I think the west should intervene but I'm not sure there is any logical defense of that position besides that it can, and should. This somewhat relates to the question of Universal human rights. On the other hand the people who are being bombed and trying to topple the government there, and what the west doesn't want to acknowledge is that it is a very popular and beloved government by many, even if we see him as an insane maniac.

It is different from stopping the Nazis or genocide like in Sudan where the people attacked were peaceful. The Libyan army is attacking an unaramed(?) army of the masses who is attacking them.
 
So the question is how much is humanity to play a role in international relationship and how much is law? I vote for humanity, but I fear it might have consequences we don't currently expect.

The conversation about western intervention focuses too heavily on the United States. I think instead we should be asking the United Nations to intervene. The largest complaint people have with the United Nations is that it is all-talk and little action. But even asking for UN intervention is problematic which I think Mike Strong highlights nicely. The charter of the UN exists for the protection of Universal Human Rights. And if we look to Libya, surely human rights are being undermined. But in this case, since we are dealing with civil war, are the standards by which we judge human rights offenses the same? I mean if the UN had any clout they would have stepped in to Libya any number of years ago for Qadaffi's ongoing assault on his own people. Now that the people have been empowered to fight back, it seems like any action by the UN is much much after-the-fact, and to throw their support behind a mutinous people in a state of revolution is dangerously political for an organization that strives to be humane. 

Should the UN care whether a country is under a dictatorship or a democracy? No, I don't think so. What they should care about is the people and the condition of their lives under said governments. To act now in Libya is for them to support war. Does it matter that the war is in a lot of aspects about the protection of human rights? Personally, yes, I think it does matter. And I think the United Nations should intervene. But also, the can of worms looms so large. The UN is drafted as peacekeepers. Are they allowed to promote war? And if so, doesn't that allocate them political and international power that we should feel uneasy about?

Which brings us back to United States intervention. We are allowed political gain from international intervention. However, coming off of Iraq/Afghanistan, a deep recession, an already stretched military, it's obviously not an easy decision both politically and economically. 

Basically, I'm glad I don't have to make the decision, though in the end I agree with Mike, the humane thing to do is to act and not ignore. 

Well. What does intervention mean exactly?

Were someone to intervene, what would happen? Would they provide military support for the rebel army? Would Qadaffi's army and base be bombed until submission? What then? What happens to the interventionists then? If the people want to take control of Libya won't their cause be undermined by foreign intervention? Change needs to happen from within right? Can radical change of state control be sustainable when it is fueled by outsiders? What happens when those outsiders pull out? Or the opposite, what happens if their presence is ongoing? What if they are needed to stay as bodyguards? Can anything be built in a game of tug-a-war?

But then again. Where would America be if France had never stepped in?

I think there is a space for intervention if whoever does so admits that they do so out of political motivation rather than humane motivation.