http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-us-nato-allies-still-considering-military-action-20110307-083347-439.html

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama warned Libya's leaders that the U.S. and its NATO allies are still considering military options in response to what he called "unacceptable" violence perpetrated by supporters of Moammar Gadhafi.
"[size=18pt]I want to send a very clear message to those who are around Colonel Gadhafi. It is their choice to make how they operate moving forward. And they will be held accountable for whatever violence continues to take place,"[/size] Obama said during remarks in the Oval Office Monday.
Libyan warplanes launched multiple airstrikes on opposition fighters in the second day of a government crackdown to thwart rebels advancing on Gadhafi's stronghold in Tripoli.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said a military response was no more likely Monday than it was before the surge in violence. He said the U.S. and its partners are considering a wide variety of military actions, including a no-fly zone, but said deploying ground troops "is not top of the list at this point."
Carney said the U.S. is also considering providing weapons to rebel forces, though he cautioned that there were still many unanswered questions about what groups comprise those forces. He said the U.S. is using diplomatic channels, as well as contacts in the business community and non-governmental organizations, to gather information about the opposition.
Obama said he has also authorized $15 million in humanitarian aid to help international and non-governmental organizations assist and evacuate people fleeing the violence in Libya. More than 200,000 people have fled the country, most of them foreign workers, creating a humanitarian crisis across the border with Tunisia — another North African country in turmoil after an uprising in January that ousted its longtime leader.
Hundreds if not thousands of people have died since Libya's uprising began, although tight restrictions on media make it nearly impossible to get an accurate tally.
The U.S. and United Nations have imposed sanctions on Gadhafi's regime, and U.S. military forces have also moved closer to Libya's shores to back up demands that Gadhafi step down.
Obama spoke alongside Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who is in Washington for meetings.


FELA was right all along:

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIdXf0l7-dc?fs=1&hl=en_US[/flash]

Dem go hold meeting, oh, Dem go start yab* human beings *(tease/bother)
Animal talk don start again
Dash* dem, human rights *(give/grant)
*(repeat stanza)

How animal go know-say dem no born me as slave?
How animal go know say slave trade don pass?
And, dey wan dash us human rights
Animal must talk to human beings
Give dem human rights

I beg-ee, oh , make you hear me well-u well
I beg-ee, oh, make you hear me very well

Human rights na my property
So therefore, you can’t dash me my property
Human rights na my property
Dey want dash us human rights

Some people say, “Why I dey talk like dis,"
No be talk like dis, dem take to carry me go prision ee-oh”
No be me dey talk, na Prime Minister Botha* dey talk, ee-oh (2x) *(PM of S.Africa)

Him say, “this uprising will bring out the beast in us”
[CHORUS] THIS UPRISING WILL BRING OUT THE BEAST IN US
(repeat stanza 3x)

Eh Ji Keke- my argument

NATO na friend to Cameron & Obama
Botha na friend to some other leaders too
And together dem wan dash us human rights
Animals wan dash us human rights
Animal can’t dash me human rights
Animal can’t dash us human rights

[CHORUS] MANY LEADERS AS YOU SEE DEM
[CHORUS] NA DIFFERENT DISGUISE DEM DEY-OH
[CHORUS] ANIMAL IN HUMAN SKIN
[CHORUS] ANIMAL-I PUT-U TIE-OH
[CHORUS] ANIMAL-I WEAR AGBADA
[CHORUS] ANIMAL-I PUT-U SUIT-U
*(2x- 2nd time with lead voc)

Beasts of no nation (US and NATO)- Egbe Ke Gbe na bad society

[CHORUS] BEASTS OF NO NATION, EGBE KE GBE
[CHORUS] BEASTS OF NO NATION, OTURU GBE KE
(repeat stanza many x, lead vamp)

Una no go kill me o

America is our friend, fstranger. Well, they can be if we play our cards right.

I'd much rather be America's friend than its enemy, let's put it that way. If you want to be enemies of America, you'd better stock up on nuclear weapons to protect yourself. And nukes cost a lot of money.

I think the british were smarter than the Americans.how did the britikos manage to get away causing big damage with little violence ?

@Bluetooth

Little violence? Ye think?

Compare the british hegemony with American imperialism and you would see what I mean.
The british used christainity as part of their campaign and that shows the influence of religion over the so called liberal campaign of the Americans;many people had to succumb and resist confrontation with the british because of religion.

~Bluetooth:

Compare the british hegemony with American imperialism and you would see what I mean.
The british used christainity as part of their campaign and that shows the influence of religion over the so called liberal campaign of the Americans;many people had to succumb and resist confrontation with the british because of religion.

The British annihilated countless peoples and cultures. American imperialism which is a recent phenomenon has not done such. You really need to study history. Sometimes the British used religion to conquer other lands, sometimes they used treachery like they did in the Indian subcontinent, and sometimes they used brute force as they dealt with the Zulus, Asante Confederacy, Aro Confederacy etc.

Omenani:

The British annihilated countless peoples and cultures. American imperialism which is a recent phenomenon has not done such. You really need to study history. Sometimes the British used religion to conquer other lands, sometimes they used treachery like they did in the Indian subcontinent, and sometimes they used brute force as they dealt with the Zulus, Asante Confederacy, Aro Confederacy etc.

compare the campaign of both countries and tell me who is more treacherous ? Iraqi,vietnamese,afghan and gulf wars by america are there for you to ponder on.

~Bluetooth:

compare the campaign of both countries and tell me who is more treacherous ? Iraqi,vietnamese,afghan and gulf wars by america are there for you to ponder on.

Three of the four conflicts that you mentioned were due to British imperialism. The U.S. appears to be helping the British clean up the mess that they left the world. All these regions except Vietnam, were all part of the British Colonial Empire. Maybe you should ponder that.

Did british invade iraq ?

Go ahead 'mad dog' & provide weapons, explosives, training etc. to the 'rebels' against ur enemy Gadhafi (just like you did with the Talibans & Mujahideen/Al-CIA-da against the soviets)
, And when things go awry, look no further, just blame it on the usual suspect i.e Islam/Muslims

Igbo proverb says "he whom the gods want to destroy,they at first made mad"

~Bluetooth:

Did british invade iraq ?

Yes they did, technically speaking. The Ottomans ruled Iraq till the First World War, and Britain got Iraq as part of the agreements signed to end the Great War (armistice)
Read about the Iraqi revolt against the British here.

AjanleKoko:

Yes they did, technically speaking. The Ottomans ruled Iraq till the First World War, and Britain got Iraq as part of the agreements signed to end the Great War (armistice)
Read about the Iraqi revolt against the British here.

Iraq was part of british colony but what does iraqi stand as to the Us ? Vassal state or what to warrant an invasion in 2003 ?

~Bluetooth:

Iraq was part of british colony but what does iraqi stand as to the Us ? Vassal state or what to warrant an invasion in 2003 ?

The US is a different kettle of fish entirely. They only need the oil, and need to keep the region secure for thier interests. They're not particularly interested in empire building. Which is why they have always fared not so well abroad.