You are defending Gaddafi. A dictator who has ruled for 40 years, and threatened to slaughter thousands (recently) when his rule was threatened. That behaviour

You are defending Gaddafi. A dictator who has ruled for 40 years, and threatened to slaughter thousands (recently) when his rule was threatened. That behaviour is not indicative of any kind of major shift from his earlier self. I guess you think Gaddafi bombing his own people would have been preferable? That the country was rich because of oil is not very comforting given the ruthlessness of the man at the top. Can you imagine that a people might not want to be ruled by such a man? A man that would bomb them to hold on to power indefinitely? And do you really think that the only possibilities here are dictatorial rule by a power-hungry asshole vs negligent puppet kingdom? This is not a defense of interventionism. It is amazement at your defense of a tyrant.