Readers React: Why Obama’s variety of regime change is better than Bush’s

To the editor: Doyle McManus says both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have sought regime change at the point of a gun. This is an unfair comparison. (“Democrats and Republicans agree -- regime change is out of fashion,” Opinion, Dec. 20)

Bush defied the United Nations as well as much of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with his U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, supported by the deceitful notion that Iraqis yearned for democracy. Obama, conversely, participated in a coalition aiming to prevent wholesale slaughter and misery in civil wars that could spread instability throughout the region.

It is notable that Obama’s political opponents slammed his actions in Libya while demanding that he do the same thing in Syria.

Eric Carey, Arlington, Va.

..

To the editor: McManus ignores the issue and talks about the politics and personalities. The closest any candidate has come to articulating the arrogant and hypocritical philosophy underlying our foreign policy is when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) referenced Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh and Chile’s Salvador Allende.

However, he failed to point out that these were democratically elected governments. We helped overthrew them for access to resources and some perceived geopolitical advantage. They were replaced with terrible dictators — the shah in Iran and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.

Regime change in Syria wreaks with hypocrisy.

The choice between stability and regime change is a false one. The above situations are just some that show we don’t really care about democracy. If our reasons for regime change were to end repression and coincided with the desires of the citizens, we might have regime change without as much instability.

The way in which we can accomplish this is the discussion we should be having.

Michael Goldman, Woodland Hills

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook