• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Gaddafi stood up to US right before removal

gaddafi

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Luminosity

  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:08 AM


I'm NOT a fan of Muammar Gaddafi. I've read that before he was removed he stood up the US and wanted to start trading oil in a currency other than dollars. Then he was removed with our help at the hands of his own people, we're told. There were more than enough reasons to do this, but I find the timing curious. There's plenty of dictators in the Middle East. In Syria and Iran we just sit around and watch them kill their own people. So what prompted our intervention in Libya?

Edited by Luminosity, 18 September 2012 - 05:09 AM.


#2 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 18 September 2012 - 12:38 PM

I'm NOT a fan of Muammar Gaddafi. I've read that before he was removed he stood up the US and wanted to start trading oil in a currency other than dollars. Then he was removed with our help at the hands of his own people, we're told. There were more than enough reasons to do this, but I find the timing curious. There's plenty of dictators in the Middle East. In Syria and Iran we just sit around and watch them kill their own people. So what prompted our intervention in Libya?


The intervention was pure politics. Obama was keeping hands off (other than the usual CIA stuff), but Republicans were saying that he was losing the opportunity, and when Obama went in with aircraft and missiles they said that it was too late and he was doing it without authorization from Congress (them), and said we were playing second fiddle with the leading from behind business. So he went in because of Republican pressure but they made damn sure he wouldn't benefit from it no matter how it worked out.

The fallout is that China and Russia realized that this "protecting civilians" business that justified our no-fly zone was BS and now they won't go along with us on new sanctions on Iran, thus the sanctions we've been slapping on recently don't have UN backing and are technically illegal. Another bit of fallout comes from Gaddafi previously giving up his nuclear program to play the good boy. Other countries now see what happens when you give up the only weapon we're afraid of--you get a knife up the rear.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 18 September 2012 - 12:40 PM.


#3 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 September 2012 - 12:55 PM

The fallout is that China and Russia realized that this "protecting civilians" business that justified our no-fly zone was BS and now they won't go along with us on new sanctions on Iran, thus the sanctions we've been slapping on recently don't have UN backing and are technically illegal. Another bit of fallout comes from Gaddafi previously giving up his nuclear program to play the good boy. Other countries now see what happens when you give up the only weapon we're afraid of--you get a knife up the rear.


Are you saying that Gaddafi wasn't murdering civilians?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 18 September 2012 - 01:04 PM

The fallout is that China and Russia realized that this "protecting civilians" business that justified our no-fly zone was BS and now they won't go along with us on new sanctions on Iran, thus the sanctions we've been slapping on recently don't have UN backing and are technically illegal. Another bit of fallout comes from Gaddafi previously giving up his nuclear program to play the good boy. Other countries now see what happens when you give up the only weapon we're afraid of--you get a knife up the rear.


Are you saying that Gaddafi wasn't murdering civilians?


"Protecting civilians" was cover for regime change. NATO was going after the Libyan military and rationalizing the bombing of the homes of Libyan big-wigs by claiming they were command and control centers. Many civilians died in the hail of bombs but the NATO general in charge claimed that no civilians died at all. So China and Russia saw that Obama could be trusted about as much as Bush and they haven't gone along with our sanctions even though they themselves don't want to see Iran with nuclear weapons.

#5 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 18 September 2012 - 01:12 PM

The intervention was pure politics. Obama was keeping hands off ..

Was he really? The democrats have always been pro-intervention. Think Kosovo.

The fallout is that China and Russia realized that this "protecting civilians" business that justified our no-fly zone was BS and now they won't go along with us on new sanctions on Iran, thus the sanctions we've been slapping on recently don't have UN backing and are technically illegal. Another bit of fallout comes from Gaddafi previously giving up his nuclear program to play the good boy. Other countries now see what happens when you give up the only weapon we're afraid of--you get a knife up the rear.


Are you saying that Gaddafi wasn't murdering civilians?


Since he was stopped, the people opposing him killed different civilians ("african militias").

"Protecting civilians" was cover for regime change. NATO was going after the Libyan military and rationalizing the bombing of the homes of Libyan big-wigs by claiming they were command and control centers. Many civilians died in the hail of bombs but the NATO general in charge claimed that no civilians died at all. So China and Russia saw that Obama could be trusted about as much as Bush and they haven't gone along with our sanctions even though they themselves don't want to see Iran with nuclear weapons.


Ha. China and Russia have their own agenda. They probably want to see America knocked down a peg or two as much as any other reason.

#6 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 18 September 2012 - 01:15 PM

Was he really? The democrats have always been pro-intervention. Think Kosovo.



There's no need to speculate. Go back and look at the news reports and you'll see McCain lambasting the president for not going in, and then for not going in sooner.

#7 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:42 PM

hrmmmm. Kind of surprised at the mis/disinfo, but I guess I watch this stuff closer than most people do.

1. You cannot just trade oil in a non-US dollar currency without having an exchange to settle it. The reason why everything is traded in dollars is because the pits in Chicago and other major trading exchanges settle in dollars. It'd have to be a separate exchange or new exchange rule to settle in a non-dollar currency. If you think Gaddafi can effect that kind of outcome, I have a bridge, a planet, and a solar system to sell you. Your supposition that "he was going to stand up to the US" is pure Internet-conspiracy-chatter. I remember a guy named Saddam Hussein who "stood up to the US" and his country Iraq had way more oil output than Libya does per annum. Last I heard he wasn't doing too much these days.

2. Gaddafi was going to slaughter thousands of people in the city of Bengahzi (where the rebels had built their beachhead). If you read any of the interviews w/ Obama and the forthcoming Michael Lewis article in Vanity Fair which details his entire thought process for intervention, you would understand that Gaddafi had tanks and an army moving towards Bengahzi and he was going to "put down the rebels" (ie. slaughter them). That's when the US intervened and prevented a massacre.

