Gadhafi says leaders of airstrikes should go, not him

What an idiot Kussa is for going to the UK and claiming political asylum, when he is suspected of organizing terrorist attacks there.

He should have gone to France instead and hang out with Polanski.

Gadhafi is not making a lot of sense these days.. if he EVER made any sense, he is making less now.

What are these so-called "leaders" in the West doing calling for Gadhafi to step down? Why doesn't Obama step down, or Sarkozy? Gadhafi may have his flaws, but he's kept a fairly stable Libyan state, is relatively popular with the Libyan people, and to be overthrown in this way only proves his point that the West acts like Crusaders. Where are the diplomats? Call off the Cruise Missles. Who are the rebels, anyway, and where did they get their guns?

It is a strange, strange world, when I find I have to agree with Gaddafi.

But in this case, he is clearly right. The US and France had not business interfering on one side in an Arab tribal war. (And on the side of Al Quaeda to boot...)

WilliB: agree even Gadhafi is an a%#

If it was a grave count I think he may have a point. Look up libya water project - could have something to do with this.

What Mr.Moussa Koussa thinks about himself? A very very smart man or a shameless traitor?

Gadhafi/populace must force the Rebels/CIA out and assist the Egyptians in forcing the junta out. Hopefully the oil-workers will come back that were forced out by the CIA and everything will be back to normal again.

It is very strange that there are Libyans siding with Ghadhafi-if he were such a monster I would have expected him to have been deposed by now. His rats are leaving the sinking ship though!

Badsey, back to normal again? You must be joking, things will never return to the way they were. Strange that people here are siding with a brutal dictator. His days are numbered and the will of the people, not to mention the Arab League/UN, will prevail.

haran:

" It is very strange that there are Libyans siding with Ghadhafi-if he were such a monster "

Give us a break. In the Arab context, Ghadafi is not a "monster". On the whole, he has been treating the Libyan population well. As any such dictator in a tribal Arab society, he has his supporters and his enemies.

That Sarkozy and Obama now interfere in this tribal conflict on the side of Ghadafis enemies is more than bizarre, considering that Al Quaeda supports them, too.

This is Obama repeating Ronald Reagans epic mistake of arming the Afghanistan mujahedin and then expecting them to be his friends afterwards. Same foolishness now.

Fill the other nostril Moammar. Oh, and I'd suggest a re-run of the final moments of my favourite gangster Antonio Montana.

Look at all the old Bush-bashers turned pro-interventionists.

If Obama does it, it all different.... hypocrites.

"Gadhafi struck a defiant stance"

Given his track record, I wouldn't have expected him to strike a conciliatory stance.

"Gadhafi is not a monster"

That Libyan woman I saw on TV who lost her son to Gadhafi's goons would disgaree.

Gadhafi doesn't need all this aggravation, lol.

Sarge:

" That Libyan woman I saw on TV who lost her son to Gadhafi's goons would disgaree. "

In the Middle East, you can always find someone who lost their son to someone. Do you think the people killed Obamas bombs in Tripolis have no relatives?

As for the luke-warm approval of the Arab League, great. So the Arab League, with 24 states and big militaries, can now volunteer the US military to bomb other countries. They themselves, of course, save their ammunition til it is time to attack Israel.

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.

I love that attitude that the Arabs in the "Middle East" are such backwards savages, that they should be happy with such a not-totally-evil dictator such as Gadhafi! I mean sure, he and his family and hangers on engaged in torture, rape, extra-judicial killings, etc., but hey, he spent some of that oil money on water and such - so he can't be such a bad guy, eh?

Oh well. I don't know if what Europe and the US are doing is smart (probably not), but arguing that the Libyans should be happy with a murderous loon like Gadhafi as their leader, just because that's the best the best them A-rabs deserve, is just insane!

It doesn't matter if you're a bit better off than your sad-sack neighbors - everyone, Egyptians, Tunisians, N. Koreans, Chinese, Wisconsinites, etc., deserves a chance at genuine freedom and good governance.

