If you chose "B", Muammar Al-Gaddafi, you are CORRECT.

None of the other choices are / were willing to wait this long. Gaddafi lists Al-Qead'a as an ememy to his people.

Unfortunately for him, Obama and the muslim brotherhood that Obama's regime is standing with would rather send the middle east up in flames to incite violence and create chaos.

Gaddafi has been opposed to Bin Laden and al-qued'a and has said that Europe will be muslim without the need for violence.... just be patient.

Obama and his middle-east agents would rather resort to destabilize the mid-east, country by country... get in the way, hey, here's a few missiles to wipe your defenses off the map regardless of what the UN resolution says about a "no-fly zone". (How does a no-fly zone get turned into authorization to assasinate Gaddafi ???)

Now you know why this regime is looking to take Libya's defenses and Gaddafi out.

It's not to create peace for the Libyan people. Rather, it is to create another fire in the middle east for the end result: Control of the world's population.

Oh, and who do you think will be ready to sell more arms and defensive systems (15 years old instead of the 40 year old systems they now have) to the new Libya after the "coalition" destroys them all? France? England? The US? Hmmmm.... arms for OIL? Who will sell new oil field equipment that has been destroyed?

I guess it's time to rotate the stock and get rid of our outdated systems.

BTW, I still am NO fan nor do I support Gaddafi (Muammar Daffiducki).

Obama..... real change we can believe in, just ignore the 'business as usual' part.

I posted this because you won't hear any of this from ANYONE who says Bush went to Iraq for the OIL.

Amazing how quiet they are on how gas is, in many parts of the country, higher than it ever was under Bush. But now, I'm off-topic and a racist birther for pointing this out.