So I'm not well informed just because I don't acknowledge the Libyan opposition as the legitimate governing body?
They aren't the "opposition" because they're the only ones we recognise. Your whole argument boils down to "Gaddafi is already there, and should therefore stay" despite him being a complete lunatic - he's far too crazy for us to accept and the only governing body we recognise wants the UN to help them get rid of a tyrant who coerced his way into power. Gaddafi isn't recognised by the UN or the people of Libya (hence the revolution) and he's killing civilians, our hands are basically tied. You're talking about democracy but he's not holding elections, there's nothing remotely democratic about his regime, so why do you think he is legitimate? If we didn't support the rebels you would probably complain that we aren't promoting democracy or something - some people just like to bitch.
You may wish to think the opposition is the government of Libya, but if anyone is the leader of Libya it is de facto Gaddafi because he has the most powerful ground force. I would say he is the de jure leader as well.
He's not that crazy, he just does what he has to do in order to not get overthrown. That is not crazy, it is brutally rational. And even if he was crazy, it would not be our business to remove him. He gave up his ABC weapons programme a long time ago and he's not a threat like he used to be. Actually, if I could give him ABC weapons now I would, because I'm pissed off. There's at least one aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean sea that should be nuked.
He's killing civilians, what's wrong with that? It's called suicide protesters. And they're armed so I'm not so sure they count as civilians anyway. Of course many of the casualties were unarmed, it's inevitable in every war. And I don't think destroying his radars and navigation systems help his accuracy.
Yes I mentioned democracy. For reference, quoting myself:
So because Gaddafi is from Libya and can rally the army behind him for their own self interest, he's the legitimate ruler of Libya? What the fuck? He's forcing himself onto the people--they don't want him--how is it any different from an invasion (which you are supposedly opposed to)?
Yes Gaddafi is the legitimate leader of Libya. Same as with the rulers of Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, China and many other countries. Some of these was recently overthrown, but they were the legitimate leaders until that point.
You seem to think that the UN is more legitimate than Gaddafi. How can you do that? The UN isn't very democratic and it is forcing themselves upon anyone they see fit. The UN are puppets of the most powerful nations, China one of them. I want to see the day the UN call on military actions or other sanctions against China.
You're right Skinny, there's nothing remotely democratic about his regime, but that is true for many regimes. He hasn't held any elections, that's what I call a honest way to remain in power. There's no election fraud, he didn't break his own rules like many other dictators did.
I wonder what the West learned from the failed Al-Qaeda policy? The US supported and trained Al-Qaeda before it became a global terror organization. Look at Afghanistan now. And also look at Somalia. We were better off when the brutal dictators ruled. I think we need alot of luck if the removal of Gaddafi will have a good ending. There is opposition in Libya, that is people opposing Gaddafi, but there is no political opposition. Any new government will just be weak puppets, but that's what the West secretly want?
The UN have a long history of welcoming dictators and tyrants as members. The UN is anything but democratic and I don't recognize the UN any more than I recognize Gaddafi. Maybe less.
The UN Security Council is ruled by the most prominent nuclear powers, remember that. It's as far from democratic as you can possibly get.
Edit 28.04.2011: Topic title.