Overthrow a parliamentary government, install a dictatorship, invade a country and kill 20,000 people, invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people—that's called bringing stability, says Noam Chomsky.

General Sir David Richards, head of the British army want to extend the war on Libya with the destruction of its infrastructure. We know from Iraq and Gaza what that will mean for the Libyan people.

Europe and America's military intervention in Libya's civil strife – supposedly for humanitarian reasons – has created its own humanitarian crisis.

Tony Blair’s “deal in the desert” with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2003 opened the way for the deals that really mattered – British contracts in oil, construction and arms.

The sheer cynicism is breathtaking. We're expected to believe that the leaders with bloody hands in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are defending the people in Libya.

Bahrain's ambassador to UK was previously in charge of the Bahraini agency accused of electric shocks and beatings, but being a torturer-in-chief is no bar to a royal wedding invitation. And of course Saudi Arabia was there to keep him company.

Why then were the invitations for other tyrannies like Libya and Syria withdrawn?

BBC news works to recalibrate public opinion, drag it back to blind faith in our nation’s good intent. There is simply no amount of arming and bombing and invading that BBC news cannot explain away as well meant.

What we are witnessing is a power struggle between two wings of a repressive, dictatorial regime, and not a struggle for democracy, human rights and the Libyan people's prosperity, writes Abdel al-Bari Atwan.

The fierce Iraqi and Afghan resistance didn't fit the neocons plan at all, says David Swanson. Neither did the nonviolent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. But taking over Libya still makes perfect sense in the neoconservative worldview.

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...