When unarmed and defenseless civilians are suppressed, I can agree that human rights are violated.  However, when both side of an internal conflict inside a country turn against each other with heavy weapons, explosives, regular armed forces, trying to support either side on the claims of  "human rights" is groundless.  Any armed conflicts are simply wars.  

History has told us that foreign intervention has never done anything good for internal warfares of another country.  I am sure Obama, Cameron, and Sarkosi do not need me to tell them that.  Evidently, the "human right" they are now claiming is just similar to the right for "all people" they declared in north American in those colonial days.  Of course, only they themselves are considered the people, the rest of the world are the preys that the white Christians could claim the will of God for them to kill, to rob, to rape, to bomb up.

What have the US done for the human rights of their 15 million homeless or proverty stricken citizen?  The cost of a cruise missile would feed many meals to many of them, and the total cost of the missles used on Lybia could certainly built plenty shelters for these homeless people.  Are they so kind toward the "suppressed Lybians" while at the same time justified their indifference toward those homeless and starving Americans?  Precisely, "Why?"

When relevant statistics are available, I am sure similar situation also exist in those Nato countries that had gang-raped Gaddafi recently.  Again, Why?

Now, Syria, and Iran, with Yemen barely succumbed to the ABF gang's pressure?

Where would this end?  It certain has been driven by some kind of motivations?  What are they?  Would those driving force stop in Middle East?  Hardly!

Looking back, ABF's recent behaviors are so similar to the action of Nazi German's Hitler, and the Imperialist Japanese in those pre WWII days?

Are we heading for WWIII?  If for nothing else, just to divert attention from all those defaults of the ABF's treasure bonds.