3. Ousting Gaddafi was far easier and less costly than Syria. It's not like every country and situation in the middle east is the same, just because they happen to be in the middle east. First, no one in the middle east liked Gaddafi. He had no natural allies like Russia or Iran to provide support. They literally all hated him, which is why the Arab League supported an intervention. Invading Syria is almost like declaring war on Iran simultaneously. Second, Gaddafi had a very weak army (gave up his weapons of mass destruction previously to the Bush administration), and was easily put down by NATO (US). It's not nearly the same situation as Syria where Bashir is sitting on 5,000 Russian tanks and has enough chemical weapons to wipe out a million people. If he's really crazy and you start a war with him, hundreds of thousands of people could be slaughtered just because he's ruthless and nuts.

Libya is not nearly the same situation as Syria. Just like Germany and France are not the same as the UK, even though they are both in Europe. And Pakistan is not the same as Afghanistan etc...

Edited by prophets, 18 September 2012 - 05:54 PM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#8 Luminosity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 20 September 2012 - 05:18 AM

You can find political and other commentary on my blog at:

http://www.longecity...at-7-commentary

#9 renfr

  • Guest
  • 1,059 posts
  • 72
  • Location:France

Posted 25 September 2012 - 03:08 AM

Gaddafi was a dictator, he did took billions from oil trade but get in mind that Libya was the 3rd wealthiest african country (after equatorial guinea and south africa and honestly Libya was better off than South africa) and seriously just look how Libya is right now, totally screwed up, prices rose up, cities are devastated, guerrilla warfare between tribes and jihad groups, shariah law and minority bashing. Yes thank you Obama, thank you Sarkozy, thank you Cameron!
I hope Syria doesn't end like that, are we going to let all of the middle east be led by terror groups? Was the war on terror purposed to put down jihadists or to bring them into power? Why bomb Syria when it's allied with the west and protects its christian minority?
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#10 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 25 September 2012 - 04:16 AM

hrmmmm. Kind of surprised at the mis/disinfo, but I guess I watch this stuff closer than most people do.

1. You cannot just trade oil in a non-US dollar currency without having an exchange to settle it. The reason why everything is traded in dollars is because the pits in Chicago and other major trading exchanges settle in dollars. It'd have to be a separate exchange or new exchange rule to settle in a non-dollar currency. If you think Gaddafi can effect that kind of outcome, I have a bridge, a planet, and a solar system to sell you. Your supposition that "he was going to stand up to the US" is pure Internet-conspiracy-chatter. I remember a guy named Saddam Hussein who "stood up to the US" and his country Iraq had way more oil output than Libya does per annum. Last I heard he wasn't doing too much these days....


The banking, currency and oil motivations for this war are real. Oil trades in dollars because of multinational treaties in the 1970s leading to creation of the petrodollar, not lack of exchange capability for other currencies. This article citing sources goes into the currency and banking issues key to understanding this rawly neo-colonial war. Another 'humanitarian' war in the oil patch? Come on people.....


...According to a Russian article titled "Bombing of Lybia - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar," Qaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Qaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. … The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Qaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.


And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:

One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.17
Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS [Bank of International Settlements], the IMF and their rules.18


Gaddafi’s recent proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa revives the notion of an Islamic gold dinar floated in 2003 by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, as well as by some Islamist movements.19 The notion, which contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them, has had trouble getting started. But today the countries stocking more and more gold rather than dollars include not just Libya and Iran, but also China, Russia, and India.20


The Stake of France in Terminating Gaddafi’s African Initiatives

The initiative for the air attacks appears to have come initially from France, with early support from Britain. If Qaddafi were to succeed in creating an African Union backed by Libya’s currency and gold reserves, France, still the predominant economic power in most of its former Central African colonies, would be the chief loser. Indeed, a report from Dennis Kucinich in America has corroborated the claim of Franco Bechis in Italy, transmitted by VoltaireNet in France, that “plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010.”21

The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi....25


Edited by Application, 25 September 2012 - 04:17 AM.


#11 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:46 PM

the Market Oracle, Eric Encina[/size]' timestamp='1348546564' post='536815']
According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS [Bank of International Settlements], the IMF and their rules.18


144 tons * 2000 lbs/ton * 16 oz/lb * 1775 $/oz = $8.2B. Yawn. That would put the Libyan central bank at #42 on the Forbes 400. This makes me wonder about the rest of Mr. Encina's claims.

#12 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 26 September 2012 - 12:19 AM

the Market Oracle, Eric Encina[/size]' timestamp='1348546564' post='536815']
According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS [Bank of International Settlements], the IMF and their rules.18


144 tons * 2000 lbs/ton * 16 oz/lb * 1775 $/oz = $8.2B. Yawn. That would put the Libyan central bank at #42 on the Forbes 400. This makes me wonder about the rest of Mr. Encina's claims.


Why? Unless I have misread the article, he is not saying Libya was invaded to steal their gold, More relevant is the black liquid gold under the sands- 1/3 of Iraq's estimated reserve, which is huge. I thought the 144 tons of gold was mentioned to provide credibility to the plan for a new currency for African development and oil trading.

Edited by Application, 26 September 2012 - 12:54 AM.


#13 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 September 2012 - 01:14 AM

the Market Oracle, Eric Encina[/size]' timestamp='1348546564' post='536815']
According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS [Bank of International Settlements], the IMF and their rules.18


144 tons * 2000 lbs/ton * 16 oz/lb * 1775 $/oz = $8.2B. Yawn. That would put the Libyan central bank at #42 on the Forbes 400. This makes me wonder about the rest of Mr. Encina's claims.


Why? Unless I have misread the article, he is not saying Libya was invaded to steal their gold, More relevant is the black liquid gold under the sands- 1/3 of Iraq's estimated reserve, which is huge. I thought the 144 tons of gold was mentioned to provide credibility to the plan for a new currency for African development and oil trading.


