Interesting Video on the Libya "Crisis", Rothschilds Fam, Gold and World Banking

[wr]

It is against international interest for Africa to be united by a common currency, nationalization of resources, and their own interstate commerce. The rest of the world needs Africa to stay destabilized in order to maintain the current way of life. Conspiracy theorist were talking about 1 currency and 1 world government coming in the future and we have basically had that all these years with the us dollar. Conspiracy theories keep people from looking at present reality and have ppl focused on possible futures that have already passed.

 

[knightngale]

Originally Posted by UptownsDotNetStacky

Propaganda is alive and well

I remember watching Cnn during the 1st or 2nd week of July and every show had a segment about hackers and how terrible they are. I understand hackers can be a danger to anyone but CNN was being so biased
against them when they are just supposed to report news. The fact that it was a week long thing akin to "shark week" was just too obvious.

 

[mo matik]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Not everything is a conspiracy. There may have been economic incentives,but conditions of economic incentive exist almost everywhere in the middle east.

There was a legitimate humanitarian crisis and pretty much the entire international community responded; not just the US.

http://www.juancole.com/2...11-is-not-iraq-2003.html

A video set to requiem. Showing that there is still support for Ghaddafi with pictures of people from protests as evidence....

This shows a complete lack of understanding of who Ghaddafi is and what he was done in the past.

http://www.juancole.com/2...about-the-libya-war.html

10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. and Repsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

8. The United States led the charge to war. There is no evidence for this allegation whatsoever. When I asked Glenn Greenwald whether a US refusal to join France and Britain in a NATO united front might not have destroyed NATO, he replied that NATO would never have gone forward unless the US had plumped for the intervention in the first place. I fear that answer was less fact-based and more doctrinaire than we are accustomed to hearing from Mr. Greenwald, whose research and analysis on domestic issues is generally first-rate. As someone not a stranger to diplomatic history, and who has actually heard briefings in Europe from foreign ministries and officers of NATO members, I’m offended at the glibness of an answer given with no more substantiation than an idee fixe. The excellent McClatchy wire service reported on the reasons for which then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Pentagon, and Obama himself were extremely reluctant to become involved in yet another war in the Muslim world. It is obvious that the French and the British led the charge on this intervention, likely because they believed that a protracted struggle over years between the opposition and Qaddafi in Libya would radicalize it and give an opening to al-Qaeda and so pose various threats to Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had been politically mauled, as well, by the offer of his defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, to send French troops to assist Ben Ali in Tunisia (Alliot-Marie had been Ben Ali’s guest on fancy vacations), and may have wanted to restore traditional French cachet in the Arab world as well as to look decisive to his electorate. Whatever Western Europe’s motivations, they were the decisive ones, and the Obama administration clearly came along as a junior partner (something Sen. John McCain is complaining bitterly about)

I'm not saying there wasn't additional economic incentive; there may have been. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a legitimate humanitarian crisis that the international community responded to.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Not everything is a conspiracy. There may have been economic incentives,but conditions of economic incentive exist almost everywhere in the middle east.

There was a legitimate humanitarian crisis and pretty much the entire international community responded; not just the US.

http://www.juancole.com/2...11-is-not-iraq-2003.html

A video set to requiem. Showing that there is still support for Ghaddafi with pictures of people from protests as evidence....

This shows a complete lack of understanding of who Ghaddafi is and what he was done in the past.

http://www.juancole.com/2...about-the-libya-war.html

10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. and Repsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

