Why are people repeating this and over? The rebels have already established a new government. The UN mandate does not and will never include overriding the rebel government that is already established.

We are there for military aid, the political side of things is already under control.

Will the West accept the rebel government? They don't know eveyone who is in it. It has been linked to Al-queda

But we definatly should have gone in.

i dont know im pretty sure USA went through a civil war. Just because we are in modern times doesnt mean there isnt going to be problems amongst a country. Most countries go through civil wars. Why do these rebels need help? the ghadaffi forces outnumber rebels 3 to 1. these rebels are not the large majority of the country. the reason no one had to help Egypt is because the majority of people didnt support the dictator. in Libya the case is the country supports him. so you throw some troops down there your going to find its a lot worse to beat than iraq. a civil war is something that needs to be won by a side.

bottom line let the rebels fight for what they want. i doubt Abraham Lincoln sent a letter to a bunch of countries to give them weapons or troops.

You are really selfish. Just because its not your country doesnt mean it shouldnt be supported by any1 else. This isnt a war against just a specific person, but humanity's war against what he/she represents, in this case a cruel and bloody dictatorship (like most, if not all, are). Why should you care if the battle's in your home turf or not, when the ideals you would fight 4 are in jeopardy? You said the sgiptians could help themselves, so escencially they didnt need US' help, so why should they get something they dont need? But the guys in Libya did need the help, so why shouldnt they get it? Specially when the ones that will help have proclaimed their support 4 democracy? Just because "it is not their fight"? Are you srsly saying we shouldnt fight 4 the ideals we believe in? Well, it is a fight every1 battles everyday, and inaction is an action now... this saying is very true:

I find it deeply ironic that a (presumably American) person is using an American president to defend his opinion about how the USA should not assist rebels in another state. Considering that the USA exists as a direct result of a rebellion and owes it's success to the intervention of many of the superpowers of the day (Spain, France, and the Dutch)

im pretty sure there are a lot of countries with rebells right not getting killed and who need help. Syria Bosnia and a lot others. The USA just wants a foothold in Libya so we can replace yet another leader who goes against USA. democracy is fought and bleed by the people in that country. if they want freedom then let them fight for it. this isn't genocide or anything its 2 groups that need to fight for what they believe in. So there is no reason for NATO or UN to involve themselves. but since they have a chance to export oil to us we leap at the chance. and say we are doing it for the few rebels out of millions of people that live there.

They want democracy but they are not powerful enough to fight for it. Rebel uprisings rarely have the military power required to overthrow their father government. Just because it happened in Tunisia and Egypt doesn't mean you can reasonably expect it to happen everywhere. Each nation has a different set of social, economic, and political factors.

so because a very small majority of a country wants democracy the powers of the world are suppose to go in and kill everything that doesn't agree with that small group?if they want democracy then move somewhere else. Libya obviously is happy the way things were since most of the military is still fighting for there leader.

A lot of the military fights for their leader because if they don't, Gaddafi will kill them and their entire families (or worse) and/or have been indoctrinated into hating 'the West'. Plus there's reason to believe that the number of rebel militia is pretty much on par with Gaddafi's army in numbers.

I love that you assume that it's even possible for these people to 'move somewhere else', do you understand the conditions that a lot of these people live in?

statistics say rebels to ghadafi troops are 1/3. and with nato bombing rebels im sure that number goes down. if they can afford trucks with huge guns on them im sure they could of invested in some gas to drive out of the country that doesn't want democracy.

And to say the people on the leaders side have been taught to hate the super powers? were they wrong to be told that? bombing the rebels and then not saying sorry for it? i dont think i would want them in my country either. i would stay and fight for the leader.