The most remarkable facet of NATO's war against Libya is the "fact" that "world opinion", that ever so nebulous thing, has accepted an overt military aggression against a sovereign country guilty of no violation of the UN Charter in an act of de-facto neo-colonialism, a "humanitarian" war in violation of basic precepts of the laws of nations. The world has accepted it without realizing the implications if the war against Gadddafi's Libya is allowed to succeed in "forced regime change". At issue is not whether or not Gaddafi is good or evil. At issue is the very concept of the civilized law of nations and of just or unjust wars. The Libya "campaign" represents the attempt to force application of a dangerous new concept into the norms of "accepted international law." That concept is what is termed by its creators "Responsibility to Protect". UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has stated that the justification for the use of force in Libya was based on "humanitarian grounds", and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect, "a new international security and human rights norm" to address the international community's failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. An American President, Barack Obama, has invoked this novel new concept as justification for what is "de facto" an unlawful US-led military war of aggression and acquisition. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as Presidential candidate in 2008, said about the concept: "In adopting the principle of the responsibility to protect, the United Nations accepted the principle that mass atrocities that take place in one state are the concern of all states". Nice words, but also highly dangerous!