CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Ya, he's doin gods work. If theres was any chance of me seeing actual combat id gone so fast, fucks sake he probably beleievs in all that bullshit to. I wouldnt be stupid enough to die for some fat cats false ideals.
Thats it exactly Joe you got it, hey your obviously not a pansy like me, so why don't you enlist. Come on, go over its a great adventure, kill some fuckin sand niggers man, its a blast. You got big sweaty american balls they'll take you far.
We both know your not ever gona enlist casue the bottom line is you like to throw that at me, but you fail to see how hypocritical it is.You pretend to believe all that bullshit but deep down you know thats what it is, and you wont be risking your own neck anytime soon, ill bet
Actually, I was in the U.S. Army. While there, I was able to save enough money to put myself through college. When I say that this country has a lot to offer, a lot of opportunities, for everyone, I know first hand what I'm talking about. It is because I was able to live the American dream that I stand by my country, through thick and thin.
So, did you see any combat or were you stationed in a place where that was an impossibility.
Theres no such thing as teh American dream, you can't seem to see the big picture, even if you do beleive that bullshit "rthe American Dream" you have to admit very few people can live it or have. The numbers just dont make sense Joe, how can you call a country where 5% of the population control 95% of wealth a place were you can live out your dreams. You live in an unequal society where far more are on the poverty line or scraping by than those who live comfortably yet you have more money than anywhere else.
A homeless person in America eats better than poor people anywhere else. It is impossible to starve to death in this country when you can get fast food on the money handed to you by one person. And homeless people get money from more than one person. You don't live in this country. You don't know what you are talking and you don't know that you don't know.
I'm not disgreeing with you on that. Of course homeless peopl have it better in America than most other countries, theres more wealth in your country than anywhere else. Your completely missing my piont.
Ok heres a statistic, 1% of your population have control of 50% of your counties wealth, discuss, right or wrong, the American in action my friend.
Ha, very good, seriously really made me laugh. What the fuck do you know of the IRA.
Yes your small population does better than a lot of other countries(you know nthose countries that it steals from), there are plenty of exceptions where the general quality of life is far better for the majority of the population, why is this , its because there less inequality being perpetuated from above. Like, nearly every country in europe for instance.
You sound like a poor person that can't figure out how to make money so he demonizes the rich in order to justify stealing from them. They don't like calling it stealing it (that word is reserved for when they are referring to the rich). Instead, they like to call it wealth redistribution (double speak. Reference 1984). The poor don't have a monopoly on morality.
Firstly, im not poor beleive me, my mothers side of the family were desparetely poot though, she has 15 brothers and sisters, and no father, and grew up in the Ireland of yesterday when trying to scrap ends meat was a struggle.
So yes i do feel sorry for any person on the bottom anywhere. Money doesnt motivate me, beleive i could making piles of the stuff in some stresseful job that will slowly steal my soul but i choose not to.
I'm not demonizing the rich, look i acknowledge some people just deserve to have mroe than others, be it because they work harder or they're just better at what they do or whatever. I can't understand though how you can agree with 1% of the population controlling 50% of the wealth. You speak about your american revolution with such pride but wasnt one of the basic tenants that all men are equal, wasnt the whole war over the britich aristocracy of the time imposing unjust taxes on the people, the French revolution which was a prelude for your own was based entirely on inequality, yet you defend the current state of inequality with such nationalistic ferver. If nothing else Joe your giving a good insight into the warped psychology of the american population.
So, you have read it. Big mistake bringing it up as well Joe. Do you have any idea how many of the principles described in that book have been used to great affect by your government over the last 50-60yrs. I dont want to write too much so ill just give you one example, did you know that if you that the American administration has redined the phrase "peace process." Seriously somebody did a project on this, they analysed all the major American newspapers in the 90s and tried to find anything in the previous 40yrs of publishing when american hadnt been involved in the peace process. He could find one single example. Like sometimes even if countries are in the right, they wont be involved in the peace process but not your country by defintion they are always involved in the peace process, even if they're the aggressors, even when they were slaughtering miilions in indochina. Pure Orwellian wizardy. The examples are endless but ill leave it at that.
So everything America does has some evil intent behind. Every American politician, every American corporation, soldier and citizen. Do you know how crazy you sound?
