Its not like the Afghanistan or Iraqi war was voted for internationally or sanctioned and approved but the rest of NATO still had to help clean up the mess and pick up the bill without having a single vested interest in it. This is the same thing, except this time there's actually somewhat of a consensus on whether or not something should be done on an international scope and the US being called into service along with the rest of NATO.

Its somewhat sad that NATO, which was partly made to establish and maintain a power balance after WWII has become merely a tool for the most powerful nations to have their way and use the alliance for their own purposes.

NATO has played out it's role, it should be disbanded and the EU should form an army of their own before everyone is dragged into another senseless war with obscure motives and shady outcomes.

NATO's role is similar to what it once was, just that now they're on the offensive: tightening the noose around Russia by recruiting countries like Georgia and the Ukraine

Though i agree it should be disbanded, as NATO's existence has largley just become a sticking point in relations with Russia, and replaced by, as you stated, a European common defense organization (that Russia and America could both have observer roles in).

Why not North Korea, North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world I believe it is over 2-million last I heard. Also North Korea has enough fire power to obliterate South Korea. If the US or any world power attacked North Korea it would be a blood bath. Also while North Korea has killed citizens and imprisons tons, they have not gone genocidal to my knowledge. But an action again North Korea would destabalize the region and kill thousands to millions of people.

China, another of the worlds largest armies. China has nukes and sub's and a very capable air force. Also China is a world super power. If the US attacked China I'm sure Russia would intervene. Also China is a member of the UN Security Council so the UN would never condone an attack or No-Fly Zone over China. Essentially such moves would destroy the UN and could lead to another world war.

Libya is do able, their Government is an enemy of the US and the army does not have the clought to start WWIII. Also many of Libya's leaders defected and a huge portion of the armed forces. So its not even going to war against a country. The US Fifth fleet is nearby and European countries are close enough to launch air raids. Its is a very containable situation.

Everyone and oil. For some reason I hear people saying Afghanistan and Iraq were about oil. Yes Libya is the largest oil producer in Africa. However Libya accounts for around 4% of the world's oil supply. Syria and Iran to my knowledge produce far more oil then Libya. Iran and Syria are also enemies of the United States and with Israel's backing the US could invade either one of them.

Also protestors are being attacked in Both Syria and Iran. The US could easily enter those conflicts and secure far larger oil reserves then wasting time and money on Libya. Infact Saudi Arabia already increased its oil production to make up for Libya's loss. So the same amount of oil is being produced with or without Libya.

What good does 4% of the worlds oil supply do the US? Now if Saudi Arabia began to fall and the US sent troops to support the regime, that would be about oil. Libya is not a big enough producer to justify billions of dollars in fighting. Also alot of western companies were operating in Libya so the oild was coming none the less!

Because the UN voted to instigate a no fly zone so that Gaddafi would stop killing his own people and to reduce pressure on the rebellion, which was most likely going to get decimated eventually. They have a chance now, or at least create a situation similar to Kurdistan which would be protected from the machinations of Gaddafi by the no fly or no drive zone depending on how commited the UN and nato forces are.

This is also supported by Arab League. It is not the US simply going in cock sure with guns blazing. It is backed by the security council (even China and Russian didn't veto, they abstained from the vote) and the Arab League and the English and French governments were far more pro intervention then the US. This is not simply about US interests.

Now onto the usual arguement of "but but but, we didn't stop other genocides!!11" So what? Just because we didn't stop a genocide or dictators killing masses of their own people in other parts of the world means the people of Libya should be killed aswell?
What a fallacy, and so what if it co-incides with our interests? The end result of this is at least at the moment, a mad dictators military has not moved into the rebellions stronghold city and wiped them out. I think thats a good thing. And real politik is an unfortunate reality, the western powers (and probably some middle-easters countries aswell soon) don't fight where they don't stand to gain. Welcome to countries and geo-politics. Its not nice, but the result is also that Gaddafi gets a kicking and people that are fighting to remove a terrible despot get some help.

I can sleep at night under such a proposition.

you'd suspect that certain western leaders would take the chance to take out gaddafi and some of that yummy oil to boot

there are plenty of regimes that crap all over their people that nothing is done about,why?

afghanistan,i can only assume we are looking for the spear of destiny or the ark of covenant there as i can't see the point in the continual occupation over dust and poppys,is it in iraq well oil is a bonus,maybe we think its in lybia now

if the rebels start killing pro gaddafi people will we take them out too

i'm sick of my politicians telling me to get ready to tighten my belt,its going to get rough they say

yet we can afford military conflict on a worldwide scale,the mind boggles

the one thing that will save us is mother nature when earthquakes,natural fires,tornados,floods and tsunamis rage worldwide all at that same time,mans squabbles quickly disappear,its coming,maybe not today or tommorow but soon

But that oil is one of the highest quality around, don't forget that. I don't stand folks diminishing the strategic significance of Libya in case say land operation is required. There are already more than enough commiesque people hanging around those boards saying there is nothing for US in Libya. This is full of BS!

The region is very very important and all the possible operations there will benefit US in the future. The only thing I don't understand why they are so hesitant to extend the managed chaos to other rebelling countries. Like Bahrain.

Q: Why is the US in Libya?

A: Proximity to Europe plus oil.

Don't get me wrong though, I hope the US and NATO destroy Ghadafi's and the rebels get to extract revenge for 40 years of tyranny.  The opportunity to get rid of this mad man by assisting his own people who rose up against him is an opportunity we couldn't pass up.

Most of them aren't his own people, they are for the greater part illegal immigrants - some of whom moved to Libya from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia only to fight US troops in Iraq.

Just a detail.

Actually the lefties around here seem at least neutral on the issue, or in support of it (ManusJustus and I both do, and we're two of the more acerbic leftwingers around here)

On these boards, the libertarians seem to be the ones in opposition

Because you are not in a war. You are undertaking a multinational peacekeeping mission. Wars require a congress vote, peacekeeping mission's do not. NATO and the UN are the ones with whom the issues should be discussed, not the politicians of any one country.