They would vote for Mickey Mouse if he stood for president, and he would probably be the best one they ever had.

After Bill Clinton, yeah.

By that reasoning it's ok to kill tens of thousands of Americans in revenge for the attrocities committed by George Bush.

The old saying comes to mind "Two wrongs don't make a right"

Sorry,but I find your sense of logic somewhat confusing.

I don't recall saying that it would be ok to kill tens of thousands of Libyans because of Gadaffis attocities.

On the contrary the general idea of the present operation is supposed to be to save Libyan lives, however dropping a big one on top of Gadaffis head may also assist in that aim, regardless of whether or not it was on the agenda.

Have you learned nothing from Iraq?

You mean that the best place for evil dictators commiting genocide is six foot under.
He was already directly responsible for one war which killed many ppl.and was continuing to wipe out large sections of his own ppl.
The fact that the Americans cocked it up would hardly have been justification for putting a protection order on him or giving him a licence to continue his horrendous deeds.

Yes. Haven't you?
Do you not acknowledge the huge differences in the Libyan and Iraq operations? I dont see Allied tropps storming through Libya and taking control of the country.

Yet.

WMDs were a lie, Gaddafi is real.

I may be niave here, but I think theres more chance of that happening than me winning the lottery
They arent going to do Iraq, Afghanistan and then risk Libya as well.

I suppose from the earlier post you could ask .... didnt they learn anything from Vietnam?

If there is money to be made on weapons and oil perks then they will go anywhere .

I guess the answer to that one is....NO

I would say the answer is YES, especially as the Yankss have a huge axe to grind with Gadaffi and Co and yet have been very careful to distance themselves from any likely ground operations.

Are you seriously suggesting that a country would deliberately go to war, simply to help its companies increase arms sales ?
Personally I find that arguement to ludicrous to even consider.

With regard to oil, I'm pleased you mentioned perks, because basically thats all its been and it would require an absolutely massive amount of perks to even begin to compensate for all the other costs and losses as well as loss of life involved, so I would be inclined to rule out that arguement also.

Kuwait got back control of its own oil after Saddam had stolen the lot.
The Iraqi oil income now goes to its ppl. instead of being syphoned of to buy arms and develop weapons, as well as kill off many of his own ppl by a very unpleasant dictator.

In those respects,a positive result,.... but whether the end justified the means is another question entirely.