logically, if you supported and still support the U.S. role in the bombing of Libya

[cali]

14. I didn't claim they were the same. I claimed there are parallels.

And let's state that SOME Libyans were involved in an uprisiing against Gaddafi. You seem to think you can speak for Libyans. You cannot. I didn't speak for anyone- I presented facts. There's a lot of conflicting information on the uprising against Gaddafi- something you ever so conveniently erase. And it is not a matter of what I "think" about their QUALITY of life- as measured by the U.N. and WHO; those are facts that are germane when measured against quality of life statistics today.

Your arrogance in deliberately misstating facts is pronounced. Saddam was certainly still using force and the threat of force to oppress Iraqis. Gad, your propensity for revisionist history is shameful.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a U.S. led coalition. And as I'm sure you know, the U.S. is the dominant force within NATO.

You are right about the fact that no ground troops were in Libya.

I certainly think people have the right to fight an oppressive regime. I don't think that intervention is always the right thing to do. Your post reads as if you supported the NATO bombing though you claim to have opposed it. Perhaps you did and your post is intended to defend President Obama and/or Hillary.

I'll answer one of your final questions as I think it's pertinent: I think the world could have stopped the Rwanda genocide before it ever started. If you haven't, read General Romeo Dallaire's account of the Rwandan genocide, "Shake Hands with the Devil".