I'm not saying that Libya was invaded to steal their gold, I'm saying that eight billion dollars is nowhere near the backing that a major continent-wide currency would need. Gaddafi was basically a crazy person who had delusions about being the "King of All Africa". He wouldn't have been able to pull anything like that off. Sane people tried to create a single currency in Europe, and look how that turned out. It's a hard job under the best of circumstances. Encina seems to think 8 bn is a lot of resources, and sees ominous signs that there are large developing nations that are attempting to maintain gold reserves and diversify out of the dollar. Any economist will tell you that that is exactly what those nations should be doing, if they're concerned about their own economic interest. I'm not impressed with Encina's judgment.

#14 Luminosity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 26 September 2012 - 02:20 AM

There are wider implications to foreign countries flight from the dollar to gold as a place to park their assets. The value of the dollar was partially upheld because it was the world currency. It was a safe stable place to park money. Our currency having this prominent place in world affairs brought us many advantages. Without this force, the US economy is like a balloon that is partially deflated.

Thanks Application for your contribution. It sounds pretty interesting. Before I started this thread, I had spent many hours watching cable news coverage of this war, but learned essentially nothing more than headlines and what was on the surface. Apparently wars break out like weather. Revolutions are contagious like viruses. That's kind of true but you take your life in your hands if you defy the government in the Middle East and everyone there knows it. So I sometimes think that there is more involved than spontaneous political actions.

I read the piece in Vanity Fair that prophets referred to. It was a very flattering piece focusing on Obama's sportsmanlike behavior on the basketball court, how he revers Abraham Lincoln, and Libya. According this piece he went in there for humanitarian reasons. It certainly makes him looks good and is well-timed, on the eve of the election. In exchange, the writer had unprecedented access to the President, hanging out on Air Force One and in the family's quarter's in the Whitehouse. The article made no mention of NDAA, Guantanamo, torture, the roll back of civil liberties, his extension of the Bush tax cuts, federal law enforcement causing protestors to be beaten and arrested in the US, or the recession. It's kind of like interviewing Herbert Hoover and not mentioning the depression. I can't know whether the information on Libya was true or complete but I know a puff piece when I see one.

I don't know what the truth is but I know I'm not getting it from the main stream media. If anyone else has any more information, or knows of any good sources, let us know.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#15 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 September 2012 - 02:50 AM

I don't know what the truth is but I know I'm not getting it from the main stream media. If anyone else has any more information, or knows of any good sources, let us know.


Cable news is a distinctly bad source of information. Some of it is nothing more than propaganda. I recommend the print media. Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, NY Times, Washington Post, The Economist, and McClatchey papers are pretty good sources. (Except for the WSJ op-ed page, which doesn't come close to the standards of their reporting.) NPR is pretty good. The BBC is good. The international press is really helpful in getting a well-rounded picture- but there are a lot of trashy papers out there. Beware of Rupert Murdoch properties, as a general rule.

#16 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 26 September 2012 - 06:49 AM

....Before I started this thread, I had spent many hours watching cable news coverage of this war, but learned essentially nothing more than headlines and what was on the surface. Apparently wars break out like weather. Revolutions are contagious like viruses. That's kind of true but you take your life in your hands if you defy the government in the Middle East and everyone there knows it. So I sometimes think that there is more involved than spontaneous political actions.


Not enough time has passed to conclusively sort out the lies from the truth yet in Libya. But, If you study US history, a high degree of skepticism is mandatory when it comes to evaluating events leading to wars. Going back to Spanish American War in 1898, all the wars (with possible partial exception of WW2) were justified on lies fed to the media.

I read the piece in Vanity Fair that prophets referred to. It was a very flattering piece focusing on Obama's sportsmanlike behavior on the basketball court, how he revers Abraham Lincoln, and Libya. According this piece he went in there for humanitarian reasons. It certainly makes him looks good and is well-timed, on the eve of the election. In exchange, the writer had unprecedented access to the President, hanging out on Air Force One and in the family's quarter's in the Whitehouse. The article made no mention of NDAA, Guantanamo, torture, the roll back of civil liberties, his extension of the Bush tax cuts, federal law enforcement causing protestors to be beaten and arrested in the US, or the recession. It's kind of like interviewing Herbert Hoover and not mentioning the depression. I can't know whether the information on Libya was true or complete but I know a puff piece when I see one.

I don't know what the truth is but I know I'm not getting it from the main stream media. If anyone else has any more information, or knows of any good sources, let us know.


Nicely put regarding the Vanity Fair article. Embedded with the president in exchange for spreading lies from an up close perspective. No reason to trust the propaganda here any more than when we invaded Iraq because of WMDs. This war looks to fit in a familiar pattern where we overthrow a secular government who is not fully allowing Western exploitation and replace it with Islamic extremists like the Saudis who play ball. This article from the Atlantic explores this theme.

....The cycle is a familiar one: rather than commit American lives to a murky and uncertain conflict, the White House asks the CIA to find or create local proxies that can do the fighting for us. We invariably find the most skilled fighters, the most ruthless killers, who can best challenge or outright topple whatever regime -- often communist, usually despotic and deserving of ouster -- has earned American ire. But the conflict often escalates and turns for the worse. Our killers turn out to be even more brutal than their killers, or maybe they're not as unified as we thought and turn against one another, or they end up targeting civilians as well as enemy fighters....


Historian Webster Tarpley wrote an article researching who the US was really defending and helping in this war.

The rebels are clearly not civilians, but an armed force. What kind of an armed force?

Since many of the rebel leaders are so difficult to research from afar, and since a sociological profile of the rebels cannot be done on the ground in the midst of warfare, perhaps the typical methods of social history can be called on for help. Is there a way for us to gain deeper insight into the climate of opinion which prevails in such northeastern Libyan cities as Benghazi, Tobruk, and Darnah, the main population centers of the rebellion?

