Questions

So now that our Dear Leader has decided to follow the lead of the us, and France (France!) and the UK in arming up to remove Qaddafi enforce the no-fly zone above Libya, I have to ask a few questions:

One: Isn't this really a war for oil? Should we expect all the liberal anti-war groups to get themselves sober enough to protest organized and begin chanting "no blood for oil!" like they did when Bush was working towards regime change in Iraq?  Of course, that argument falls flat when it is a war for Europe's oil, not oil for the US......Doesn't it? Will Code Pink and their ilk soon be staging sit-ins and such everywhere the president goes....or they can get someone to point a camera at them?

2. Why are we the point country this time? We really get very little oil from Libya. Last time I checked it was something like 1.6%. Shouldn't the Europeans be taking the point on this? Oh, yeah, none of them have any military to speak of anymore. They hid behind NATO so they could spend their military money on socialist programs. So now they only have a token military force, therefore need the US to do their dirty work.

III. Who is paying for all of the hardware, like missiles and Tomahawks and the F-15 that just got shot down? Should we bill France? Or Spain? Perhaps take the cost out of the dues mandated by paid to the UN?

IV. Once the UN acted (took them long enough!) why was there no mandated waiting period for Qaddafi to implement the restrictions which he had promised to abide by? When the situation in Iraq was happening, everyone pushed for patience. Why not the same now?

Five. Any argument used against the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan (or Vietnam, for that matter) could be used in today's actions against Libya. So why is it now a good idea, and not when a Republican is pushing for "regime change"?

6. Do our actions today, at the bequest of the UN, make our country (and therefore it's military) an extension of the UN? Are we now the enforcement arm of the United Nations? Since we are the only country with a military able to do this (besides Russia) are we, therefore, lapdogs of the UN? Will this be precedent setting.....Will we invade (or at least bomb) any country which has sufficiently offended the folks at the UN at the request of the UN? Or will there continue to be a double standard after 2012 when our next president is a Republican (or at least a conservative), with continued protests next time the US decides to unilaterally remove a threat or to prevent a leader from massacring his own citizens?

VII. Will the Nobel Committee revoke Mr. Obama's Peace Prize? (Not that he had actually earned one or anything, but that is another discussion for anther time) I mean, now HE is the warmonger, on a par with the EEEVIL BUSH.