Well, mea culpa diaries seem to be the theme of the week, so I'll add my own.
I thought maybe, maybe, Western powers could actually stick to what they said they were going to do militarily without 'mission creep'. I didn't want to see a massacre in Libya, as Quaddafi seemed to be promising, so I supported the military intervention that appeared to be 'bounded' in scope, giving the benefit of the doubt that President Obama actually did simply care about saving lives. (And I still think he does, but we transferred control over to NATO, which means we don't control the scope any more...)
I thought we could actually support without straying beyond support, without straying into the imperialistic behaviours of our past misadventures in the region.
If the NATO attacks have moved beyond destroying artillery, and heavy armour and planes, and are now actually bombing cities, I think we've moved beyond where I'm comfortable that we can stick within the bounds set in advance.
So my apologies to those Kossacks who were less naive than I, and my hopes and thoughts to those who now are endangered as 'collateral damage' as a result of decisions by the west to actually allow bomb strikes within cities.
Update:
TheWall Street Journal puts forth this info.
Monsters and Critics notes that NATO denies the strikes were on central Tripoli.