8. The United States led the charge to war. There is no evidence for this allegation whatsoever. When I asked Glenn Greenwald whether a US refusal to join France and Britain in a NATO united front might not have destroyed NATO, he replied that NATO would never have gone forward unless the US had plumped for the intervention in the first place. I fear that answer was less fact-based and more doctrinaire than we are accustomed to hearing from Mr. Greenwald, whose research and analysis on domestic issues is generally first-rate. As someone not a stranger to diplomatic history, and who has actually heard briefings in Europe from foreign ministries and officers of NATO members, I’m offended at the glibness of an answer given with no more substantiation than an idee fixe. The excellent McClatchy wire service reported on the reasons for which then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the Pentagon, and Obama himself were extremely reluctant to become involved in yet another war in the Muslim world. It is obvious that the French and the British led the charge on this intervention, likely because they believed that a protracted struggle over years between the opposition and Qaddafi in Libya would radicalize it and give an opening to al-Qaeda and so pose various threats to Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had been politically mauled, as well, by the offer of his defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, to send French troops to assist Ben Ali in Tunisia (Alliot-Marie had been Ben Ali’s guest on fancy vacations), and may have wanted to restore traditional French cachet in the Arab world as well as to look decisive to his electorate. Whatever Western Europe’s motivations, they were the decisive ones, and the Obama administration clearly came along as a junior partner (something Sen. John McCain is complaining bitterly about)

I'm not saying there wasn't additional economic incentive; there may have been. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a legitimate humanitarian crisis that the international community responded to.

Do you realize how many other humanitarian crisis there are all over the world? To just ssingle out this one is a little absurd. There are millions of people being slaughtered in other countries and we go to war now over a few dozen people setting buildings and cars on fire? just doesn't add up.

 

[appono]

This voice is pissing me off. Am having a hard time understand what he's saying at times.

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by Wr

Mo Matik wrote:

I'm not saying there wasn't additional economic incentive; there may have been. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a legitimate humanitarian crisis that the international community responded to.

Do you realize how many other humanitarian crisis there are all over the world? To just ssingle out this one is a little absurd. There are millions of people being slaughtered in other countries and we go to war now over a few dozen people setting buildings and cars on fire? just doesn't add up.


You're minimizing the upheaval in Libya to "A few dozen people setting buildings on fire"?
Do you even know what's going on over there?

 at these "Youtube scholars".

I get your point though, but the thing is the US can't intervene in every single humanitarian crisis.   Would you prefer they only intervened in countries in which they had no economic interest?

Should having an economic interest in the region preclude US intervention?

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by Wr

Mo Matik wrote:I'm not saying there wasn't additional economic incentive; there may have been. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a legitimate humanitarian crisis that the international community responded to.

Do you realize how many other humanitarian crisis there are all over the world? To just ssingle out this one is a little absurd. There are millions of people being slaughtered in other countries and we go to war now over a few dozen people setting buildings and cars on fire? just doesn't add up.

You're minimizing the upheaval in Libya to "A few dozen people setting buildings on fire"?
Do you even know what's going on over there?

 at these "Youtube scholars".

I get your point though, but the thing is the US can't intervene in every single humanitarian crisis.

  Would you prefer they only intervened in countries in which they had no economic interest?

Should having an economic interest in the region preclude US intervention?

Enough with this "youtube scholar" bs. You do realize that with the facts we are discussing now about libya is no where near how the idea of going in there was sold to the u.s. public. But I take it you preferred to be lied to your face in the guise of protecting american interest.From your avy I see that your big on like war like stoicism so this stance is expected from someone like yourself. 
 
I watched the news from multiple networks and while discussing this upheaval day in and out the same stock video footage has been played time and time again. I never saw large groups of anti ghadaffi protest. they always looked sparse. Less than 100 ppl from what i saw on tv. The reports from other international news networks reported the same thing. But to you, i guess anything that's not on cnn, msnbc, bbc or fox is a "scholarly youtube" work. Grow up man. I've seen you post and u use this gambit all the time when debating. Why not debate on the points rather than try to belittle somebody with terms. You sound hurt.  We not here giving persuasive speeches dude. We are talking about information being presented. If you wanna shut stuff out from your view thats fine with me. Just don't try to make others look bad who have opposing views to you. 

Point is, we were told we were fighting a humanitarian crisis. Not waging a war between banking systems...

I simply prefer not to be lied to.

 

[whiterails]

Debate the points then.

Instead of attacking me, why don't you address the points I raised in my post? 