You Gadhafi lovers, do you crap all over George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because they dared to rebel instead of enjoying the rich life under King George? Well, if not, shut the heck up if your imagined well-off yet somehow jihad-loving Libyan youth (but probably not nearly as well-off or jihad-loving as you fantasize) want to get rid of their clown ruler and have even a tiny chance at something better. Take your hypocritical "Arab context" and stuff it - just because you're an Arab doesn't mean you aren't a human being!

@thorgrimfile

arguing that the Libyans should be happy with a murderous loon like Gadhafi as their leader, just because that's the best the best them A-rabs deserve, is just insane!

Very well said. Let's hope somebody's listening.

It's amusing to watch those who support a supposedly democratic vote in one nation say they are against their president, who two weeks ago they called weak, go into a war.

"But in this case, he is clearly right. The US and France had not business interfering on one side in an Arab tribal war. (And on the side of Al Quaeda to boot...)"

Please, please don't make me laugh with your comments. You do no honestly think that -- and if you do it comes with the precondition it meats the borders you've been forced to like and agree to).

Here's a 'litmus' test: Do you agree with Gadhafi or NATO? (I promise I won't laugh when you run).

I lean towards agreeing with NATO & the UN but I'm not sure that this intervention is any different than Iraq; except that US ground forces aren't being sent in. Yet. I would be happy to see Gadhafi gone. He is a nasty character, even compared to most dictators (which, all you Gadhafi supporters, Obama & Sarkozy aren't....) But is getting rid of every rotten government in the charter of the UN? by whose daffynition? Where does it end?

WilliBush: "Look at all the old Bush-bashers turned pro-interventionists."

We're still going to bash Bush for not following the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force, overriding purpose, lots of allies, one war at a time, and so on.

When Obama starts doing cosplay in a flight suit with two word slogan banners, then I'll join your camp.

Here are some relevant quotes from Al Lewis, Dow Jones Newswires:

"Mr. Gadhafi must be quite a saver considering he once said his salary was 465 dinars, or about $380... Mr. Mubarak reportedly made an annual salary of about 4,500 Egyptian pounds, or $765. But if he had saved every penny he made over the last 92 million years... Or how about that Saddam Hussein? His net worth was once estimated at more than $2 billion. But I have come to think of him as the world's first trillionaire. Actually, he was worth more than $3 trillion. Or at least that's what it cost to hang him."

WilliB, is the cost of deposing Gadaffi--now at $500 million--a number like or unlike the $3 trillion lavished on the Iraq adventure?

It is very strange that there are Libyans siding with Ghadhafi-if he were such a monster I would have expected him to have been deposed by now. His rats are leaving the sinking ship though!

Obviously you don't understand the way things work. Dictators stay in power by treating their friends well, and crushing their enemies. Thus, everyone wants to stay friends with them. Those who are friends, want to keep the gravy coming, so of course they support Ghadaffi. And in Libya, there are a lot of tribal relationships as well. He is supported by his tribe, those people are on his side.

It's amusing to watch those who support a supposedly democratic vote in one nation say they are against their president, who two weeks ago they called weak, go into a war.

Not really sure what you're saying here Smith. Personally, I'm against this action, because I question why the US should be involved there at all. So he's killing his own people... Thats different from Syria, SA, Bahrain, and most of Africa how exactly? Are we going to go into all those nations too? Far as I'm concerned, China wants to be a superpower, let them go in.

When Obama starts doing cosplay in a flight suit with two word slogan banners, then I'll join your camp.

Somehow I doubt if even that would be enough to bring you over to the other side.

Gadhafi accused the leaders of the countries attacking his forces of being “affected by power madness.”

It bounces off from them and sticks to G like a gum.

Hillary is trying to run interference on Obama:"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

"Look at all the old Bush-bashers turned pro-interventionists."

Are these your famous "leftists" willi?

"If Obama does it, it all different.... hypocrites."

Perhaps you could learn the difference between pre-emptive strikes and intervention in a massacre and then rejoin the debate?

Thanks.

Gashafi was carpet bombing his own people. If King Fadh in SA does that then he wouldnt last too long as well.

Those of you in favor of Gadhafi tell me where is the lady that showed up on CNN claiming she was raped. In front of 20 intl news crews she was shoved into a car never to be seen again. Hopefully not, but most likely she's lying in some ditch somewhere.