A) Not relevant. He has the capacity to do it and has said that he is prepared to. As Clive points out this is a guy who executed the entire population of a prison. Do you really want to have this debate on the terrain of "Qaddafi is not as bad as you think"?
B) Could you quote our "uncritical reproduction" of NATO propaganda, please? Also, did Milosevic have a ethno-imperialist, genocidal project in Kosova or did he not? Do you think that stopping this was a greater concern than stopping NATO's bombing? I do.
C) Because I know that any intervention by imperialist states necessarily takes place for imperialist reasons. My position is not "neutrality"; in general terms I'm against both sides in the conflict (Qaddafi and western imperialism), but given the current balance of forces I won't raise slogans that imply the victory of, or political confidence in, either side (neither "no to imperialist intervention"/"stop the bombing"/"troops out" nor "yes to intervention!"/"full trust in NATO"/whatever). If the "logic" of that is difficult for you to grasp then I'm sorry, but there you have it.
D) I don't really understand what you're asking here. I don't think people who have a "stop the intervention" bear political responsibility for what Qaddafi will do if their slogan is implemented; I just think they're extremely cavalier about it and have got their political priorities severely wrong.
Don't think your comparison on Iraq makes sense. My point was that David's main objection to the intervention seems to be that it'll give a generalised "boost" to the idea of liberal intervention. Since that'd be a bad thing for us, we should be against it. I'm saying there are greater concerns in this situation that outweigh that one.