The U.S. and the tired old ladies of Europe are supporting the overthrow of Libya's government.
In fact, they actively are supporting the rebels.
If Communism was still America's bug-a-boo and if someone would suggest the rebels were Communists or Communist tools, the Red, White, and Blue would be solidly behind Gadaffi.
No one will argue that Gadaffi is unbalanced or that he once, if not now, supported terrorists and terrorism - Pan Am 103's explosion over Lockerbie Scotland on December 21, 1988 has been laid at is door (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103) - but of late, he's behaved in an apparently acceptable manner.
If the United States is to war on Gadaffi and the Libyans who support him - an undeclared war at that - why not attack other regimes that pose a greater threat to world peace and human rights?
Shall we start with Iran that is - no question - a threat to all its neighbors, a place that supports terrorists worldwide, and a place where human rights are trampled?
Of course not.
What's the difference between Iran and Libya? Oil.
What about Syria? It's despot's daddy wiped out a whole village because it failed to support Hafez al-Assad. completely (see http://www.newsmax.com/deBorchgrave/Assad-Syria-Facebook-protests/2011/03/09/id/388872).
The current despot, Bashar al-Assad, has so far refrained from killing his own people, but supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, a small country that, before Hezbollah, was a cultural center that thrived on Christian-Moslem tolerance.
Syria is the place that Iraq sent its weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) while the world waited for an agreement to remove Saddam Hussein from power, WMDs that suddenly never existed if Washington is to believed.
Moving to the east of Iran, we have North Korea, The only differences between Iran and North Korea are (a) Iran has oil and (b) North Korea has the bomb.
In neither location is dissent tolerated.
But we don't attack or even seriously threaten either Iran or North Korea.
And then there is China.
China has the bomb; it has severe human rights violations and does not countenance dissent; it conquered Tibet and suppresses its culture. It also has designs on Taiwan, a small Chinese island where the U.S. set up another despot, Chiang Kai-shek to counter Communist Mao, reportedly the Chinese people's choice.
Why doesn't the U.S. and the old biddies of Europe remove China's leadership and institute "democracy" (but whose democracy - Europe or the U.S.).
Actually, if repression and general human rights violations are legitimate causes for war, then most of the Islamic regimes and many African states - the worst offenders seem to be Moslem dominated - should be again taken over by the more humane and democratic countries. Surely no one has forgotten French, British, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese rule and how these advanced nations treated their foreign subjects.
A quick aside: The U.S. allegedly is in Afghanistan (and Pakistan and ...) chasing Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden. For that the U.S. does not need armies of thousands; it needs a few highly trained assassins who can infiltrate bin Laden's court and behead the snake. But the U.S. is reluctant to target individual terrorists (although it does that), preferring to send in thousands and collateral causalities be damned. Someone in Washington seems to think bin Laden and Company are soldiers and deserve Geneva Convention rules. They are not and they do not.
Let Gadaffi alone.
What is going on in Libya is a Libyan affair.
There is little likelihood it will spread to "the world," even the Arab world where open displeasure with governments probably will be a short-lived thing.
Unless the U.S. and the European pantywaists are prepared to put down every despotic government in the Moslem world, the U.S. lacks the moral high ground to interfere in any way with what is transpiring in Libya.
