3 ms·

I'm normally not that cynical about things but here I have to agree for the most part. It's hard to cite humanitarianism when the world community allowed Gadda

I'm normally not that cynical about things but here I have to agree for the most part. It's hard to cite humanitarianism when the world community allowed Gaddafi to bomb the rebels by plane for over a month (the uprising started Feb. 15th and the Allied Assault began March 21st). Not to mention the fact we're ignoring an almost identical situation in Bahrain. In the end this seems to have a lot to do with politics. Sarkozy needs to move the discussion away from his personal life, Obama needs to repudiate Bush's methods, and so on. Humanitarian concerns are at best secondary.

anamax 16y ago
> Obama needs to repudiate Bush's methods How is this a repudiation? It looks more like an extreme caricature. Note that Bush got Congressional approval. He had several UN resolutions that went much further than Obama's only resolution. Bush had more partners. You may disagree with Bush's reasons, but he was far more clear than Obama. Remember, Obama has said that Gaddafi must go, yet also states that they're not using force to oust him. > Not to mention the fact we're ignoring an almost identical situation in Bahrain. And other places. Iraq and Afghanistan were distinguishable in Bush's stated reasons. Obama's reasons apply far more generally, yet ....
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  Right. But you're looking at this from your perspective and not The President's perspective. President Obama has made it clear in his criticisms that he believes the Bush administration was wrong because it didn't consult the International community. As you cited he clearly believes the International community's approval is above even that of his own congress. So in his mind going to the UN and getting a resolution is a repudiation of Bush who went without one (and in doing so snubbed the political body President Obama seems to have the most respect for) So I'm not giving an opinion one way or the other on whether Obama's actions are in fact a repudiation of President Bush. I'm simply saying that was clearly his goal.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > President Obama has made it clear in his criticisms that he believes the Bush administration was wrong because it didn't consult the International community. As you cited he clearly believes the International community's approval is above even that of his own congress. So in his mind going to the UN and getting a resolution is a repudiation of Bush who went without one (and in doing so snubbed the political body President Obama seems to have the most respect for) The problem with that analysis is that Bush had more approval from the "International Community" than Obama did. As I wrote, Bush had multiple UN resolutions in support of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has one, and it had more absentions than Bush's. In addition, Bush's initial Iraq and Afghanistan coalitions had more members than Obama had at the start of Libya. And, Obama has already lost one.
tzs 16y ago
Has the Arab League asked for intervention in Bahrain?
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  It shouldn't matter. The Arab League represents the leaders of 22 middle eastern countries including Bahrain. The reason the Arab League isn't constantly asking for UN intervention is because it's composed of very people who are responsible for these repressive regimes. A perfect example of this was Egypt where the Arab League backed Mubarak. Gaddafi is unstable so they've thrown him under the bus but don't kid yourself. That strategy only works for them because it distracts from their own atrocities.

anamax 16y ago

> Obama needs to repudiate Bush's methods How is this a repudiation? It looks more like an extreme caricature. Note that Bush got Congressional approval. He had several UN resolutions that went much further than Obama's only resolution. Bush had more partners. You may disagree with Bush's reasons, but he was far more clear than Obama. Remember, Obama has said that Gaddafi must go, yet also states that they're not using force to oust him. > Not to mention the fact we're ignoring an almost identical situation in Bahrain. And other places. Iraq and Afghanistan were distinguishable in Bush's stated reasons. Obama's reasons apply far more generally, yet ....

TomOfTTB 16y ago
Right. But you're looking at this from your perspective and not The President's perspective. President Obama has made it clear in his criticisms that he believes the Bush administration was wrong because it didn't consult the International community. As you cited he clearly believes the International community's approval is above even that of his own congress. So in his mind going to the UN and getting a resolution is a repudiation of Bush who went without one (and in doing so snubbed the political body President Obama seems to have the most respect for) So I'm not giving an opinion one way or the other on whether Obama's actions are in fact a repudiation of President Bush. I'm simply saying that was clearly his goal.
- anamax 16y ago
  > President Obama has made it clear in his criticisms that he believes the Bush administration was wrong because it didn't consult the International community. As you cited he clearly believes the International community's approval is above even that of his own congress. So in his mind going to the UN and getting a resolution is a repudiation of Bush who went without one (and in doing so snubbed the political body President Obama seems to have the most respect for) The problem with that analysis is that Bush had more approval from the "International Community" than Obama did. As I wrote, Bush had multiple UN resolutions in support of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has one, and it had more absentions than Bush's. In addition, Bush's initial Iraq and Afghanistan coalitions had more members than Obama had at the start of Libya. And, Obama has already lost one.

tzs 16y ago

Has the Arab League asked for intervention in Bahrain?

TomOfTTB 16y ago
It shouldn't matter. The Arab League represents the leaders of 22 middle eastern countries including Bahrain. The reason the Arab League isn't constantly asking for UN intervention is because it's composed of very people who are responsible for these repressive regimes. A perfect example of this was Egypt where the Arab League backed Mubarak. Gaddafi is unstable so they've thrown him under the bus but don't kid yourself. That strategy only works for them because it distracts from their own atrocities.