It always seems to be countries with a high oil output that are liberated for humanitarian reasons... :-(

What is a "battle carrier"?

Italy has ties going back more than a century with Libya, is there any surprise that it is involved?

Nato's involvement with Libya had the blessing of the Arab nations. This has not been expressed yet with respect to the problems in Syria. Syria is also not as accessible as Lybia and far more heavily armed, and would be much more costly to Nato in losses, and finally Nato has no desire to be the world's policeman, and would prefer the Arab nations to be able to resolve their own problems.

Daniel Graber is another left wing journo who sits around trying to prove that whatever the situation, western nations must be doing something insidious.

A psychologist would classify Daniel as an "absolutist" personality. Such people can think only in moral absolutes, and situations involving moral perspectives, or moral priorities, leave them totally befuddled.

Daniel seems to think that no western country should ever consider its own self interest when deciding whether to take military action over a moral situation. True to the "absolutist" way of thinking, if NATO attacks Libya to get rid of one dictator who's people are totally fed up with him, then it should also attack Syria for exactly the same reason.

The fact that the Libyan armed forces were small, fighting among themselves, and incompetent, while the Syrians Army is strong, has battle experience, and is still very much united, does not enter Daniel's thinking at all. Or that oil rich Libya is important to the economies of Europe while oil deficient Syria is not important, should not be even considered by NATO's leaders. And since the Western nations are not reacting to events in Libya and Syria equally, then according to Daniel's peculiar mindset, this proves that the west is morally corrupt.

Central to Daniel's mindset, is that a moral nation must never act in its own interests when any moral situation develops. A moral nation must be exactly like he is, absolutely morally pure. Daniel is so morally sainted that he has never acted in his own self interest in his entire life. Whenever Daniel writes a piece, he probably hears a chorus of angels singing behind him. The fact that oil is blood to advanced societies should not even be considered in Daniel's Alice in Wonderland moral worldview.

It must be nice to be a moral puritan, the world is so much simpler to understand. There is only RIGHT and WRONG, and shades or grey can never exist. To acknowledge that shades of grey do exist in the real world, would put too much of a strain upon their limited cognitive abilities.

See 'Four Horsemen of America's Oil Wars.' http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24507
Dean Henderson reveals who is really behind the oil wars.
JFK warned us about the Military Industrial Complex and they want it all.

Wrong again, Arjay, it was President Eisenhower.

LEGO,more deception from you.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpmi7dBet0c Here it is,in this 5 min speech by JFK.He talks about secrecy and a highly efficient machine that combines military and industrial forces to subvert our freedoms.

So it seems we have two presidents warning us about corporate oppression and people like you are still in denial.

liberated for humanitarian reasons.
plantagenet,
What other commodity has done so much for bringing humanitarian assistance to the present level ? What other commodity enabled those with good will to do all they're doing ? Oil of course. So don't knock it too much because without oil way more people would suffer even more than now. What would you do without It ? What would you do if oil producing countries weren't liberated ? Please tell us what you'd do.