@engineer,
Your argument is a case of begging the question because your premise assumes the conclusion at which you intend to arrive. It can just as easily be said that we are
protecting Libyan civilians because we don't like Kadaffi. When you state that "we are helping the rebels," you assume your own conclusion without having demonstrated it.
Now, to dispense with the silly analogy about France aiding Americans in their revolution: France and England were traditional enemies from 1336 to 1815. Edward III was the son of the daughter of the last Capetian king of France who had sons, and therefore claimed the throne of France. But the French adduced a dubious claim about Salic law to the effect that no woman, or descendant of a woman, could mount the throne of France, and therefore Philippe de Valois, from a cadet branch of the Capetians, was chosen as their king.
I doubt that Edward thought he'd ever conquer France, but the Hundred Years war began, and after nearly a century, and after his signal victory at Agincourt in 1415, Henry V was eventually able to force the mad French King, Charles le bien aimé (Charles the beloved) to acceed to his claim on the French throne, married his daughter to him, and in 1420, acknowledged Henry and the heirs of his body as the kings of France. Of course, the war was not over, and the Dauphin organized a feeble resistance to the English, and they were finally defeated. They weren't driven out of France right away, but essentially, the English could not enforce their claim.
So they became enemies, and fought one another again and again, on few rare occasions being allies. For example, Charles II received secret subsidies from Louis XIV so that he would not have to rely on Parliament, which in another form had cut off the head of his father. But by and large, they remained enemies until the final defeat of Napoleon in 1815. Even then, they remained suspicious and hostile to one another, and were only driven together because they had relatively liberal governments in a hostile and arch-conservative European scene. They only finally became allies on the eve of the First World War.
Although each side occasionally, and some times with justice, alleged that the other harbored their domestic enemies, neither side supported international terrorism, a term unknown during the more than five centuries that they were enemies. Neither of them sent their agents out to commit acts of terrorism, and neither of them set up training camps for international terrorists. In none of their wars was the personality of any individual ruler the cause of their hostility, with the possible exception of William III's obsessive paranoia about Louis XIV. Certainly no one would have characterized Louis as a tinpot dictator of a terrorist state--far from it, France in Louis' day was the most powerful single military state in Europe.
The analogy fails entirely. France took up our part during our revolution because she had been England's enemy for almost four and half centires by then, and their rivalry had already "gone global." The case with Kadaffi is not even remotely the same. France and England never went to war because either one alleged the other was murdering their own people and therefore organized an international coalition to stop that, and surely not in the case of the American revolution.
Whether or not you agree that it is the case, the overt reason (at least) for the UN resolution is to protect Libyan citizens from their own government. I did not allege nobility on anyone's part, and of course, i was sufficiently honest to point out the inferential hypocrisy. That you think we are taking sides in a civil war you have made abundantly clear--as i've pointed out at least twice now, i don't say you're wrong, i say you haven't made your case. By the way, as for the last few decades, don't forget that we splashed a couple of thei jet fighters in 1981; that we engaged in a day of open hostilities with the Libyans in 1986 when SAM-5 and SAM-6 missiles were fired at American aircraft, and American aircraft badly disabled two Libyan corvettes (one of which was later sunk) and a patrol boat, and after more SAM launches, disabled several Libyan radar stations--and they might have destroyed one or more SAM launch sites, although that was never confirmed; that two weeks later in response to the bombing of the discotech in Germany, we again attacked Libya in conjunction with the RAF; that in 1989, when two MiGs launched missiles at American aircraft they were shot down; and finally, that in retaliation for the discotech bombing in1986, U.S. aircraft bombed Tripoli and Benghazi, killing about a hundred people and wounding about 2000 more. Certainly that wasn't done in response to the lunatic's brutality toward his own people, but it is disingenuous to suggest that we've ignored Kadaffi "for the last few decades." In response to the Pan Am bombing, Kadaffi became an international pariah (or more of one), and evenntualy agreed to pay compensation. By that time, he had already been handed his ass militarily in Chad during the so-called Toyota War, and he blamed that on the United States and France. That wasn't entirely fabricated--expert observers believe that the CIA provided Chad with satellite images of Libyan deployments and movements and France overtly provided Chad (a former colony) with logistical support. In fact, Libya was so humiliated that Kadaffi could not longer trust his own officers, which is why he began to hire mercenaries in Africa, and that was a major reason he was willing to negotiate reparations payments for the Pan Am bombing, so that Libya could get the embargo lifted, allowing Kadaffi to provide his military with the modern toys and the luxurious life style needed to assure their loyalty.
If stopping war means taking military actions which benefit the rebels, how is that evidence that
the purpose of these missions is to choose sides in a civil war? You admit the ambiguity yourself.
I can't at all argue that posing as noble saviors of the Libyan people would be a disgusting exercise. But i don't recall that anyone is doing that, unless you refer to Mr. Obama's "we can't stand idly by" statement about Libyans being killed by their own government. However, not standing idly by seems to have been the motivation for the Arab League's call for a no-fly zone. Of coures, they don't like that son-of-a-bitch any better than we do. As with any international situation, it's not simple, and there is not a single motive. There are substantive differences between the Iraq fiasco and this attack on Libya, though. Cheney and company flat lied about weapons of mass destruction and a connection to the September 11th attack to get war powers to invade Iraq. I don't believe that anyone is lying about the murders of civilians by the Libyan government. Futhermore, i don't know that anyone plans to occupy Libya and "build democracy."
