Gaddafi

Gaddafi would be better to receive a nobel prize than Obama. Gaddafi never wanted war. Obama just continues it, and sends more troops everywhere. Theyr'e just hired guns, not America's army exactly.

Gaddafi, having accomplished his “socialist Jamahiriya revolution”, antagonized the majority of Persian Gulf monarchies:
 – He overthrew the monarchy, which kings and emirs of the Gulf always bear in mind;
 – He has established a secular regime of “Islamic socialism” and has shown the entire Arab East that this system in the context of large resource rents provides a much higher level and quality of life for the
general public than that which they have at home; 
– From the standpoint of these achievements, he not only encouraged other Arab (and more generally Islamic) peoples to effect revolution and live according to his Green Book, but also actively interfered in their internal politics, as well as increased his influence in the Arab League and Organization of Islamic Conference;
 – He effectively dislodged the Saudi royal house from its position in many regions of Africa, replacing it with his influence both directly and through the  African Union created with much of his efforts. A number of Western leaders have long-standing “historical accounts” with Gaddafi. The U.S. and Britain remember the decisive expulsion of their military bases from Libya after “Gaddafi’s revolution”, as well as the nationalization of their oil equity. France has clashed with Gaddafi for many years over influence in French-speaking Africa; moreover, sometimes these clashes have escalated into direct armed conflict (as in Chad). Italy has always been afraid of unexpected twists in Gaddafi’s policy, which could at any moment “flood” the country with a stream of illegal migrants from Africa. Not the least role in the West’s animosity towards Gaddafi was played by the consequences of his policy of “exporting revolution”, in the course of which he has supported anti-governmental movements worldwide and which has also facilitated the departure of his radical Islamist opponents to “hot spots” (farther away from Libya). And although the role of Gaddafi himself or his intelligence services in the terrorist attack in Berlin, as well as the bombings of American and French aircraft has never been definitely proven, it was precisely these enumerated developments that became the primary motives for the introduction of U.N. sanctions against Libya in 1992, as “the main sponsor of global terrorism”. For Western countries, and most of all for the U.S., Gaddafi was unacceptable both for the reason that he has shown the whole world an example of successful “Arab socialism” and because he has shown extreme economic and political independence. Libya has had no foreign debts and there has been no strata of prominent, powerful oligarchs, who may be influenced by the threat of  confiscation of their accounts in Western banks (ostensibly the “assets of the Qaddafi family” are frozen in the West – in reality these assets are principally those of the state National Oil Corporation and state investment funds). Mitigation of Gaddafi’s policy, his acceptance of Libya’s responsibility (but not guilt) for the above-mentioned terrorist attacks, as well as the payment of compensation to their victims – were important grounds, but not the main reason for withdrawing the international sanctions against Libya in 2004. According to experts, one of the conditions for withdrawing sanctions was a demand from the U.S. and EU countries for the provision of wider access to international oil companies in Libya.