A few years ago Colonel Gaddafi claimed that he wanted to rejoin the "international community" - realising he had more to gain by cosying up to world leaders than isolating himself by conniving with terrorists and gunrunners. The then PM Tony Blair embraced this change of heart, and was right to do so. Of course Gaddafi was still a gangster oppressing his own people (and still not averse to the odd international conspiracy or two). Realpolitik if you like. But imagine the outcry - and rightly so - if we'd "done an Iraq" and gone for regime change there. When gaddafi;s people finally turned on him we seized the chance to help them get rid of him, dressed up if you like as a crusade "to protect civilian life". I for one couldn't care less whart it was dressed up as. I don't see where the short-term political gain for Cameron lay in leading the charge against Gaddafi. Certainly not considerations of oil: had that been the case we'd have muscled in on the side of the "devil we knew" and propped up a dictator with whom we already had cosy deals for oil, etc. That would have been the tactic of certain other members of the UN security council. Why if I was that sort of person I'd be feeling jolly proud to be British today :-)