Nato equals Taliban?

We condemned the Taliban a few tears ago because they destroyed age old monuments in Afghanistan. They did this because those monoliths were more about Buddhism than Islam. Taliban militiamen wrecked the almost 2,000-year-old Buddhist masterpieces in the central province of Bamiyan, including the world's tallest standing Buddha measuring 50 meters (165 feet).

Afghanistan is home to an array of pre-Islamic historic treasures from its days as a key stop on the ancient Silk Road and a strategic battleground for conquerers dating back to Alexander the Great and the Aryans before him.

The two massive Bamiyan Buddhas, carved into a sandstone cliff near the provincial capital in central Afghanistan, were built around the second century.

Appeals for their preservation came from the United States, France, Germany, Thailand, Japan, Sri Lanka, Iran, Pakistan, Germany, Russia, India and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Recently, the Nato organization confirmed that they will not hesitate to destroy ancient Roman ruins in Libya. Nato will bomb Roman ruins

"We will strike military vehicles, military forces, military equipment or military infrastructure that threaten Libyan civilians as necessary," a NATO official in Naples told CNN, declining to give his name in discussing internal NATO deliberations. But he said the alliance could not verify rebel claims that Libya's leader may be hiding rocket launchers at the UNESCO World Heritage site of Leptis Magna, a Roman city between the capital Tripoli and rebel-held Misrata.

Leptis Magna is a Roman city between the capital Tripoli and rebel-held Misrata. The site is one of the most spectacular and unspoiled Roman ruins in the Mediterranean. It is a UNESCO World Heritage site.

The city appears to have been founded by Phoenician colonists sometime around 1100 BC. The town did not achieve prominence until Carthage became a major power in the Mediterranean in the 4th century BC. Then became part of the Roman Empire.

Isn't this the very same outrage those Western countries were so terribly opposed to in Afghanistan?

Just who is the bad guy here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptis_Magna

No Fly Zone

So this is what I thought was going to happen;
The Western powers against Gadhafi threaten a No Fly Zone. He gets the message. The reason for the zone is to stop him from pummeling his own people with air power when the suppressed people are trying to get rid of him.
If he tries to fly more planes against his own people the Western alliance/coalition will intercept and shoot them down. That's how I thought it would go.
Not quite.

They started by bombing 'military' targets. Anti aircraft sites. Radar installations. Then tanks etc. No doubt using the B2 stealth bomber. Although a missile went into his compound in Tripoli, along with the denial that they are trying to kill him outright. Since this event started, these combined air forces have continued to attack and destroy various ground targets.
It seems to me that this is not a protection of a no fly zone but a war being carried out. The next step of course, is an army on the ground which would amount to an invasion. This idea has already been excused as NOT an army of occupation, NOT an invasion, but specific troops doing specific jobs.
The problem is there is no leader and coherent opposing force among the Libyan rebels. One of those specific jobs should be to simply target Gadhafi and kill him, then wait for whatever happens with the so called rebels. Someone will emerge.
Killing Gadhafi is the simplest and most efficient way to resolve the situation. But it doesn't allow for the war games going on presently. The testing of weapons and forces and troops. All over again, ala Iraq.

The US has once again assumed leadership to police the world. The Arab League was on board at first, also wanting to get rid of the tyrant, but one can see their mounting hesitation to be seen as onside with America in the killing of Arabs, (and Muslims) far beyond deposing Gadhafi.
And many are wondering exactly what the US agenda is regarding Libya? Do they want to define what happens there? Do they want to ensure a government acceptable to them? Do they want to secure yet more oil?
Is there another secret plan afoot?

Consider this: The US gets most of its oil imports from Saudi Arabia. If they could guarantee the same amount of oil from other sources, the Saudis would become less important. And almost every time the US relaxes its guard, the Saudis betray them. Sponsoring terrorists around the world who ultimately threaten the US way of life. The Saudis are the bosom buddies of the Bushes, not Americans. It seems that with other major sources of oil, America could finally confront the duplicitous Saudis with the truth. They are, after all, as an absolute Islamic Monarchy, on unstable footing too. Are there still American bases on Saudi soil that the Arabian people don't even know about?
It gets complicated doesn't it?
And we really know little of what is really going on. Since the advent of 'embedded' reporters. CNN reporter Nic Robertson recently blasted Fox News reporters for putting their own slant on the actions in Libya. And Michael Ware often disputes what the mainstream media tells us. And there's no chance of an embedded reporter getting PTSD.
We rarely get the truth.

We have to wait and see. With trepidation. It looks as if the Libyans only wanted what the Egyptians got; the removal of an arrogant and brutal tyrant with peaceful protests. But in the North Africa controlled by Gadhafi anything goes, and the Western powers belief that those Libyans want a western style democracy may be way off base.
They want a freedom defined by their own rules. Not ours.