No Joe, again your putting words in my mouth. I'm trying to describe to you why your country isnt the force for good you beleive it to be. Ive stated previosuly i have nothing against American soldiers, its not them i blame there a product of a defunct system.
I even respect and admire some of your politicians, Ron Paul comes to mind. Ive stated that all other countries have done very good and very bad things, i include your country in this. My argument is that over the last 50-60yrs your country(again, i mean the corporatoins, army, etc.) has been doing a lot more bad than good. Despite the delusion Americans have about their country. You i challenging the accepted American belief that your country is and always has been a force for good. This is unbeleivable hipocracy and the majority within American have bought into it completely. I can tell you this is not how the rest of the world sees things. People are smarter than that.
Yes, every American corportion is founded on making profit by any means necessary, this means that many of their actinos and motivations could be decribed a evil. Did you know that corporations are obliged to break the law in order to maximise profit for their shareholders. Seriously, beleive or not (in your case probably not) but its the truth. This leads to death, starvation,environmental damage and suffering on a massive scale.
Note: what im saying is not carzy, i may sound crazy to you because your used to receiving American media news a.k.a. propaganda
You can call my sourcs propaganda if you wish but i have factual evidence on my side.
What, i dont even know how to answer that. I not quite sure what you mean but i hazaRd a guess at the answer, i beleive that my beliefs to be correct, therefore i can use my moral compass to aovid doing the things that i fundamentalli disagree with i.e. working for blood sucking corporation like the one i previously wokred for.
You may say oh but you wont have lots of money and you wont be able to live the american dream with your big car and house and 2.3 and perfect life and egotism and materialism (and everything else thats wrong with your fucked up culture
So why don't you keep you beliefs to yourself instead of trying to convert everyone like those people that go door to door. I can see you standing on some corner (right next to the guy with the sign that says, "Repent for the end is near!") with a sign that says, "Don't work for the blood sucking corporations!" I imagine people slamming their doors on you or stepping over you as they happily go to work and lead a very productive life ;)
Actually Joe you couldnt be more wrong if you tried, as usual. Ive never forced (or tried to force) my beliefs on anyone. Ive answered people questions and engaged them in debates when they wanted to know and generally appraoched me with an open mind but i have never (nor will i) try to force my beliefs on anyone.
Look it may seem that way to you cause ive been tipping away at you for so long but if you recall you were the one who originally disagreed with me REMEMBER. Now i admit im being alot more forceful on this site than i ever would be but thats becasue i joined this site for te precise reson that i wanted to engage people in intelligient debate on serious issues in order to learne from tham and yes hopefully changed their minds (and hopefully change my won in the process). Its not my fault you come to this site to wind people up and get your kicks by posting stupid statements, ok.
if you recall you were the one who originally disagreed with me REMEMBER
No, YOU came to MY debate and posted a message that disagreed with MY debate. Why don't you make your own debates?
Now..., tell me something, camel boy, who is more evil, these so called blood sucking corporations or the terrorists that go around killing innocent men, women and children? When did you see a corporation blow up innocent people? Are you going to tell me that they do it through a proxy a.k.a. American soldiers? You fucking retard. Your mother is a camel and you're a camel fucker!
Well i thought my perspective should be included, as it seemed to me that it was just a bunch of rich, stuck up, small minded Americans have a big ego wank about the correct way to bomb the next bunch of poor people.
You chose to disagree with the statement, it wasnt forced on anyone. You could have said, oh hes just an anti-american, unpatriotic wanker, and went on living your narrow minded life but you took offense to the claim and you just had to respond to it didnt you, you fuckin hypcorite.
I'm glad you crack yourself up, but i gaurantee you, you dont crack anyone else up.
In answer to your question i hold them all in the same contempt.If your looking for examples of corporations killing people you really dont have to search very hard. They dont need armies you fool. So lets loom at Inida, do you have any idea the number of people who have died of stravation in the country in the last year due to the american corporation Monsanto. I dont even know why im entertaining you, you might think everything i say is a lie but i challenge you to find one thing ive lied about, seriously. the example your looking for are endless, if you ever pull your head out of your anus you may come to realise that, but i doubt you will its lodged fairly tightly up there.
By the way, really classy resorting to ad hominem attacks just cause you know your arguments arent worth shit.