It turns out that there is, in the form of a December 2007 West Point study examining the background of foreign guerrilla fighters — jihadis or mujahedin, including suicide bombers — crossing the Syrian border into Iraq during the 2006-2007 timeframe, under the auspices of the international terrorist organization Qaeda. This study is based on a mass of about 600 Al Qaeda personnel files which were captured by US forces in the fall of 2007, and analyzed at West Point using a methodology which we will discuss after having presented the main findings. The resulting study1 permits us to make important findings about the mentality and belief structures of the northeastern Libyan population that is furnishing the basis for the rebellion, permitting important conclusions about the political nature of the anti-Qaddafi revolt in these areas....

...The West Point study also offers another, more sinister perspective. Felter and Fishman hint that it might be possible to use the former LIFG components of Al Qaeda against the government of Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, in essence creating a de facto alliance between the United States and a segment of the terrorist organization. The West Point report notes: “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s unification with al-Qa’ida and its apparent decision to prioritize providing logistical support to the Islamic State of Iraq is likely controversial within the organization. It is likely that some LIFG factions still want to prioritize the fight against the Libyan regime, rather than the fight in Iraq. It may be possible to exacerbate schisms within LIFG, and between LIFG’s leaders and al-Qa’ida’s traditional Egyptian and Saudi power-base.”13 This suggests the US policy we see today, that of allying with the obscurantist and reactionary al Qaeda fanatics in Libya against the Nasserist modernizer Qaddafi....


Edited by Application, 26 September 2012 - 06:51 AM.


#17 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 26 September 2012 - 08:11 AM

The banking, currency and oil motivations for this war are real. Oil trades in dollars because of multinational treaties in the 1970s leading to creation of the petrodollar, not lack of exchange capability for other currencies. This article citing sources goes into the currency and banking issues key to understanding this rawly neo-colonial war. Another 'humanitarian' war in the oil patch? Come on people.....


...According to a Russian article titled "Bombing of Lybia - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar," Qaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Qaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. … The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Qaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.


And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:



One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.17
Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS [Bank of International Settlements], the IMF and their rules.18


Gaddafi’s recent proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa revives the notion of an Islamic gold dinar floated in 2003 by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, as well as by some Islamist movements.19 The notion, which contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them, has had trouble getting started. But today the countries stocking more and more gold rather than dollars include not just Libya and Iran, but also China, Russia, and India.20


The Stake of France in Terminating Gaddafi’s African Initiatives

The initiative for the air attacks appears to have come initially from France, with early support from Britain. If Qaddafi were to succeed in creating an African Union backed by Libya’s currency and gold reserves, France, still the predominant economic power in most of its former Central African colonies, would be the chief loser. Indeed, a report from Dennis Kucinich in America has corroborated the claim of Franco Bechis in Italy, transmitted by VoltaireNet in France, that “plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010.”21

The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi....25




this response is so absurd and delusional, i am not even going to seriously refute it point by point. if you think a 100% stated owned central bank means anything, you are a fool. all profits from the US central bank are given to US taxpayers. thats a fact. it is quasi owned by US citizens, just like the libyan bank. there is no difference. its total nonsense.

everything else in here about the cost of the war (a pittance compared to what the US wastes on other things annually) and the french euro/US dollar are a complete joke.

you basically have completely ignored a 30 year history of gaddafi's behavior w/ the US and known satellite images of a miltary convoy going to slaughter a city of rebels for some fanciful delusion. it's just complete internet conspiracy garbage.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#18 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 27 September 2012 - 05:06 AM

The banking, currency and oil motivations for this war are real. Oil trades in dollars because of multinational treaties in the 1970s leading to creation of the petrodollar, not lack of exchange capability for other currencies. This article citing sources goes into the currency and banking issues key to understanding this rawly neo-colonial war. Another 'humanitarian' war in the oil patch? Come on people.....



this response is so absurd and delusional, i am not even going to seriously refute it point by point. if you think a 100% stated owned central bank means anything, you are a fool. all profits from the US central bank are given to US taxpayers. thats a fact. it is quasi owned by US citizens, just like the libyan bank. there is no difference. its total nonsense.

everything else in here about the cost of the war (a pittance compared to what the US wastes on other things annually) and the french euro/US dollar are a complete joke.

you basically have completely ignored a 30 year history of gaddafi's behavior w/ the US and known satellite images of a miltary convoy going to slaughter a city of rebels for some fanciful delusion. it's just complete internet conspiracy garbage.


Lots of name calling and bluster, but nearly zero substantive rebuttal. Of course state owned versus private owned central banks is relavent. Who do you think is benefitting from 0% Fed overnight interest rates over the last 10 years? Is it you and I? The average American saver who now chronically gets zero percent interest on their savings account? Or is it the private banks who borrow from the fed for 0% and then loan out to the public at 3.5%- 30% interest?

Nobody is denying that Gaddafi was a dictator with a brutal record. The question is other motivations and why him instead of all the other bad guys. So far you have merely repeated US propaganda. As pointed out above, the war justifying propaganda has been shown to be false nearly 100% of the time over the last century. No reason to think the war criminal Obama is telling you the truth this time.

#19 Luminosity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 27 September 2012 - 06:19 AM

Application, you are brilliant. This is the best explanation I've seen so far of what might be going on, including in professional media. Thanks. It's still possible that this action was undertaken for humanitarian reasons as stated but we need to be skeptical and take a close look at this. Human lives are at stake. Remember the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq which had nothing to do with 911 anyway. Now over 4000 of our young people are dead and many more of theirs. And yes, OF COURSE Gaddafi was a brutal dictator as are many of our friends and allies. Check out the stuff going on in Honduras where a moderate President wanted to raise the minimum wage a little but was ousted by right wing interests. The US allied with the right wing people who ousted the rightfully elected President. That's the kind of thing we do a lot. In the Sudan or Ethiopia (?) George Clooney was begging for the US to go in and prevent a massacre when there was an election where part of the country was expected to vote to secede. This was expected to cause a violent repression. I don't recall us going in there. (?) They wouldn't have had a lot of weaponry, nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, etc.

