Consider Egypt and Tunisia: at least those military forces stood with the democratic aspirations of the people, and those dictators resigned rather than let their countries dissolve in bloodshed.

Does anyone seriously think that once Gaddafi decided slaughter his opponents rather than resign there was *any* solution that would adequately protect human life?

Gaddafi announced also that once the rebel cities had fallen, he would be ruthless in destroying individual lives.

So what it comes down to, from a humanitarian point of view, is

A. who's killing more people - Gaddafi or NATO

B. whether the total casualties will finally be less or more than they would have been if Gaddafi had been allowed a free hand

C. whether the hoped-for overthrow of Gaddafi is worth [X number] of human lives

D. whether NATO's actions, taken (at least in part) to prevent G's announced slaughter, are morally superior to G's actions, taken solely to keep himself in power.

Anyone who has a clear, indisputable answer to A, B, or C, please share it and explain why it is so obvious to you and not to the rest of us.

And is there anyone who doesn't know the answer to D?