"Our oil contracts will go to companies of Russia, China and India. The West will be forgotten". Muammar Gaddafi, in an interview to TV station RTL on March 15th, 2011.

I don"t know if there are any idealists left to believe that the attack on Libya pursues the ideals of democracy and the removal of a bloody dictator. After all dictators are created by feeding their ego.

The set up of a no-fly zone did not lead to the downfall of Saddam Hussein, which only came after the American troops entered the territory of Iraq in 2003. Four years later, in his memoirs, Alan Greenspan admitted that the real reason for which the war was waged was oil.

Now things are moving faster. Democrat congressman Edward J. Markey, a member of the Committee for Energy and Trade of the House of Representatives, stated that "we are in Libya because of oil".

"Congress needs to be summoned in session immediately to authorize the action against Libya", Democrat congressman Dennis Kucinich also said. "If it doesn"t, the presidents" action violates article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution, which clearly states that only Congress has the right to go to war", Kucinich said in his call to the leaders of the American congress.

Could that be all, a "mere" violation of the US Constitution, which has become common practice over the last few decades? But what if the new war is just a beginning of the knee-jerk reactions of the governments of developed countries, amid the unprecedented rise in the size of their sovereign debt? This seems like the most plausible scenario, as nobody seems to be able to define the purpose of the military intervention, aside from the hypocritical statements about democracy and the protection of civilians, which would be more at home in a second rate reality show.

The riots in Libya began amid the escalation of tensions in the area, g