Except in 1945 we were in a position to dictate the terms of the new government, after committing 'Boots on the ground' in vast numbers and at a very considerable cost for all concerned. That ain't gonna be happening in Libya, it's basically a civil war in which we're trying to pick a winner but won't have Jack Shit to say about how they run the show if they do come out on top and the planes go away...a lot more like Kosovo than WWII, really.
Sometimes you're too much of a lawyer.
I'm not addressing the practical realities but rather the moral implications. Whether or not the US, NATO, the UN or anybody has the power to occupy Libya is not the point.
When DUmbasses protest you cannot save a village by bombing it they are claiming there is no positive moral good to be had by those who are the objects of a military campaign. I simply ask if the Germans were better off being devastated as pictured above or left whole but under the grip of the Nazi regime. Certainly the Germans (and those they conquered) could not have been liberated from fascist tyranny except by way of that devastation.
That is my only point, good sir, and I challenge the pinheads from DU to answer it.
