. Seems the administrations which followed Reagan’s don’t want to pay heed to Casper Weinberger’s advice on this, but then Reagan wasn’t always so swift in this regard either.

Oh well, more of the same old thing!

Since you bring it up, my favor investigative interviewer Terry Gross at Fresh Air had an informative interview this evening:

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/22/134760674/why-libya-matters-to-the-middle-easts-future
March 22, 2011

Allied forces carried out a third night of airstrikes in Libya Monday, enforcing the U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zone to stop the advancement of forces loyal to Libyan leader Mohammar Gadhafi.

On today’s Fresh Air, George Washington University political scientist Marc Lynch explains how the future of Libya has become a key part in the rapidly changing transformation of the Arab world — and why the United States and its allies decided to intervene.

I guess among other problems is that there isn’t even a viable infrastructure to take over governmental functions should/when Gadhafi get ousted.  Sound’s like a bunch of pissed off people, but not more than that… as opposed to what Egypt had.

Rocinante - 21 March 2011 11:33 AM

Then please explain to me why Bush, with Congressional approval, using force to oust Saddam from power is different from Obama using force to oust Ghadaffi from power.  Please note, saying, “Bush is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat”, does not constitute a legitimate reason for opposing the former and accepting the latter   —although we all know that is what is going on in the mind of many on the left!

Why not ask why we didn’t intervene in Iran too while were at it.  Two things are different about Libya. 1) there is an active violent armed revolution that asked for intervention and 2) numerous countries asked the US to use the military to intervene.  Neither of these things were present in Iraq and Iran. 

The complaint about Iraq is not some wishy washy pie in the sky “should we be involved… oh no were not care bears if we go” complaint out of liberals.  It boiled down to: is this a smart play.  A lot of people thought it was an stupid move on the part of the US.  We risked a lot of international good will, and we were spending money and lives to do it.  I would say it has worked out to a wash, but I do note that we actually haven’t payed for the Iraq war yet…  Maybe just paying down the debt with that money and holding the line on Iraq via diplomacy was a smarter move given the risk we were undertaken.  The risk didn’t really go against us, so we lucked out there; however, we still have the debt from the unpayed for war. 

If you revisit the events of the last month it was clear Obama didn’t charge out on this because it wasn’t an obvious opportunity, but after things unfolded with NATO allies and the Arab governments advocating intervention it became an opportunity.  The victory is not in anything we accomplish in Libya.  The victory is in getting the Arab world, the UN, and NATO in bed with us on a military operation of their own public desire.  They can’t undo that no matter how they try. The risk are lighter than with Iraq, and we have already bought something for the money we pay in bombs: we bought political entanglement with US military operations from the French and the Arabs.  Obama is a master politician.

So, you are right there are things at work here besides right and wrong, but there are distinct differences between Iraq and Libya.

qutsemnie - 23 March 2011 12:09 AM

Why not ask why we didn’t intervene in Iran too while were at it.

Well, the people of Iran tried to revolt against their oppressors, but Obama refused to recognize them, let alone help them.  Just because the U.S. did not help the oppressed people of Iran does not mean it is wrong to help other oppressed people. 

qutsemnie - 23 March 2011 12:09 AM

Two things are different about Libya. 1) there is an active violent armed revolution that asked for intervention…

Yes, they asked.  But they asked for it from Bush, not Obama! 

qutsemnie - 23 March 2011 12:09 AM

and 2) numerous countries asked the US to use the military to intervene.  Neither of these things were present in Iraq and Iran.

Actually, revolts were present in Iraq and Iran at one point or another.  But the people were so beat down, that they eventually had to give up. 

As for the people of Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyrStaIoh-w

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X35rhitzKPQ&NR=1

As for numerous countries…

 
Obama’s coalition for Libya:

1.  United States
2.  France
3.  United Kingdom
4.  Italy
5.  Canada
6.  Belgium
7.  Denmark
8.  Norway
9.  Qatar
10. Spain
11. Greece
12. Germany
13. Poland
14. Jordan
15. Morocco
16. United Arab Emirate

Bush’s Coalition for Iraq

1.  Afghanistan
2.  Albania
3.  Australia
4.  Azerbaijan
5.  Bulgaria
6.  Colombia
7.  Czech Republic
8.  Denmark
9.  El Salvador
10. Eritrea
11. Estonia
12. Ethiopia
13. Georgia
14. Hungary
15. Italy
16. Japan
17. South Korea
18. Latvia
19. Lithuania
20. Macedonia
21. Netherlands
22. Nicaragua
23. Philippines
24. Poland
25. Romania
26. Slovakia
27. Spain
28. Turkey
29. United Kingdom
30. Uzbekistan

If people only realized how silly and hypocritical they sound when they try to justify Obama’s military action while demonizing Bush’s, I think they’d actually feel ashamed.  Aren’t there any honest liberals who will either say both were wrong or both were right?  I can understand if a person is opposed to both on philosophical reasons.  But this double standard is sickening.

Rocinante - 22 March 2011 09:17 AM

Saddam Hussein: Dictator for 24 years.
Muammar Gaddafi:  Dictator for 42 years.

Bush got Congressional approval for attack on Iraq.
Obama did not get Congressional approval for attack on Libya.

Bush gave exact date attacks would start (allowing for civilians to evacuate) along with option for Saddam Hussein to leave to avoid attacks.
Obama launched attacks without warning (not giving civilians times to evacuate) with no option for peace by asking Gaddafi to step down. 

Sorry liberals.  You can’t have it both ways on this one.  Either both Bush and Obama were wrong, or both Bush and Obama were right.

Yes because obviously the Iraq war and the Libya bombardment have the same scope of operations and commitment by the US?