Just? Yes, he is a dictator who oppresses his people and has committed terrorist actions against the United States. Either one of those is moral grounds to forcibly overthrow him. A good idea? That's another matter entirely, and I hope my doubts are proven wrong.
The single intention to throw over the regime of Gaddafi is not injust in my opinion, but the question if the means to do so are just is obviously still not that simple to be answered.
Going into war with Libya will mean the death and pain of many innocent people*, and who knows what will be really achieved with an invasion in the end? Who says the people who come next to the power are better and the life of people there will become better? We know from Iraq etc. that it is not unlikely that nothing will be achieved even after several years. There are also legitimate questions that when they go to Libya, why don't they go to other countries like Syria where they have the same problems?
Also it is hilarious that they sold weapons before to every country they attack or supported the leaders in several other ways. Why don't they stop selling weapons to other countries to begin with? The answer is easy, but not really satisfying... if they really wanted to do something morally good, they should start with that, but that will never happen.
*: Of course the same is the case without any acting, but it still is not to be forgotten.
NATO hasnt invaded anyone, its providing air strikes to prevent an outlaw government from turning its mechanized might against its own citizens while the country is in a state of open civil war with an officially recognised opposition whose legitimacy is not in doubt.
The only parallel which even comes close to the Libyan government's actions is that of the Chinese and Tank Man but, a point frequently seriously distorted in the west, the establishment and authorities in China tried extensively to engage with the opposition at this time and a number of time requested that they evidence that they could marshall their people, the opposition couldnt, so its spokes people were effectively a sideline to just spontaneous rioting and disorder which had gone on for a long time. Which makes the situation very different from Libya. Also in the Chinese context they were living in the shadow of the disorder and death of the cultural revolutionaries and red guardists which they simply didnt want to ever repeat itself (yes the agitators were opposed to many of the marketising reforms which western capitalists see as the corollary to democratic sovereignty or superior to it, doesnt sound like evil red tankies now does it?).
Better question to ask is whether the Libyan state was just or unjust in its treatment of dissenters and would the west have been excused, especially by the muslim world, if it did nothing?
Not so easy to answer. Its difficult to know where the line is drawn when it comes to such things. When does brutal and violent oppression become widespread massacre. At what point are other nations compelled to get involved?
I don't blame NATO for its cautious approach and refusal to fully commit. I think providing some support is probably the best thing at the moment, not invasion. Outside involvement in overthrowing governments lead to the war, poverty and general misery in many African nations today. That said, we don't want to have another Rwanda situation where everyone stood by and watched as widespread genocide occurred.
INFP 4w5 so/sp
I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.
- Emily Bronte