'Responsibility to protect', in an ideal world, might work. In the real world, run by Americans under deep and heavy ZOG, it will always be a disaster (as many have noted, the concept never seems to come up in places where it might actually work). I guarantee that there will be more dead civilians in Libya after the US/NATO intervention than there would have been had Libya been left to its own devices. Yet the next time somebody suggests 'responsibility to protect', the 'left' will, again, fall all over itself promoting mass murder. I don't know if it is covert love of imperialism, or simply utter stupidity.
The reason for the intervention was to stop the dominoes from falling, to preserve some form of the current Libyan government, in other words, the exact opposite of what we've been told.
No-fly zones have almost no effect on the conduct of a government on the ground. Saddam was able to operate for years under a no-fly zone.
Obama had no intention of getting involved in Libya until the Jewish Billionaires who finance him put their jackboots on his neck. All the talk about the three women behind the decision, and their supposed humanitarian motives, is bullshit.
The attack on Libya has nothing to do with the oil, obviously (!), but that won't stop the usual Zionist operatives from wheeling out their favorite confusion.
Whenever you hear anybody mentioning 'al Qaeda', you know you are being lied to by a liar. 'Al Qaeda' is a term of art, meaning anybody the Empire under ZOG disapproves of. Which isn't to say that the liars don't believe their own lies (and the official conspiracy 'left' is proving to be a remarkably useful tool of the Empire). Assad will pretty much get to do what he wants in Syria as the Americans are afraid his opposition is actually Muslim Brotherhood. The Israelis don't like Assad, but he is relatively safe and better than any possible replacement. The main issue to to keep dominoes from falling, and the main fear is an entire Middle East/North Africa under democracy.
2 minutes ago