The invasion of Libya was nothing more than yet another move by the west to interfere somewhere that they have no business doing so. Do you really think the U.S. wants to help "protect" innocent lives? Especially after Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it has something more to do with... oil. Three wars now for the states. When will it stop?!
I've heard people make this sort of point frequently and I honestly don't get what people mean when they make it. Suppose nobody in the U.S. wants to help protect innocent lives. So, suppose the worst case scenario is true. Is that supposed to show that there's not sufficient reason to intervene in the way that the U.S. has? That hardly follows. Certainly self-interested people with no concern for others manage to act rightly. Isn't this a point familiar from Kant? We can use the law to modify behavior and when people conform to it, their acts are legal even if they don't have moral worth.
It certainly doesn't follow from the fact that everyone pulling the strings here is motivated only by oil that there's no humanitarian case to be made for intervention. Whether there is or isn't depends upon what's happening in Libya, not the heads of people in Washington.
Am I just missing what the point is supposed to be or am I just wrong about motives and justification? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to get what the point is supposed to be.