Namely, should having an economic interest in a county prevent us from intervening?

If there were a circumstance wherein the Ghaddafi regime was advancing on a rebel-held city (which he was) with the clear and proclaimed intention of "Exterminating the vermin as they lay in their beds"  (which there was) should we have stood down because we have an economic interest in the region?

Give me a credible source that implies that the protests were fabricated.  And no, Libyan State Media is not a credible source.

 

[mr marcus]

my motherland stays getting raped

 

[wr]

 

[whiterails]

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to do better than one guy's opinion, broadcast by a state-run media outlet. 
Especially when that state is essentially a dictatorship.

 

[wr]

I'm sorry, but you're pointless to even talk to.  Why post in this thread if ur gonna just troll and be the voice of opposition. Make your own thread and discuss what you want. This is obviously something you don't agree with so voice your opinion somewhere else and let people continue the discussion here with out you whiterailing it. We are essentially a corporate dictatorship now. does that keep you from listening CNN? You do know who Rupert Murdoch is right?

 

[patrick bateman]

Originally Posted by Wr

I'm sorry, but you're pointless to even talk to.  Why post in this thread if ur gonna just troll and be the voice of opposition. Make your own thread and discuss what you want. This is obviously something you don't agree with so voice your opinion somewhere else and let people continue the discussion here with out you whiterailing it

If it wasn't for my dog harassing me a few minutes ago,  I was going to ask why are you even wasting your time going back and forth with this dude 

 

[whiterails]

Do you even know what Russia Today is?
Are you completely oblivious to the idea of credible sources?

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Originally Posted by Wr

I'm sorry, but you're pointless to even talk to.  Why post in this thread if ur gonna just troll and be the voice of opposition. Make your own thread and discuss what you want. This is obviously something you don't agree with so voice your opinion somewhere else and let people continue the discussion here with out you whiterailing it

If it wasn't for my dog harassing me a few minutes ago,  I was going to ask why are you even wasting your time going back and forth with this dude 

Word. plenty of ppl tell me they ignore this dude and I see why lol

 

[pookieman]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Originally Posted by Wr

I'm sorry, but you're pointless to even talk to.  Why post in this thread if ur gonna just troll and be the voice of opposition. Make your own thread and discuss what you want. This is obviously something you don't agree with so voice your opinion somewhere else and let people continue the discussion here with out you whiterailing it

If it wasn't for my dog harassing me a few minutes ago,  I was going to ask why are you even wasting your time going back and forth with this dude 

Word. plenty of ppl tell me they ignore this dude and I see why lol

I'm saying....bro, there have been countless of humanitarian issues going on in the world. COUNTLESS, and now - NATO(the US), Brittain, France want to chime in?  Give me a break....if there is NO ECONOMIC advantage the WEST will not wage war(intervene)....SIMPLE.

 

[quik1987]

Why Libyia and not North Korea?

 

[pookieman]

Originally Posted by quik1987

Why Libyia and not North Korea?

Yep...and we all know why...that and what is there to gain from N.Korea anyhow?

 

[scotthallwithapick]

That 2nd video posted was crazy

 

[mo matik]

We can't say "humanitarian crisis" and assume things are the same all over. Geography, neighboring countries, possibility of success, casualties, etc. All these things play a role.

Examine the evidence, not opinion. The truth is, a lot of oil companies have lost profits over the the current conflict. So you have to explain that. You also have to explain how it was the entire international community and not just the US.

As for the video Wr posted, I agree with whiterails, this guy is giving his opinion. He says that Ghaddafi will become a martyr? People hate Ghaddafi. He has a long history of anti-democratic policy. He's been perceived as a global pariah for a long time now. When asked if oil plays a role, he brings up various vague economic possibilities. Possibilities which would pretty much exist all over the middle east. Again, we have to examine the facts. It's a great thing that the international community responded when they did.

http://www.juancole.com/2...n+%28Informed+Comment%29

This article covers the facts better than I can explain. Juan Cole has been following the conflict since the beginning.

