> NATO didn't attack Libya. The United Nations authorized a limited intervention
> to save millions of unarmed Libyan civilians from being slaughtered by thugs --
> thugs armed to the teeth with billions of dollars of weapons purchased from
> European suppliers, no less.
The US-led NATO coalition dominates the UN Security Council. The UN SC is not an instrument of global democracy. NATO took the initiative for reasons that must have much to do with the oil rents that can be extracted from Libya, a chunk of which are to be appropriated privately by interests that influence the design of NATO policies. NATO cares little about human lives in African countries or even the lives of their own soldiers. It's been shown repeatedly that they care about the profitability (not necessarily in the narrowest sense, but also in that narrowest sense) of their use of their military resources. Humanitarianism is a fig leaf used to cover the true reasons of the NATO attack. IMO, the Libyan opposition to Gaddafi was legitimate at first. But their leaders relinquished this legitimacy by turning it, effectively, into an excuse and instrument of imperialist aggression.