Not that an ideological warrior, with which Mudcat is graced by an amazing number, should understand this, but I'll try anyway:

"This one is about oil".    That was said about Iraq also. In Iraq's case there may be some truth to the accusation--though I think it was to a large extent GWB's calculation that a short successful war against an obviously evil regime would prove very popular with the US electorate.

Since many of us realized that the Iraq invasion was a trumped-up move--to prevent something totally unproven (WMD)-- many of us Mudcatters opposed it completely. And good old John who wants to beat the "imperialist" drum would say the Iraq invasion was all about oil.    And again I think he is oversimplying--not that leftists ever do such a thing.   Not much. Of course not.

Some of us who opposed the Iraq invasion are in favor of the Libya campaign.

There are clear differences.   To allege a parallel, you would, as I noted earlier, have to posit that half of iraq , including half the military had broken away from Saddam before the first Western bomb fell in 2003.   And that the rebels in Iraq had made many direct appeals to the West to help them against Saddam.   Neither of which was the case.

And as Charlie, I believe, has pointed out earlier:    to say the Libyan invasion is all about oil makes precisely no sense for this reason:   before the attack by Western planes Libya was very happy to sell as much oil to the West as the West wanted.   So there would be no reason to attack Libya to get oil.

Unless you think the West wants to take over Libya.    Which is nothing but a typically stupid Leftist theory, graced by precisely zero evidence.

Again, hope I'm not being too subtle.