And let's stop trying to learn about issues of international politics and conflict through short 5 to 10 minute videos. A 10 minute video will never be able to give you a complete and full picture of what is going on. Never. If you want to learn about the world you have to spend time reading sourced scholarship.

 

[jdb1523]

So from my understanding Qaddafi wanted to create a new currency actually made of gold, which would then be the official currency used to purchase oil, is this correct? Is this at least what the video is stating?

That sounds great for online conspiracy videos but, who has the world's most gold? The West (the EU followed by the US). "Abandoning" the world's reserve currency to try and cripple the US would simply make them the second wealthiest purchaser of oil. The world invests in the USD as a safe haven because of our political stability, not for major capital gains (and if you think I've lost it, just look at how people flocked to US Treasury bonds AFTER we were downgraded by the S&P).

These are complete BS videos in regards to their inference of the changing of reserve currencies. The West surely had a hand in these transitions of governments, but to think we actually went to Iraq to prepare for Libya, and also to defend our world currency reserve status, is ludicrous.

 

[tkthafm]

Hilarious hearing the lies coming out of the mouths of the snakes all over the media. The irony of a power structure devoted to propping up these dictators all over the Middle East for decades now (and sill today... anyone remember Bahrain, or does that country not matter anymore ?) now touting humanitarian values is too much.

It's not about stealing the gold or oil or world banking directly. It's about gaining a foothold in a strategic location (next to Egypt, AQM); gaining a trade foothold (and stifling China/Russia/Iran) and obviously further surrounding Iran. I hate Gaddafi, but it's sad to see the various lies told about the country being so quickly drank up by the public without question. No mention of all the benefits Libyan citizens enjoyed (free education, free health care, very high literacy rate, highest human development index in Africa, subsidized housing); just propaganda about genocide and lack of democratic rights (hint: Israel; slaughtering Gazan babies with airstrikes paid for in part by our tax dollars as we speak - no NATO action ?).

No mention of the various atrocities committed by the rebels (slaughtering black Libyans). No mention on how Gaddafi was one of the West's favorite arms buyers.

Inevitably, just given Libya's low population density, location, and the already existing extremist elements; Libya will become another nice hangout spot for al-Qaeda. It will not stifle China/Russia as NATO hoped, and the Libyan citizens (the few of those who actually welcomed NATO action) will soon learn the painful lesson that comes from making a deal with a devil.

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by pookieman

Originally Posted by quik1987

Why Libyia and not North Korea?

Yep...and we all know why...that and what is there to gain from N.Korea anyhow?

Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty

Remember we're only attacking the weakest targets frst helping oppressed peoples gain their freedom. 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by JDB1523

So from my understanding Qaddafi wanted to create a new currency actually made of gold, which would then be the official currency used to purchase oil, is this correct? Is this at least what the video is stating?

That sounds great for online conspiracy videos but, who has the world's most gold? The West (the EU followed by the US). "Abandoning" the world's reserve currency to try and cripple the US would simply make them the second wealthiest purchaser of oil. The world invests in the USD as a safe haven because of our political stability, not for major capital gains (and if you think I've lost it, just look at how people flocked to US Treasury bonds AFTER we were downgraded by the S&P).

These are complete BS videos in regards to their inference of the changing of reserve currencies. The West surely had a hand in these transitions of governments, but to think we actually went to Iraq to prepare for Libya, and also to defend our world currency reserve status, is ludicrous.

The US fights daily to protect consumer confidence in the dollar. 
The world invests in the USD because they have to in order to participate in the global economy.

Gadaffi wasn't trying to create gold currency to buy oil. That was the normal way of business of the world until not too long ago. The USD as reserve currency is a fairly recent thing even though it may not seem that way. 

These people are waging war to protect their way of life. 

 

[AZwildcats]

Russia Today has had a reputation as being an extremely anti-USA and not 100% factual. While I am also intrigued by the gold dinar theory, take the opinions and "facts" in the video with a grain of salt