There were a few others but for now...., you're stuck with me. ;)
My Iraqi friends wanted to know why I even bothered with you. I told them that you are the only one that keeps on responding. Everyone else just stops. You're all I've got to help me get through the day. I can't get through the day without pissing somebody off ;)
By the way, really classy resorting to ad hominem attacks
Why you little hypocritical camel fucker. You're the one who started with ad hominem attacks. Common camel boy, this shit is verifiable. Are you really that drunk?
I really dont know what you consider an ad hominem attack but the ridicule present in your first response to my original argument was only ever gona receive one kind of reply from me.
Ya, he's doin gods work. If theres was any chance of me seeing actual combat id gone so fast, fucks sake he probably beleievs in all that bullshit to. I wouldnt be stupid enough to die for some fat cats false ideals
God's work? Well, that's news to me. Somebody should tell God that an atheist is doing his work.
Well George W. Bush certainly gave me the impression that his motives were far from secular. Also, they have top pander to the fundamentalist Christians, your coutnry has over 60 million.
Well, I'm not George Bush am I? I have been fighting the christian fundamentalist theocratic mentality, tooth and nail for years. Surprising as this might be, not all Americans think like George Bush. Nor do all Christians find these to be 'holy wars'.
I didn't have the degree when I enlisted, but certainly having a higher education means advanced rank upon swearing in. Anyone can be enlisted, but to become an officer you need to take the officer training courses, which I have not done. Good question though.
Thats right ya, hey could ya bring me back a few ears, they dont have to be mens, id be happy with woamns or childrens.Just cut them off teh fuckers there less than human anyway.
Thats right ya, hey could ya bring me back a few ears, they dont have to be mens, id be happy with woamns or childrens.Just cut them off teh fuckers there less than human anyway.
Can you at least bring me some beers before you start drinking again?
The marines aren't supposed to. They generally use the phrase "Oorah!"
I am Army National Guard, which is in fact the oldest of all the branches. The first US soldiers were militia, and that's essentially what the National Guard is. You live normal civilian life, even getting a degree, until you get deployed.
I know thats probably not meant to be entirely serious, but still i find the idea of going over to another persons country in which you are the foreign oppressive power, stealing the nations oil, and then "holding them by the nose and kicking them in the ass" utterly repulsive.
Yes, while I do admit our intentions overseas are not always so selfless, this old cliche that we are "stealing oil" is pretty naive. How exactly do you suggest we are doing this? Throwing on our ski masks and hijacking oil tankers? To move massive amounts of oil requires a lot of special equipment and trained experts, there is no way we could steal any significant amount of oil without everybody in the world knowing about it. Certainly I would know about it, or perhaps I just slept through the "oil stealing seminar".
The fact that you even need to ask is a testament to your level of indoctrination. Its not technically stealing when you employ CIA and washington backed puppet governments that assume effective control of the countries resources and sell their own people down the river in order to become rich themselves. Now you can blame those people themselves, and i do but really who more to blame my friend??? Your country is completey self interested in everyway, it doesnt even care about the well being of its own citizens let alone ones outside the US.
The fact that you even need to ask is a testament to your level of indoctrination. Its not technically stealing when you employ CIA and washington backed puppet governments that assume effective control of the countries resources and sell their own people down the river in order to become rich themselves. Now you can blame those people themselves, and i do but really who more to blame my friend??? Your country is completey self interested in everyway, it doesnt even care about the well being of its own citizens let alone ones outside the US.
And is this puppet government giving us millions of barrels of Oil for free?
Thats it ya, thats exactly what i expected,anyone who speaks out about the fact that American slaughters poor browned skinned peopel over seas in order to exploit their natural resourcs and dominate them in general is unpatriotic. I'm totally not a patriot becaue i feel sorry for the countless millions whose lives whose live your country has made a living hell do to ints self interested offensive policies and the millions who have died by its wars based on false ideals and mistruths.
I'm fuckin glad you called me unpatriotic, if i thought i was patriotic i wouldnt be able to live with myself.
