The reason why United States and NATO are after Ghaddafi in his own Country.
Options
Figo
Members Posts: 8,149 ✭✭✭✭✭
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34ncmoney, gold, currency,sharing wealth in african nations to rival both Euro and american dollars. You folks believe this??
CNN and FOX will never air this to the mass population...
Comments
-
No surprise here. The American empire doesnt fight for freedom, it fights to plunder resources all over the world. Great link, no wonder the Middle East hates us. They have every right to, and shame on the White House for making GW proud again.
Not sure who has a bigger legacy in American history now, George W or Regan. George W's policies will be continued by Democrats and Republicans for many years to come. -
Not buying that explanation at all. And Gaddafi been talking that US of Africa ? since forever.
There is no single reason for NATO incursion. -
So, NATO just haphazardly decided to intiate an aggressive campaign, when over the last two years, nearly every European leader and American President were wooing Qadaffi coming to visit him after years of sanctions? SMH. SO I guess when Qadaffi bankrolled Sarkozy election bid this was a sign that they were enemies? SMH.
Yep. That is one of the big reasons. Taking the oil off the dollar standard and putting it on a new currency would definitely seal Americas financial doom and by proxy most of Europe. Europe is barren and they are still trying to hold onto their possessions. This would set off a chain reaction that would set off the demise of Europe and the West as a global power and make it the graveyard it is destined to become. Aging population, minimal resources, and emerging developing nations in Africa and Asia, make it a wrap.
Let's remember the head of NATO has ALWAYS been an American. Also, America and Europe are dependent on the type of oil that is only found in Libya. It is a very high quality “sweet” crude with low sulfur content. Europe's refineries cannot process other types of high sulfur oil, so when Gadhafi recently suggested he could find better customers for Libyan oil in India, China, and Russia, it made Europe desperate for an immediate Libyan “uprising".
Phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual $500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country. African satellite only cost a onetime payment of $400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Gaddafi merked this madness and put up $300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added $50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further $27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on December 26, 2007.
He basically took billions from those who in the form of fees and interest from loans they would have received over the years. -
Its a hugely over the top extrapolation. A fun sort of secular conspiracy (so to speak) but not compelling as an explanation. I doubt it has to do with gold or currency to anyone in the Pentagon, or really anywhere else in the Western military establishment, and anyone who has been following this can see it is a coalition of nations as opposed to a transnational incursion, which undermines the notion that it is orchestrated as a grand panWestern scheme to maintain global dominance (mwahahahaha)... And moreover, the notion that Gaddafi, a longtime ? artist btw, could get a viable panAfrican reserve currency off the ground and use it to dedollarize the global economy is utterly preposterous.
RT is cool but they stay making me raise my eyebrow on some "wtf" ? . And lmao at that antiwar activists they interviewed as though he is expert. -
Well, the facts say otherwise.
And I don't know about being a ? artist, but I do know that in 1952 Libya was the poorest Nation on the face of the Earth and he took them to the highest standard of living on the African continent. Under his leadership, they have built man-made rivers that bring water from the Gulf almost to the border of Chad. Life expectancy is in the 70's. Every Libyan has access to a home(free).
Libyans are worth more per capita than the British. They are well educated and most who live abroad got loot.
They have almost no debt.
Here are some more facts:
• Gadhafi nationalized his nation's oil reserves and used the revenue to build schools, universities, hospitals, and infrastructure.
• Money from Libya's oil revenue is deposited into the bank account of every citizen.
• He raised the literacy rate from 20 per cent to 83 per cent.
• He built one of the finest health care systems in the “Third World.” All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines—free of charge. If a Libyan needs surgery that is unavailable in Libya, funding is provided for the surgery overseas.
• He raised the life expectancy from 44 to 75 years of age.
• Basic food items were subsidized and electricity was made available throughout the country.
• He developed huge irrigation projects in order to support a drive towards agricultural development and food self-sufficiency.
• Recognizing that water, not oil, would be the scarcest resource of the future, Gadhafi initiated the construction of the Great Man Made River, which took years to complete. Referred to as a wonder of the modern world, this river pumps millions of gallons of water daily from the heart of the Sahara desert to the coast, where the land is suitable for agriculture.
• Any Libyan who wanted to become a farmer was and still is given free use of land, a house, farm equipment, livestock and seed.
• