Humanitarian imperialism is an ideology which aims to justify military interference against sovereign countries in the name of democracy and human rights. The motive is always the same : a population is the victim of a dictator, so we must act.

The government has to explain why so much money has suddenly become available for the war in Libya, why these "reserves" are available for arms but not for health, education or housing.

As Liam Fox says there could be years more war in Libya, senior military officers say the government is ‘clutching at straws’ as it searches for a military answer.

The first humanitarian duty to those who are suffering should be to relieve that suffering, not to fight their civil wars, suppress their dictators, partition their countries and destroy their infrastructure.

What we're seeing is a clear commitment on the part of NATO and the US for regime change—exactly what the UN resolution was not designed to do.

The USA, Britain and France have in effect declared a regime-change war against Libya, writes Andrew Murray, for which there is no justification in the United Nations resolution or in international law.

Why we oppose western intervention in Libya

Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama have openly declared that Nato military intervention in Libya is a war for regime change, which is not sanctioned by the UN and is illegal under international war. Read statement by Stop the War Coalition here...

Unite, Unison, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) and the Scottish TUC have all called for halt to the air attacks on Libya.

For the first time in more than 60 years, Western control over the world's biggest pots of oil was being rocked by a series of revolutions our governments couldn't control. The attack on Libya, says Johann Hari, is a way of asserting raw Western power, and trying to arrange the fallout in our favour.

John Pilger says that, unlike many of the British Empire's Victorian “civilisers”, today’s sedentary Westminster warriors have never been touched by the suffering and bloodshed which are the consequences of their utterances and actions.

They said Iraq and Afghanistan would be over in days. But a million died and a civilisation collapsed. We don't want to see the same in Libya, says Turkish prime minister Erdogan.

Eight years after shock-and-awe in Iraq and 10 years since Afghanistan, the west is in action against yet another Muslim state, incinerating soldiers and tanks and killing civilians in the process.

On the day that all but 13 MPs voted in parliament to support military action in Libya, the latest opinion poll showed that only one in three Britons agree with the decision.

Western bombs are raining down on Libya. Even if you support this war, writes Owen Jones, it's important to be aware of the key arguments against.

Why has the UN declared war on Libya? To protect Libyan civilians? Or re-assert western power in the region?

The political campaign to launch a military intervention in Libya – ostensibly on humanitarian grounds but with patently political ends in sight – is gathering steam. That would be the start of a journey down a slippery slope.