..the White House asks the CIA to find or create local proxies that can do the fighting for us. We invariably find the most skilled fighters, the most ruthless killers . . . But the conflict often escalates and turns for the worse. Our killers turn out to be even more brutal than their killers, or maybe they're not as unified as we thought and turn against one another, or they end up targeting civilians as well as enemy fighters.

When you can't trust killers, who can you trust? Sorry, a little black humor. Trusting ruthless killers hasn't worked out that well for us. Maybe we should reconsider this behavior. That and trusting bankers and mortgage companies.

Maybe we could put them all in a bullet proof air plane hanger and let them sort each other out.

I wrote a critique of Vanity Fair in general on my blog at:

http://www.longecity...ir-is-slipping/

Edited by Luminosity, 27 September 2012 - 06:59 AM.


#20 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 27 September 2012 - 11:57 AM

Lots of name calling and bluster, but nearly zero substantive rebuttal. Of course state owned versus private owned central banks is relavent. Who do you think is benefitting from 0% Fed overnight interest rates over the last 10 years? Is it you and I? The average American saver who now chronically gets zero percent interest on their savings account? Or is it the private banks who borrow from the fed for 0% and then loan out to the public at 3.5%- 30% interest?


You literally have 0 idea what you are talking about. 0. IDK if you are some tryhard college theorycrafter, but what you suppose (an individual getting a loan from a central bank) is totally at odds with basic financial theory. If that were to happen, it would damage the value of the US currency and the credibility of US financial markets. You do not have a credit rating/credit quality or a liquidity profile anywhere near a financial institution like Citigroup. The idea of such a comparison between an institution an individual getting such a loan is nothing more than a deranged, baseless whine found in the periphery of the media. It is not a legitimate concern in any area of the financial world.

And the central bank of the US is not privately owned. It is a quasi-private institution and the charter of the institution requires all profits go to US taxpayers and the Treasury of the US. They turn a profit every year and it goes to US taxpayers. Period.

Next you're gonna tell me some more ron paul crap that they need to be audited or that jews are masterminds of all money in the world. And BTW, if you had asset collateral like Citigroup, you would probably be getting a loan for 0.25% like the rest of the major banks in the US. I know this, because I've had it arranged for clients before and the major banks make nothing on it. They are literally passing cash through the system and make their money off providing other services to clients, not in asset backed transactions with US Gov't debt. It's like 0$ monthly fee, free checking accounts. They make their $ on the relationship over time, not on charging for checking accounts.

You would know this if you understood how banking worked at a basic level, rather than just believing some conspiracy that central banks are screwing someone.

If you want to know what the real problem is, feel free to look at the US budget and our absurd deficit.

Nobody is denying that Gaddafi was a dictator with a brutal record. The question is other motivations and why him instead of all the other bad guys. So far you have merely repeated US propaganda. As pointed out above, the war justifying propaganda has been shown to be false nearly 100% of the time over the last century. No reason to think the war criminal Obama is telling you the truth this time.


All you are doing is perpetuating conspiracies and completely ignoring facts. You completely ignore evidence like the Arab League vote, the lack of allies Gaddafi had, and the lack of any major exchange that is going to settle oil trades in non-US dollar currency. You totally dream up this nonsense about rejecting the US dollar. Libya accounts for 2% of global oil output and had very little sway in global markets. How are they going to force a major oil exchange to settle in another currency? Where is this evidence you have? If anyone could do it, it would be China. Are we going to try to overthrow them too? Is this part of the master conspiracy plan for global domination by Ben Bernanke and Obama?

I hate Obama. I think he's terrible for the country and its economic future. But I don't ignore the facts, reality, and dream up a conspiracy so that I can further some delusion in my own mind.

And those are the facts. Nothing what you have put forth is anything more than delusions...

Edited by prophets, 27 September 2012 - 12:01 PM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#21 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 28 September 2012 - 07:50 AM

Lots of name calling and bluster, but nearly zero substantive rebuttal. Of course state owned versus private owned central banks is relavent. Who do you think is benefitting from 0% Fed overnight interest rates over the last 10 years? Is it you and I? The average American saver who now chronically gets zero percent interest on their savings account? Or is it the private banks who borrow from the fed for 0% and then loan out to the public at 3.5%- 30% interest?


You literally have 0 idea what you are talking about. 0. IDK if you are some tryhard college theorycrafter, but what you suppose (an individual getting a loan from a central bank) is totally at odds with basic financial theory. If that were to happen, it would damage the value of the US currency and the credibility of US financial markets. You do not have a credit rating/credit quality or a liquidity profile anywhere near a financial institution like Citigroup. The idea of such a comparison between an institution an individual getting such a loan is nothing more than a deranged, baseless whine found in the periphery of the media. It is not a legitimate concern in any area of the financial world.

And the central bank of the US is not privately owned. It is a quasi-private institution and the charter of the institution requires all profits go to US taxpayers and the Treasury of the US. They turn a profit every year and it goes to US taxpayers. Period.

Next you're gonna tell me some more ron paul crap that they need to be audited or that jews are masterminds of all money in the world. And BTW, if you had asset collateral like Citigroup, you would probably be getting a loan for 0.25% like the rest of the major banks in the US. I know this, because I've had it arranged for clients before and the major banks make nothing on it. They are literally passing cash through the system and make their money off providing other services to clients, not in asset backed transactions with US Gov't debt. It's like 0$ monthly fee, free checking accounts. They make their $ on the relationship over time, not on charging for checking accounts.

