When America will come back for the rest of the middle east

[kılıç_mehmet]

Any tyrant has supporters, that does not mean they are right. His people wanted to reform, what did he do? Bomb his own people.

Oh, you are so naive. He bombed his own people, who actually took up arms against him. The western media likes to portray the people that stand in their way as tyrants and murderers and etc. This was the case for Iran, and also for Egypt, when England was all butthert about the Suez canal, where they demonized Gamal all the same. They also did the same propaganda with him. He is a dictator, for sure. But at least, the oil is at the hand of the Libyan people. Libyans have great lifestandards compared with the rest of the north african nations, which is mostly due to the oil belonging to the nation, not to foreign corporations.

Yes, but perhaps some of this income will go to help the people, instead of filling the vanity's pockets of a'dictator'

The income did already go to the people. You think that Libya is like a poor nation where people live in poverty and distress?
It certainly is not.
The money will go to a few people that will seize the power after Qaddafi's departure, and sell it for cheap after negotiating themselves a slight cut of the profits.

The right to speak up and manifest when things are wrong. the right to vote in whatever I see fit. It may not be a perfect system, but its better than the alternatives.

That's about as much democracy as it goes in Iran. There too, people have the right to vote for whomever they see fit.
Nice, eh?

You know very little about military strategy, don't you? The faster you resolve a conflict, the less casualties it bears? Where is the invading force?

And why are you defending a despot idiot?

I'm defending him against an even more despotic, international power. I don't defend him because I love his smile. I defend him against NATO. I'm not even defending him against the rebels, as he could have crushed the rebellion, if not for NATO assistance, as he already had enough supporters at that time to count for it.
But the NATO did not need to invade Libya. Just like during the Suez crisis, they let someone else do things for them(in that case, Israel, in this case, it's the rebels).
Do you really think that the NATO backed the rebels becuse it was sympathetic to their cause? No, of course not.
Why aren't they invading Syria, or backing the rebels in spite of all the horrible things that we hear that supposedly are happening over there?
And this should foremost of all, fall to France, since it's their ex-colony.

The NATO was founded with a noble purpose: to protect the people against the threat of communist expansion.
Now, it simply pursues the same goals as it's former enemy. Imperialistic, expansionist, and backing the side from which they will profit the most, the NATO expands it's empire of tyranny, death and theft, and it is led by the USA, who runs the show.