I feel I must be missing something here Ludwig.

You ask:

>>...whether they have a huge vested interest in deposing Gaddafi…. namely oil<<

Ummm... wouldn't it have been more sensible to side with Gaddafi, rather than the rebels, if oil is the issue? After all, he has been very accommodating recently...

Just asking.

ludwig, it sounds like you are supporting the clearly innocent Gaddafi who is now being unjustly attacked by the evil Americans and Europeans .. ? Your post describes him as almost saintly

Let’s be careful here
Gaddafi has always been a champion of the underclasses, supporter of suppressed indigenous peoples, and staunch advocate of equality for women
Mandela praised him
he has arguably been one the world’s rare GOOD dictators.

and the incredible ... "Who knows what bad things might have happened along the way, instigated by Gaddafi"

a couple of words to consider in your admiration and handwringing at all the injustice of your hero being attacked

terrorist support
Lockerbie

perhaps you should organise your mates and yourself to go over to protect Gaddafi the Good, as human shields? (we could end several problems at once with any luck)

arjay - So what if it's oil the US and Euros want, there's no secret that Gaddafi would not have had a bean of support or any money at all if it wasn't for oil. It's not some secret conspiracy, if you heard Donald Trump this morning "Either I go in and take the oil or I don't go in at all" This is no longer some namby pamby support the rebels because of human rights vehicle.

Oil is precious, get over it. We have posters on OLO bemoaning peak Oil, and others accusing them of scare tactics. Well maybe the scare has worked to mobilize the Americans to action, maybe they'll come take our oil if we don't behave.

It's about a resource that someone is misusing, Gaddafi is using his oil to fund violence, the US are using violence to fund getting oil.

This is how it has always been, powerful countries get sick of being p*ssed around and step in to take what they want and need.

Hello Pericles, long time no squabble!

In fact, we are communicating here without squabbling. Now that is truly amazing!! ( :>)

Is Gaddafi being genuinely accommodating of the US or did he foresee American support for forces working against him a year or so ago and move to stave it off by acceding more to their wishes?

He has a reputation for being unpredictable. Maybe the US feels that he is just too unreliable and that if he could have secured US support or neutrality and entrenched his continued leadership, he could then unwind any deals made with them.

I guess he’d figure that once the rebels are out of the picture, the US and UN wouldn’t have an opposition force to aid and abet and would have to go it alone if they wanted to remove him, which would be a blatant and very unlikely act of aggression.

I don’t know. This is just conjecture.

Legal, Illegal have no meanings to the one who imposes his/her wishes by brute force.

There is noting illegal until a law is made and made known.

The one who makes the law is the one who has sufficient power to enforce it and change it at his/her whim.

With the word ‘Law’ the question: Whose Law? is inevitable.

Dictatorship is the product of fear by the dictated.

I know. In front of my window there is a spanking new Police Station.

Verbal protests cannot disloge the weapons of a Dictator.

We dictated supply the servants and the tools that eventually crush us.

Feeling alright there Amicus? Careful of that blood pressure!

You do the silliest thing, which unfortunately is not unusual on OLO – you just jump straight to absolute end of the spectrum in your response.

It is worth considering the possibility that Gaddafi isn’t as bad as what he is purported to be. That’s all I’m saying.

Gee, how dare I say anything good about such a foul despicable tyrant!! Of course, you’d KNOW that he is nothing other than the worst of the worst tyrants, and that everything the western media says about him is absolutely true, without any exaggeration, wouldn’t you.

<< Perhaps you should organise your mates and yourself to go over to protect Gaddafi the Good, as human shields? (we could end several problems at once with any luck) >>

Dear oh dear, you are a nasty little so and so! ( :>|

I don’t believe that you can so blithely support the US (or not object to them) just going in and taking the oil, or deposing Gaddafi primarily because they want Libya’s oil or more of it than they are getting or at a much lower price or whatever, if that be the case.

<< This is how it has always been, powerful countries get sick of being p*ssed around and step in to take what they want and need. >>

Really?? I don’t think so! And it SURELY is not to be supported or condoned or glossed over as an apparent fact of life that we just have to live with! Wow!

This is an important article and OLO and the Australian (to my amazement) are to be congratulated for publishing it. It is not Dr Pert's fault that international law is selectively enforced and the neanderthals who think it is simply a means for enriching lawyers are dangerously ill-informed.

One could mount a respectable argument that the world is in its current sorry condition at least in part because of the failure by political leaders to punish wrongdoing. Thus Obama excuses illegal wiretapping, torture (admitted by both Bush and Cheney) although it is contrary to US domestic law as well as international law; waterboarding etc etc by his predecessor. He no doubt hopes that his successor will be similarly well disposed to Obama's already manifold illegalities.

Similarly in Australia. Not only does the Rudd-Gillard government refuse to countenance Howard's war crimes, but they are intent on adding their own, actively in Afghanistan and by explicit support in the case of Libya.

Whether Ghadaffi is a "good" or "bad" dictator is irrelevant. He has been supported by western powers at various stages when it suited them and demonised when it did not. He is merely one in a long list of dictators that the west supports. One of the tragedies of our media is that they concsistently fail to point out the hypocrisy in so may of our pronouncements and policies.

Compare and contrast the Gillard-Rudd, Obama, Cameron statements on
Libya with what they fail to say about Israel's use of cluster bombs and white phosporous in Operation Cast Lead in December 2008; the banning of all demonstrations in Saudi Arabia and killing those who dissent; the Saudi invasion in Bahrein and the killing of pro-democracy demonstrators there; etc etc.

Rather than sneering remarks about why aren't progressives doing something it would be more productive to look at one's own society and ask why we tolerate such polices by our government. After all, you probably voted for Howard or Rudd or Gillard over the past decade or so.