You would know this if you understood how banking worked at a basic level, rather than just believing some conspiracy that central banks are screwing someone.

If you want to know what the real problem is, feel free to look at the US budget and our absurd deficit.


Wow raging finance dude. Lots more name calling and quoting of American propaganda and exceptionalism.

First you are arguing against a strawman. I didn't say the public gets loans from the fed. That is the point. Its run by bankers, for bankers and the investor class. Yes, your right in that anyone with collateral like Citicorp can get loans from non-fed banks at near zero interest. So? The rest of us pay up for loans from non-fed banks, and the banks clean up. The issue is not where the profits the Fed makes go, but who the Fed's policies are benefitting. Cheap money helps banks want to lend by increasing the profit potential, no? Of course this not a concern in the financial industry. Why would it be? Cheap money and endless Fed stimulus only help their profits.

Nobody is denying that Gaddafi was a dictator with a brutal record. The question is other motivations and why him instead of all the other bad guys. So far you have merely repeated US propaganda. As pointed out above, the war justifying propaganda has been shown to be false nearly 100% of the time over the last century. No reason to think the war criminal Obama is telling you the truth this time.


All you are doing is perpetuating conspiracies and completely ignoring facts. You completely ignore evidence like the Arab League vote, the lack of allies Gaddafi had, and the lack of any major exchange that is going to settle oil trades in non-US dollar currency. You totally dream up this nonsense about rejecting the US dollar. Libya accounts for 2% of global oil output and had very little sway in global markets. How are they going to force a major oil exchange to settle in another currency? Where is this evidence you have? If anyone could do it, it would be China. Are we going to try to overthrow them too? Is this part of the master conspiracy plan for global domination by Ben Bernanke and Obama?

I hate Obama. I think he's terrible for the country and its economic future. But I don't ignore the facts, reality, and dream up a conspiracy so that I can further some delusion in my own mind.

And those are the facts. Nothing what you have put forth is anything more than delusions...


The Arab League vote and lack of allies constitutes evidence? Of what? A threat to the US meriting a war?

Delusions about rejecting the dollar? Lets see, China already trades oil in yauns and euros and supposedly Russia will be joining with them. Iran already doens't trade oil in US dollars since 2007 (thanks to US sanctions), instead trading it in gold and opening their own exchange to settle non-dollar currencies including euros, yens, yuans, and rupees. US has been throwing tantrums and sanctioning nations that participate despite our dollar exchange dominance.
  • dislike x 1

#22 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 28 September 2012 - 11:17 AM

Wow raging finance dude. Lots more name calling and quoting of American propaganda and exceptionalism.

First you are arguing against a strawman. I didn't say the public gets loans from the fed. That is the point. Its run by bankers, for bankers and the investor class. Yes, your right in that anyone with collateral like Citicorp can get loans from non-fed banks at near zero interest. So? The rest of us pay up for loans from non-fed banks, and the banks clean up. The issue is not where the profits the Fed makes go, but who the Fed's policies are benefitting. Cheap money helps banks want to lend by increasing the profit potential, no? Of course this not a concern in the financial industry. Why would it be? Cheap money and endless Fed stimulus only help their profits.


LOL. who do you think the capital should go to? Do they not earn their economic rent? You are basically positing that that country should be a socialist state and money should fall.

And the Fed doesn't necessarily benefit the investor class. The charter dictates that they balance inflation and growth. If it was only inflation, that would be for the investor class. But look at the policies the last 4 years. If anything it's going to benefit poor people long-term, because the policies are pro-inflationary.

You are basically making an argument in favor of socialism. That every person regardless of their risk profile deserves the same amount of capital or resources.


The Arab League vote and lack of allies constitutes evidence? Of what? A threat to the US meriting a war?


That he is killing his citizens and the international community condemns it. It's amazing how you just completely gloss over the thousands of people that were being killed and statements coming out of the Arab League saying that a no fly zone had to be implemented for "humanitarian reasons". I guess in your warped mind this is all part of a conspiracy of the investor class and organized war criminals.


Delusions about rejecting the dollar? Lets see, China already trades oil in yauns and euros and supposedly Russia will be joining with them. Iran already doens't trade oil in US dollars since 2007 (thanks to US sanctions), instead trading it in gold and opening their own exchange to settle non-dollar currencies including euros, yens, yuans, and rupees. US has been throwing tantrums and sanctioning nations that participate despite our dollar exchange dominance.


The US produces 3x more oil per day than Libya. Libya is barely 2% of global of the international oil trade. Let them trade in euros. Who cares. They have zero effect on the global trade policy of oil. The idea that the US would throw out Gaddafi over their desire to reject the US dollar is just purely ridiculous.


Must be a pretty interesting life leading the Che-Guevara-goes-hippy political thought movement. You should write a book LOL !
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#23 Luminosity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 29 September 2012 - 03:22 AM

RESPONSE TO PROPHETS:

INVECTIVE AND BELITTLING YOUR OPPONENT DOES NOT MAKE YOUR CASE. YOU HAVE FAILED TO MAKE A CASE FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS. I AM RESPONDING TO SOME OF YOUR SPECIFIC POINTS. MY ARGUMENTS ARE IN UPPER CASE LETTERS. SENTENCES IN UPPER AND LOWER CASE LETTERS ARE PROPHETS'.

LOL. who do you think the capital should go to? Do they [the banks and the fed?] not earn their economic rent?

NO, NEITHER THE BANKS NOR THE FED ARE EARNING THEIR KEEP

You are basically positing that that country should be a socialist state and money should fall.

BLATANTLY UNTRUE

And the Fed doesn't necessarily benefit the investor class. . . . If anything it's going to benefit poor people long-term, because the policies are pro-inflationary.

HELLO?