How many American soldiers do you personally know? How many have told you that they joined up just so that they can go out and kill brown skinned people so that we can exploit their resources. I think that you are talking out your ass because you mouth knows better ;)
You just dont get it do you Joe, i'm not blaming th eAmerican soldiers, i feel sorry for them if anything (although i feel a lot more for the people lands there occupying). i don't think any soldier is gona get rich from explioting some arabs naturals resources. There doing what they think is right cause they've bought into a false ideology.Its the government and the corporations there that effectively controls them (and US media) and the US really. There the ones benefiting. Look heres some facts on what went on in Iraq when the US took control of its oil (call it Leftist propaganda if you want its the truth and its well documented)
He did ya hear Obama thinking of interveing in Libya and that the whole european community has turned their back on him cause they know he wants to invade, and you can be sure its got nothing to do with lbyian freedom.
You see thats my point, if you invade Libya, you be going in under the pretence that your there to liberate the Lybian people, not to steal their oil. And im sure your soldiers will beleive that lie, just the same as liberating the Iraqis or helping the vietnamese fight communism.
You know, I told Obama that he should just let those poor bastards kill each other because that would make it a lot easier for us, later, to just waltz in after the fact, when they are all dead, step over the bodies, and "steal their oil."
Hey did you hear, your president is thinking about sending some guys under cover into England and you know he couldn't possibly have good intentions. He just wants to steal their Guinness ;)
Ya, i agree with that piont of view Joe, they deserve the right to there own self-determination, they're might be a civil war for a while and who knows what will happen after but thats for them to determine. But you see if you can just stay with me on this, right, your government, that you think is so good and moral doesnt give two fucks about Libyian self determination, it doesnt care at all. It wants their oil!!!!!!!!!
Big shock, huh, who would have ever guessed that, rich people like money!!!!!! fuck me this is big news we've got to alert the masses. Yes rich people (i.e. washington and the corporations that control it) like money and want more of it.
And there willing to invade a poor midlle eastern country under the guise of bveing liberators in order to control the flow of oil, and tell there people that there doing for the greater good so Libyians can live a free life like them back at home, meanwhile they'll bomb the country back to the stone and kill anyone who gets in there way.
Fuck, this sounds familiar, has this eveer happened before.hmmmmmmmmm??????????????????
I think your stretching. Yes, I believe that the U.S. want the oil to keep flowing. I don't believe that they want to go in there and start killing people. What for? Are they going to protect the oil fields from someone who wants to torch them? Yes! Do the Libyan citizens want to torch the oil fields (their lively hood)? No! Does the Libyan government want to torch the oil fields in retaliation for being kicked out of the country? Yes, they have said as much. Is it a bad thing that the U.S. wants to protect the oil fields? No, the Libyan citizens will benefit from them after the transition.
WHAT?, I'M SORRY WHAT?. Is that really how your warped mind works. Yes the U.S. government will PROTECT the oil fields for the Libyan people. Listen to yoursel,f seriously, im struggling to understand how that even makes sense to you. Does it or are you just taking the piss, honestly i cant tell with you anymore.Maybe you didnt get those links i sent, you know that ones that show what your corporations did with Iraqs oil once the took control of the oil fields:
(this is obviuosly just leftist propaganda put together to corrupt the minds of good honest god fearing americans like you Joe) - you've been right from the beginning, im actually Satan in disguise, but you resisted my temptations Joe, you did so very well, with an almost unbeleivable level of ignorance. You've assured yourself a place in heaven my friend, you should be very proud,
"they have said as much", WHAT?, ive heard no such thing, in fact there (gaddafi) still selling 600,000 barrels of oil a day(down from 1.3 million but hey itrs not bad considering the country is half overun), thats right amid all the UN sanctions and denouncing of Gaddafi, there still buying oil from him (US manily but the the rest of the west to)
They'll have no chioce but to kill people Joe, you see when you invade anohter persons country they invariably dont like it and resist(i gaurantee you both Gaddafis men and the resistance would fight american troops).And beleive me the world wised up to what "AMERICAN ASSISTANCE" means along time ago, give the Libyan people some credit Joe, there not as dumb as you, they know why Washington wants in. Theres been no calls from them for anykind of assistance (you know just liek there was no calls from Iraqis) be it nato, UN or otherwise. To be honest i doubt your country will invade, there to pre-occupied with the other two unjust wars there fighting.
I'm telling you, America just wants to make sure that the oil wells do not get graffiti on them. It is all very altruistic, on the up and up and legal ;)
You know one minute your serious (i.e. previous statement) and then you revert to something completely nonosensicial. Is it cause you know can't back up the bullshit you beleive with actual factual evidence?
