One has only to look at the war in Libyia to see that the media have been one sided particularly the BBC and SKY media.This whole war has been raged by NATO to oust Gaddafi who up till recently was befriended by european leaders. Western countries will rob this country of its oil reserves while the people live impoverished lives . I think Gaddafi is right if he falls like Saddam did the country will fall into anarchy . Look at the thousands that have died in Iraq since 2001 , the only winners oil companies and private security firms.

If the war came to its own conclusion in Libya considering Gaddafi is a dictator the most likely outcome is the rebels would lose,the rising would be forgotten and european leaders and gaddafi would continue the amicable relationship they had however similar to Iraq libya has until upheaval and war been a closed secretive state that didnt welcome impartial tracking or voicing of their opponents concerns or deaths in many cases similar to china were its a democracy because people can vote but only people supporting the communist government can vote/be educated/gain employment an questionning this or speaking to foreign researchers or journalists leads to death or entry on the ‘missing’ register claiming deaths have increased since the war in Iraq how can that be judged what were they before? How many died daily at the hands of Gaddafi/Saddam under their regimes that went on for decades I dont doubt that the interested parties are there not only because of the local uprising its a shame they dont act in other countries more often im not a fan of the tactics bush used to justify the war but havent wars always been on some level about power and money which is wrong however to suggest the sunni muslims should rule shias in iraq or gaddafi and his sons rule indefinatly in libya and doing something is better than what could have been done in libya which is nothing…why compare libya to iraq libyan rebels started this they are different countries this began after the spring risings in other countries mainly viewed as backed by social networking sites…Gaddafi quashed the rising Nato stepped in when they could have just kept things as they were ..I understand were your coming from but the other option to stand back and do nothing (and lets face it all humans are greedy by nature and few motivated purely in the pursuit of good) would have been s much harded for the people of Libya I dont think anybody likes being under a dictatorship and Im happy some semblance of democracy enters libya in the coming years

The so called Arab spring is already starting to falter in Egypt ,where the ordinary protesters feel let down by the new fledgling goverment .Democracy is a western concept based on freedom of choice and opinions best suited for the western world wheras the arab nations are more used to being ruled over by Dictators or royal families,fleecing their own people of the profit from oil in particular. America and Europe have always exploited this situation for self gain. Central Africa is oil rich but as usual local people remain in poverty all because of oilexploitation. While we in Europe and better off nations in the world live our cosy lives, Africa and South America will always come off second best.

HI I understand NATO are backing the rebels and of course when a dictator for 45 years is ousted and capitalism moves in oil,gold etc will be viewed as key resources however the rebel are source to be reckoned with and as there is no democracy surely these have to represented and im not sure what the motivation is and to be honest it might not be entirely without some self interest however i do remember an american guy i knew at a party years ago being attacked because of the war in Iraq is somebody saying that leaders like Gaddafi/Sadam hussein should be left in power indefinatly? considering their countries citizens that dont support the regime unquestioning are left penniless/uneducated and unemployed while others loyal to the leader are given more wealth and power… who is to know how many died in Iraq before ‘anarchy’ ruled as now Gaddafi was only challenged by Nato following the changed in Tunisia/Egypt etc over the spring Gaddafi is the one with most weaponry/funds/power etc to put up the fight he has and perhaps NATO have had to step in due to this however things turn out would anybody else really have done anything to support the rebels otherwise and if things were so cosy previously surely nato wouldve stayed out of it and let gadaffi crush the rebels