INFLATION CLEARLY STEALS FROM THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS. THE RICH HAVE ASSETS THAT RISE WITH INFLATION. THE FED'S POLICIES INFLATED THE HOUSING MARKET THROUGHOUT THE LAST TWO DECADES. THIS BENEFITED THOSE WHO COULD AFFORD TO OWN HOMES WHILE MAKING HOUSING UNAFFORDABLE TO MANY RENTERS. THE BANKS AND MORTGAGE BROKERS WERE ALONG FOR THE RIDE. FILLING THEIR MONEY BAGS. THE FED'S GOAL AT ANY GIVEN TIME WAS TO KEEP THE HOUSING BUBBLE FROM BURSTING UNTIL WHATEVER GUY WHO WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE LEFT OFFICE. THEY KNEW IT BURST EVENTUALLY, LEAVING A BIG MESS THAT WOULD TAKE A MORE SERIOUS TOLL ON THE WORKING CLASS PERSON (AS EVERYTHING SEEMS TO). A WELL-OFF PERSON JUST DOWNGRADES TO A SMALLER PLACE. WHERE DOES THE PERSON WITH THE SMALL PLACE DOWNGRADE TO?

You are basically making an argument in favor of socialism. That every person regardless of their risk profile deserves the same amount of capital or resources.

NO SUCH ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE. STRAWMAN.

That he is killing his citizens and the international community condemns it. It's amazing how you just completely gloss over the thousands of people that were being killed . . .

BOTH APPLICATION AND I HAVE AMPLY ADDRESSED THIS POINT. YOUR CONTINUING TO ACT AS IF IT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED HURTS YOUR CREDIBILITY.

Delusions about rejecting the dollar? . . . US has been throwing tantrums and sanctioning nations that participate [In non-dollar oil exchanges] . . .

WHICH BOLSTERS OUR POINT THAT THE US DOESN'T LIKE COUNTRIES TO TRADE OIL UNLESS IT IS IN DOLLARS. WE COULD BECOME ECONOMICALLY IRRELEVANT IF TOO MANY THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPEN. WE LOST OF LOT OF PURCHASING POWER, WE DON'T MAKE ANYTHING ANYMORE, WE'RE CREATING A LOT OF INFLATION, OUR DEBT TO GDP RATIO IS ABSURD, OUR CREDIT RATING IS DOWNGRADED. WE HAVE NO FUTURE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND GREECE IS THE PASSAGE OF TIME AND A LOT OF WEAPONRY. WE HAD SOME POWER FROM HAVING A WORLD CURRENCY BUT IT IS SLIPPING AWAY. THE PEOPLE WHO RUN AMERICA WANT TO PERPETUATE THE ILLUSION THAT THINGS ARE O.K. BY KEEPING THE HOUSE OF CARDS UP UNTIL THEY HAVE LOOTED THEIR WAY OUT THE DOOR, LEAVING A MESS FOR US TO CLEAN UP. IF THEY CAN DISCOURAGE MORE DOLLAR DEFECTORS, THEY PROBABLY WOULD. I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THEY WOULD GO BUT THE MOTIVE IS CERTAINLY THERE.

The US produces 3x more oil per day than Libya. Libya is barely 2% of global of the international oil trade. Let them trade in euros. Who cares.

WASN'T GADDAFI TRYING TO INVOLVE OTHER COUNTRIES HIS PLAN? GADDAFI WAS TOTALLY NOT UNDER OUR CONTROL. HE THOUGHT FOR HIMSELF AND WAS TRYING TO MAYBE TAKE THE REST OF AFRICA WITH HIM(?) THAT COULD BE A MOTIVE.

Must be a pretty interesting life leading the Che-Guevara-goes-hippy political thought movement.

THERE'S REALLY NOTHING HIPPYISH OR SOCIALISTIC GOING ON THERE SO THAT HURTS YOUR CREDIBILITY EVEN MORE. YOU'VE SHOWN US THE LIMITS OF BLUSTER AND INVECTIVE.

IF YOU COME BACK, BRING SOME FACTS WITH YOU.

YOU GOT NOTHIN'

Edited by Luminosity, 29 September 2012 - 03:47 AM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#24 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 29 September 2012 - 04:06 AM

This is the last post I'm making in this thread. I've worked on portfolios that have combined values exceeding $3 billion USD. I have multiple masters degrees in this area. And although I really couldn't care less about "Wall Street" per se, I don't have time to sit here and argue calculus with 3rd graders who are doing multiplication tables. 90% of this thread is pure Internet conspiracy BS.

1. If the Fed and the banks are not earning their economic rent, this means there is a massive mispricing of trillions of dollars of capital in the US and the entire system could be brought down at any given time. It effectively means that the entire system's foundation is mispriced. Feel free to explain how you get there, because to assume the entire system is wrong, is a pretty bold statement.

2. The current pro inflationary policies from the fed are not pro investor class. They punish investors. They punish the rich on average, because it punishes savers. You cannot put your money in a bank today and earn squat. It is beneficial to income earners (ie. low wage earners) at the expense of savers. You are confusing a serious inflationary environment (a la Paul Volcker) where investors can actually earn ~18% on their capital due to high bond yields while the average worker is strained by rising oil/food/housing prices. You don't seem to understand the difference and most of the published work from Jackson Hole and the fed's papers point to a net benefit to job growth. It's savers who are getting punished today by ultra low rates, not the average American worker earning a paycheck. The pressure on the average american worker's paycheck is coming from low wage pressure overseas, not from inflation.