You do realize that the 600,000 barrels a day (I don't know where you got that number, the most recent number I could find was that 1.3 million barrels) and even the 1.3 million barrels a day is split between all of Libya's export partners. And for America, Libyan oil exports make up less than 5% (a better guess may even be as low as 2%, but 5% is a very conservative guess, given that the 1.3 million is split with a myriad of other countries, and since Americans consume about 81.6 million per day).
I highly doubt America would unilaterally invade Libya to protect oil reserves, even under the guise of liberation, for a relatively meager 2%.
"To be honest i doubt your country will invade, there to pre-occupied with the other two unjust wars there fighting."
Agreed. So didn't you just completely invalidate the rest of your argument when you tried to prove America was going to invade Libya?
You do realise the value of quoted is the most recent value 600,000 million barrels (i did mention 1.3 million barrels if you actually read my statement in it entirety but the was prior to the civil war)
if you think im not telling the truth just type into any serach engine you want heres a few reluts i got that prove the current figure to be 600,00 barrels/day:
Also, i agree with you and im well aware of everything your stating. And no i didnt completely invalidate my argument, mainly becasue i never tried to prove they were going to invade, i was talking hypothetically you jackass.Joe had made a statement claming that if the US did invade, it would be to protect the oil fields for the Libyian people. I was merely correcting that deluded belief. I now they probability of a ground invasion is miniscule, especially considering they'd probably have to do it without the support of most of the international community, and the reasons you stated.
Well obviously you're speaking hypothetically. You're speculating therefore you are attempting to prove something will happen. Through speculation. Through extrapolation. Whatever you want to call it. What I'm saying is Americans wouldn't even bother to invade Libya (which we agree on), but if for some wild reason America does invade, the oil fields will be far from the most pressing issue on the one's leading the fight. The situation would have to change drastically right now for Americans to be motivated to fight, the international community does not support an invasion, and it would have to be something like genocide to provide the impetus to invade. And therefore, if we were to invade, we would not concern ourselves with oil. In any simple cost analysis, you would see "protecting the oil fields" cannot provide the impetus and would simply not be cost effective (i.e. the oil we gain would not offset the cost of waging a war). Iraq has huge oil reserves that would vastly affect the American economy. Libya has no such leverage. It is ridiculous to suggest, therefore, that anyone would bother to invade a country to protect something with so relatively little payoff.
First of all, i am calm, i dont mean any harm by the statement Jackass, Jesus where are you from(American i suppose) cause your quite touchy. I'm Irish, and we use swear words all the time in our daily speech, at least the man do, its just part of how we converse and im sorry if i offended you.
Yes, i am speculating but im not attempting to prove anything thats gona happen, im merely stating what i think would happen if they invaded. Yes i am extrapolating but im doing so based on the knowledge of all of Americas other "interventions" if they can be called that. Ok, so really im basing what i say on fairly reliable data. Now i admit the oil reserves are alot lower than Iraqs(i think thee the 4th largest producer), thats one of the main resons i think they wont invade. BUT i do know that Libya has vast potentially untapped oil reserves. Alot of their potential reserves are unexplored, im surely washington knows this too. Also, the war probably wouldnt be as costly as Iraq (not even close i imagine) and did you ever think that STABILITY may be a driving factor in all of this. Its not just about securing the oil, its about ensuring the security of its supply but again this all hypothetical, as i said i dont thin they'll invade. If they do though you can be sure Libyan freedom will be bottom of their list of priorities, also Gaddafi still has stron support in that country, its not merely the army supporting him, i dont know what the split is but they are defineitly a sizeable number on Gaddafis side.
This site should be a civil means to debate one another. I swear in real life, I can handle an insult or two, when they're warranted or in good fun. But you should know a lot of subtext can be lost over the internet, and even so, one shouldn't swear while debating. It doesn't help your argument, and just makes you seem ignorant.
Libyan oil would not be high on the priority list if we did invade because: 1) They are not as high a contributor of oil as to make securing Libyan oil a necessary action and 2) We (America) would not bother to spend the resources (human, material, and money) to maintain, let alone discover, old/new oil reserves in Libya and 3) If we did, our multilateral intervention (which that is what it would be for America to go in in the first place) would instead become unilateral with the United States only, the rest would abandon us, and the war would be too costly for us to feasibly maintain three wars concurrently, and so we would immediately pull out of Libya, forsaking our original mission (presumably to secure oil, in this scenario). Therefore we would not invade. It would be a political/military/economic disaster.
