The Left should have supported the Libyan intervention

In his previous response, my opponent said: "The problem with averting disaster is that it allows people like yourself to say 'i'm not so sure'."This statement is an ad hominem attack and I will not stand for it. The resolution was "The Left should have supported the Libyan intervention." The resolution was not "The Libyan intervention was good" nor "Mimshot should have supported the Libyan intervention." As a matter of fact, Mimshot did support the Libyan intervention. While I tend to take the liberal side of the debates on this site I find interesting, I do not identify myself as one of "the Left." I took this debate because I thought it was going to be an interesting discussion, because I thought that opposition to the Libyan intervention was consistent with "the left's" positions, and because I thought it would be interesting to argue a position from the other side.I think I have said enough on this topic. The resolution was not whether the intervention was right, it was whether the left should have supported it. I will not return to arguing that they should not.My opponent introduced four points in the first round. He has not added any, and I rebutted them in my first round, so I'll only respond to his responses here. 1) The intervention had multilateral support (unlike Iraq)My opponent doubled down on this point -- a rebuttal to an argument I never made. I have never said the left should have opposed the intervention because of a lack of multi-lateral support. I said the left should have opposed it because the humanitarian aims were a thinly veiled attempt at economic colonialism by Western oil companies. This point was irrelevant last round and remains irrelevant this round.2) The intervention was legally and morally justMy opponent made to replies to this. First he argued that a civil war is a war. Perhaps this is true, but his only example of a war crime was "It is absolutely forbidden for supply cars, fuel and other services to enter the city of Misrata from all gates and checkpoints." If prohibiting fuel or cars from entering a city is a war crime, then Russia should have been guilty of war crimes when they cut off gas to Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org...). My opponent hasn't given a law of war it violates.3) Lefties aren't always against interventionThat lefties felt WWII was justified has no bearing on whether they should think this war was justified.4) There was no other humane or practical alternativeOn this point in the last round, I made the argument (and provided sources) that the impending massacre was overblown propaganda. My opponent replied with ad hominem attacks (without sources).Counter to your counter: The fact that oil companies had a relationship with Qaddafi doesn't mean they couldn't gain more from his replacement. The oil fields were still nationalized, whereas now ExonMobile and BP own them. This sort of globalization through the use of military force is precisely the type of war that the left objects to. My opponent has made no legitimate argument to the contrary. The left should not have supported the Libyan intervention. The proposition should be affirmed.