3. If you don't think a bank like Bank of America, which is at the cornerstone of the US Economy, shouldn't get a massive discount in funding costs to someone like you or me, or anyone else, than I don't know what you are arguing for. If they don't deserve the lowest cost of funding (and it's their job to borrow money at 1 rate and lend it at a higher rate, cuz that's what a bank does), then what the hell should a bank be doing? You propose no alternative other than to cry about how a bank borrows at a low rate and lends at a higher rate. Guess what? It's what banks have been doing for over 500 years. And they will be doing it another 500 years from now. So unless you are proposing everyone gets cheap money from the fed (ie. socialism), I don't know what the hell you are talking about other than to complain for the sake of complaining. And there is huge competition amongst the banks for loan opportunities, so it's not like the fed cuts rates into the ground and BofA is out there lending at a fat 8%. They have competition, they get priced down by any of the primary dealers or competitive banks. It's a competitive market for loans and capital. It functions just fine.

WHICH BOLSTERS OUR POINT THAT THE US DOESN'T LIKE COUNTRIES TO TRADE OIL UNLESS IT IS IN DOLLARS. WE COULD BECOME ECONOMICALLY IRRELEVANT IF TOO MANY THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPEN. WE LOST OF LOT OF PURCHASING POWER, WE DON'T MAKE ANYTHING ANYMORE, WE'RE CREATING A LOT OF INFLATION, OUR DEBT TO GDP RATIO IS ABSURD, OUR CREDIT RATING IS DOWNGRADED. WE HAVE NO FUTURE. WE HAD SOME POWER FROM HAVING A WORLD CURRENCY BUT IT IS SLIPPING AWAY. THE PEOPLE WHO RUN AMERICA WANT TO PERPETUATE THE ILLUSION THAT THINGS ARE O.K. BY KEEPING THE HOUSE OF CARDS UP UNTIL THEY HAVE LOOTED THEIR WAY OUT THE DOOR, LEAVING A MESS FOR THE NEXT GUY. IF THEY CAN DISCOURAGE MORE DOLLAR DEFECTORS, THEY PROBABLY WOULD. I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THEY WOULD GO BUT THE MOTIVE IS CERTAINLY THERE.



This is one of the most retarded things i've seen written on these forums in years. Do you even realize that the US Manufacturing sector is larger than China's today? Do you even understand that on a basic level? Do you actually know what you are talking about and read the GDP reports? Read the BLS data? What planet of nonsense does this crap come from? You think a country like the US that has probably the most vibrant product development/engineering talent pool, the best laws to protect the development of a company (protect investors), and the most stable gov't on the planet "HAS NO FUTURE". It's just total nonsense on an epic scale. This whole block of text is just a total nonsensical rant and drivel.

Let people trade in non-Dollars, who the hell cares? It will only help Bernanke accomplish his job faster and force Obama to balance the budget sooner.

And that "lot of inflation" we created? You mean the 0.6% CPI as of the last CPI report? (Source) What utter crap you state. It's all dreamt up nonsense between you and the other twit in this thread. The whole world is teetering right now on the brink of a recession. Europe is going down. China is really on the brink of a massive financial problem, and you think we have an inflation problem? We could see a massive deflationary spike if the system isn't held together and that's why China is initiating a stimulus. If inflation is so bad, why are they stimulating? Why is Bernanke stimulating? What drugs do you smoke when you login to the Internet and read about economics?

WASN'T GADDAFI TRYING TO INVOLVE OTHER COUNTRIES HIS PLAN? GADDAFI WAS TOTALLY NOT UNDER OUR CONTROL. HE THOUGHT FOR HIMSELF AND WAS TRYING TO MAYBE TAKE THE REST OF AFRICA WITH HIM(?) THAT COULD BE A MOTIVE.



This is literally the kind of conspiracy crap that these islamic radicals dream up when they see something they don't like in the world. The US Gov't must be behind it. Damn the US Gov't. Damn the infidels! It's so stupid..... take the rest of Africa with him. LOL. What allies did he have? Why would they even care? You think the countries where the US gave free HIV medication and saved literally millions of people -- millions of lives in Africa are going to try to "bring down the US" with some idiot like Gaddafi who is a known terrorist and has no friends on planet Earth. ... as if they even could in the first place, if they wanted to.

Go ahead and add them all up... whatever monster conspiracy you think is out to get the US.

It's just so fucking stupid, I can't be bothered to participate in this crap anymore.... enjoy your conspiracy. to be ignorant is bliss.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#25 Luminosity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 29 September 2012 - 04:22 AM

Your grasp of economics is not consistent with that of someone with a college degree. Neither is your ability to present a reasoned argument. That you don't see the inflation we have now and that to come is weird. Besides groceries and everything else, the rise of gold to $1,800 an ounce takes care of that argument. When they unregulated commodities trading it became vulnerable to manipulation by the oil companies, among others. That actually precipitated the economic collapse. Manipulated oil prices rising made all other prices go up. Elected officials should have re-regulated commodities trading but were basically bribed not to, so the upward pressure remains. Further, when they print money, as they are doing, it causes inflation. Hello? It seems unlikely that you work in the financial sector, but then again, they did crash the economy.

Edited by Luminosity, 29 September 2012 - 04:23 AM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#26 Luminosity

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 29 September 2012 - 05:18 AM

According to Wikipedia, Libya has the tenth largest proven oil reserve in the world. They report that Gaddafi was trying to create the United States of Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya


Former Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, who was the 2009 Chairperson of theAfrican Union (AU), advanced the idea of a United States of Africa at two regional African summits. . . .

. . . Gaddafi had proposed "a single African military force, a single currency and a single passport for Africans. . . . "

The proposed federation would have the largest total territory of any state, exceeding the Russian Federation. It would also be the third most populous state after China and India . . .


http://en.wikipedia....tates_of_Africa

According the the CIA fact book, Libya's proven oil reserves are the 9th largest in the world:

https://www.cia.gov/...ok/geos/ly.html

I don't know if we went if there for humanitarian reasons or not. I do think we should be able to have a discussion about it, given the history of our government. When thousands of people were being slaughtered in Rwanda, where were we?

Edited by Luminosity, 29 September 2012 - 05:42 AM.

  • like x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: gaddafi

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users