Consider the profile of these war-mongering countries. The US has a President who seems utterly confused about foreign policy and is prepared to act on any sudden urge; the UK is run by a thoroughly discredited Prime Minister with little or no foreign policy experience but who simply wants himself to remain in the news; and France is run by a President who is not going to keep his post for too long and hence sees no problem with reckless behaviour.
But the African Union - represented at the UNSC by South Africa and Nigeria - as well as the Arab League are equally to blame for not understanding the consequences of their vote.
Now, the US has quickly dumped the role of leading this purposeless intervention to NATO - something that NATO wasn't supposed to do in the first place. Remember that NATO was formed on the basis of collective security of its members. With none of its members having been attacked by Qaddafi, NATO should never have been called upon. This is nothing short of a dangerous and illegal expansion of NATO's responsibilities.
Now, there is even talk of the "Coalition of the Willing" (the countries mentioned above plus the UAE) sending ground forces (illegally) to do God knows what. There is no purpose to the current round of intervention and any further escalation would also be doomed because it simply lacked any purpose. Wars are not fought for the sake of fighting: there must be a clear political aim. In this case, no such aim is visible - except one: Oil. The only correct option that can be reasoned out is Black Gold. The West is trying to take control of Libya's vast oil reserves and the current intervention is designed to do just that, though not overtly.
A very dangerous game is at play here. It was the same game in Iraq and that cost the Coalition dearly. Is it ready to face that cost again, or can it not see that with each and every war that it starts it is ceding more and more space in the world to emerging nations?