There are a lot of critics that say that Obama is repeating the mistakes of his redneck predecessor by getting involved in a fight that has nothing to do with the United States. While I do agree that there could be a pretty good argument for that, I don't agree that the situation is the same, or even similar to the Iraq war. Bush went ahead without the consent of the U.N. because of either faulty intelligence, or made up intelligence. Either way, Bush had no right to go ahead with that war and that can be almost unanimously agreed on in hindsight. Obama, on the other hand has co-operated completely with NATO and the U.N. He has also been very clear of his intetions to not send ground troops into another blood bath in another Arab country. It is important for countries to step up in times like these. Otherwise, what is the point of having the U.N. if it is not there to help protect the people of the world. After all, I don't think we could find very many people that believe going into Europe to stop Hitler was a bad idea. It is important to stop tyrants like Hitler or Gadhaffi in their tracks, otherwise we are being complicit to important world events that could lead to mass murders. So why do I think this is any different than when Bush pledged to stop Sadaam Hussein? Because the intelligence that Obama is working with is the same as the rest of the worlds. The whole reason for going in to stop Hussein was based on intelligence that was never confirmed by the U.S. or any one else for that matter, but in this case, we have clear cut intelligence that has been confirmed by many countries through their willingness to participate in the "no fly zone" that the U.N. has chosen to implement. The basic difference is that it's a team effort. Although that may sound like an oversimplification, it's not, that's the way it is.