arma virumque cano (et alia)
...killing a dictator make an illegal war legal?
I'm not sure--did Saddam's death justify the invasion of Iraq?1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passes non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. Canada dispatched naval frigate HMCS Charlottetown to the area, and Canadian National Defence Minister Peter MacKay stated that "[w]e are there for all inevitabilities. And NATO is looking at this as well ... This is taken as a precautionary and staged measure."Given Libya had UN backing, that made it far more of a legal war than the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
I should also add that Libya had NATO involvement, which means the US was constitutionally obligated to be involved (See Article VI).Furthermore, US involvement was minimal compared to its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We should never have gone into Iraq.Libya doesn't bother me nearly as much; it was presented honestly - no fake facts like the Bush administration used to justify what they had planned all along; 9/11/'01 was just a more convenient pretext - but still lies.So no, Saddam's death did not justify the Iraq invasion; on that Bush senior was a much better President.But I do think that our help with this helped to undo decades during which, at least part of the time, we propped up dictatorial regimes in the region when it served our purposes, at the expense of the populations of those countries.This was more of a return to our core values as a nation. I was also delighted that we had shared the role of being the world's policeman, as well we should.
I'm not convinced that Khadaffi needed to be deposed, but Jon Stewart is brilliant in pointing out the Obama-haters' spinning of the events.It's all about Obama-hatred and racism in America these days.