If this is about stopping the slaughter and not about regime change

and another failed oil state, then enforce a cease fire and have blue helmets on the ground. Don't have it another coalition of the willing led by the United States. We are in two other counties where the conflict was US led. My two cents. Let other security council members take the lead in this matter. It is much easier to commit to warfare than to extricate oneself out of one.

over to France, especially since they were the most adamant about the operation.

The Arab League put together a resolution asking for the no-fly zone. Libyan rebels requested the UN establish it to protect civilians. France was pushing for action to stop a potential slaughter. The US mostly sat on their hands and went along with everyone else.

Please find me some evidence that the US was "most adamant about the operation." Everything leading up to this point suggests otherwise.

countries contributing militarily.

seems like France should be investing more in this if they're so gung-ho.

We are flying missions.

Don't think so, when has slaughter ever bothered empire?

If it were ever the case then why is there no intervention in Congo?

In this fallen world, until the millennium comes and we all live in peace and brotherhood, you have basically two choices.

You could be content to have the individual nation-state be the top of the violence-and-coercion totem pole, with no entity or entities over and above it, or beside it. What happens next is what we have today: everything that takes place within a state is unreachable by more than gestures -- sanctions, freezing assets, e.g. -- from the outside world. Stand back, and let people power do the rest, and hope for the best. Manage the refugee flow if it doesn't. The consequences are, as we have repeatedly seen, potentially quite grim, but there are a lot of people who are happy with this regime.

You could try to put something besides individual nation-states at the top of the violence-and-coercion totem pole. The various somethings haven't had a chance to make themselves very clear yet -- the UN, NATO, EU, OAU, OAS, etc regime is only 65 years old, or less, not long in historical terms. As they stand, they are clearly not the optimal solution.

The consequences from this aren't automatically less grim than the alternative, but they aren't inherently grimmer either.

My op was about enforcement of a ceasefire with the use of UN presence on the ground and enforced by air cover.

I'll bet there's a discernible pattern...perhaps it is a matter of what best serves capitalist purpose.

...in countries that have no oil, and have been visited by Bono?

(Trying to rule out capitalist motives...)

the 8 billion pound gorilla is unavoidable. Sometimes there is not a direct correlation, in this case for example the capitalists are not so much 'going after' Libyan oil as they are trying to manage the Arab revolution, which if it continues and spreads would have 'unacceptable' repercussions.

...argument, either on Westphalian, national-sovereignty grounds, or on pacifist and universalist grounds, to oppose intervention, period.

Either of them is principled -- not a bunch of ad-hoc-ery based on vulgar Marxism. I'd have a lot more sympathy for either one.

I'm tepidly in support of what's going on as I do agree that Gadaffi was on the verge of turning his goons and mercenaries loose on Benghazi and other cities not under his control. It's also apparent that there's a desire by a large number of Libyans to see Gadaffi gone and if we're able to assist in removing this terrorist, then so be it. The rub is when things don't go "according to plan". I do not support US forces on the ground and am concerned our "allies" who have pushed us into this latest war will leave all the heavy lifting to the US.

The problem at this point is the opposition is still very unorganized and I'm not sure they're capable on their own to go up against Gadaffi and thus if they start losing ground again, will the US and our "allies" be compelled to send in troops for a march on Tripoli that could be over quickly. Or are we in this game to help train and equip the rebels and hope they do the job...be it in six months of six years? The war powers act is ticking...or it should be.

And if the claim is civilian protection, my suggestion was this approach. So instead of having western nations with their intelligence services and special ops and bombardment working on regime change and producing another drawn out conflict for a failed oil state, it can turn into a proper enforcement of a UN ceasefire.

Do we care if they kill civilians in Tripoli taking it from Moe?

Or will we be the air wing of the rebel army and continue to bomb for them? Killing anyone in their path.

Yes - I have questions.