For the clowns, the danger in "Peak Oil" lies not in the fact we are running out of Oil, it lies in the fact that a number of Nations are starting to, preemptively, protect "THEIR" oil supplies.

Thus the danger is not just that your motor vehicle is going to run out of petrol on the way to work, it lies in the fact ENTIRE ECONOMIES will grind to a halt and the big players are determined not to be the ones left without a chair when the music stops.

What does that mean? It means that there are a number of Countries (and "blocs" of the same) competing on the World Stage to guarantee their Economies oil doesn't run out first. How do they "Guarantee" the same, the same way the various Monarchies did prior to last Century, by grabbing it and telling the Competitors to back off, this is mine or I'll fight you for it.

The trouble with that is kinda obvious, but I'll spell it out anyway, when (as happened this time last Century and regularly before that) all the GOOD stuff (be it spices, gold, etc) runs short and the various groups start to ally with each other, then you have major alliances, all saying it's "OURS" or we'll fight you for it & so will our mate(s).

Nuisances like Qaddaffi and other tinpot Kings/Dictators/etc. who are isolated (by their own stupidity or worse) will be gobbled up rapidly by whomever can dominate the airspace best and is willing to fight for it. International Law? The Letter & the Spirit are very different once Lawyers get hold of it.

Thank your lucky stars we are not, yet, at the point where the various "blocs" are rubbing directly against one another for real. However, don't be deceived, when the success/failure of entire economies is at stake, it is a matter of when not if. Then we revert to the oldest International Law of all, "Might IS Right"

What a doozy of a post, PaulL.

First problem - what an utterly polarised and stupid position it is to see someone like Gaddafi (or whoever) as being entirely bad and not possibly having any good characteristics. Life just ain’t that simple mate.

Second problem – what an utterly polarised position it is to take to just completely condemn any one who dares to suggest that he might not be 100% bad.

I say the same to you as I said to Amicus –

< 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. >

Are you going to say that the points I mentioned in support of Gaddafi are false?

Are you going to call Nelson Mandela mentally ill for praising him?

Waiting on your reply.

This article highlights the ambivalence I have in my mind when it comes to Libya.

On the one hand, I have no love for Gaddafi and am sure that someone else would probably do much better things for Libya and, by extension, for the world. On the other, I doubt that this rebellion will place such a person in a position of power.

I remember watching footage in the early days of the rebellion, showing rebel forces with a captured loyalist soldier. He was bound, beaten and appeared to be about to suffer execution without trial, before the angry mob noticed the camera. They bundled him into a truck and sped off. I'm guessing execution followed shortly after.

I'm aware that what we see on TV is a construction of reality, rather than reality itself. I'm also aware that, without the journalist's commentary, I would have had no idea what was going on. I may have been positioned to believe that an execution was about to take place, even if no such thing was going to happen. I doubt, though, that the rebels are 'good' and 'law-abiding' while Gaddafi has a monopoly on wickedness and deceit. I suspect that it would be out with the old and in with the new, but no real difference for Libya except decreased stability and the absence of a personality cult (for the time being).

As for international law, I (like some others here) grow tired of the term. How is international law enforced? Why were the leaders of the 'illegal' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq not prosecuted? If a law cannot be enforced, then it is purposeless and a waste of all our time and money. Rather than finding a loophole allowing the western powers to intervene in Libya, perhaps they should simply give the digit to the law and do what they want. Then, and only then, we could dispense with the patronising rhetoric by which leaders pretend that they have humanitarian causes at heart, and let those with big sticks brandish those sticks in the open, rather than behind closed doors.

When are we going to learn that presidents and prime ministers should have their time limits ? That the best president in the world should have limits on her/his tenure ? That it is not up to a president to choose his/her successor - it should be up to the people, through an electoral process ?

Forty years' rule by Gaddafi, fifty years' rule by the Castros, thirty eight or whatever years by the Assads - isn't that obscene ? Do they think they are royalty or something ?

Any half-decent ruler/president/whatever certainly should be cultivating successors, in the event that her/his party wins the vote from the people whenever they are able to exercise it.

It amazes me that in Cuba, for example, in fifty two years of 'people's rule', a couple of guys trained under the old elitist system can't develop a way to tap into the genius of the twelve million Cuban people and have a whole raft of brilliant and dedicated people ready after ten years or so, say by 1970. And of course, the bottom line should always be that it is up to the people to decide who rules them.

So in Libya: Gaddafi was obviously, after 42 years, grooming one of his sons to take over. Why do these pretentious thugs always seem to crave to recreate a monarchy ? And why do so many people, some who even think they are on the Left, kiss their backsides so uncritically ?

Limited tenure and the people deciding who is to rule them - basic democracy. We've still got so much to learn.

Joe