Gaddafi "not as harsh" as Mubarak, etc.    Anything you say.    I wonder why so many Libyans seem to disagree--and want no more part of his regime. I'm sure you know better than they do--virtually everybody in Benghazi and most of the east of the country is well known to be deluded, thinking that kindly old Muammar means them any harm.

Look, whatever you're smoking, you'd best cut down.

And if it is "obvious" that Muammar plans desolation, terrorism, and destruction for the West, it's interesting that does not bother you.   Most rational people might well say we have enough to be concerned about in foreign policy without OK'ing another terrorist power--this one nuclear.

Just how guilty do you feel about the West's sins of colonialism?    You might want to doff your hairshirt at some point-- and start thinking.

It would seem to any rational being that if an angry megalomaniac promises you desolation and terrorism, you really should believe him. And it might not be a good idea to release $60 billion to him.    In fact we should make sure he never gets access to it.   And that means removing him from power permanently.

But how convenient it is that we now have a thread which fits perfectly those who oppose the campaign against Gaddafi and the West's participation in it:   

AWOL: Common Sense