Thats a very good point, ill take into consideration. I suppose im just so used to using it in daily speech to make my arguments. I dont when in college, i have ebgaged in college level debates and i suppose i really should give this website the same respect.
I agree with nearly everything your saying. I dont think we've been in disagreement since this correspondance started. I just think what is going on in Libya has massive implications for the worlds oil supply. Its creating massive uncertainty and i think if the US were to invade that it (oil in general) would be the primary motivator.
I agree with you up to the primary motivation being oil. As I stated before, were the United States and her allies to invade anywhere, it would need to be in the interest of national/international security, because frankly we do not have the funds to maintain three concurrent military campaigns in a healthy economy, let alone the craphole we've recently spun into. And oil from Libya would not have enough of a payoff to make oil a national security issue.
Well i suppose were nearly in complete agreement. I think national security and helping the revolution (as it is referred to in Western media) would be the pretence for any ground invasion. Its quite obvious to anyone though that if Libya were not an oil producing country there would be very little interest in it. Also, if Libya were the Ivory Coast (which is also experciencing extreme unrest) the news we would e receiving wouldn't be so obviosuly biased. Whats happening there is a civil war. I think there is alot of hatred for Gaddafi but i think theres is also a lot of support.
To an extent, I agree that were Libya not an oil producing country, there would be less interest. However, I would contest that there still would be considerable pressure on international governments and organizations to stand with the rebels considering the newest developments in the region, i.e. the toppling of dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia. The United States, for one, missed an amazing opportunity (however cynical that is) to exploit a political situation that would have favored us in the long run. Instead of giving our backing to the people, we merely offered weak threats, and by the time we took a stand, the Egyptian people had given up on us. The same general concept applies for Libya. If we want to be seen as a force to promote positive democracy, we simply cannot concern ourselves with the maintenance and distribution of foreign bodies' natural resources, and we must instead back the will of the people. I think our political leaders know that right now is not the time to grab weak countries' resources, and any attempt to do so, if discovered, would be seen as an outrage.
Certainly there is a lot of support for Qaddafi, but his support is mostly generated through bribes, corruption, and generally bought. His backers are mercenaries, not truly loyal to him. And if Qaddafi wins, I think he'll suddenly realize that what he assumed was a firm foundation turned out to actually by quicksand.
I dont agree that there was any pressure to stand with the rebels. We still know very little of the rebels, they could be Islamic extremists, i dont think they were under a ny pressure to stand by them, especially considering they are rebels, not liberators. Again, the info. coming out the region is too limited to make any kind of a difinitive judgement.One thing is clear is Qaddafi didnt have a significant amount of support in that country he would not have lasted this long.
The civil war is being portrayed in the West as being directly analogous to the events in Tunusia and Egypt.Again, im not saying that the rebels dont represent the majority i'm saying the situaiton is not like Egyt where you had the whole country on one side and Mubarak and a few of his elites (who deserted him anyway) on the other.
Why do think your country didnt give the people the backing it should have.Could it be because you were largely responsible for putting Hosni Mubarak into power in the first place, and yoyu had given him alone over 50 billion dollars over the course of his tenure as president. Washington didnt know how to respond becasue they saw one of there dictators being deposed right before their eyes.
They obviously didnt want him to go but they knew they had to be seen to be representing democracy, thats why you saw the weak threats, in fact originally they said he should stay. You never really took at stand. I see a country that has propped up brutal dictators all over the world, you had to come out in support of revolution, to do anything else just flys in the face of all the propaganda put forth by your media.
Look, Libya is a very diiferent story, i dont want to make any judgements, what i will say is if Qaddafi stays you can be sure the West (including the US) will continue to buy oil from him.
Again, i dont know how you can make such generalisations, im mean i fully acknowledge that the majority are against Qaddafi but to say that his support is through bribes and mercenaris alone i think is false. I think there are large pockets of support for him in that country e.g. his home town, tripoli and other palces. Again, this may ebb away as fighting continues especially given the tactics he is using i.e. aerial bombardment and other unveriafiable atrocitities.From what i cab tell though he still has support, i thinl if the whole Libyan population was against him he would not have lasted this long.
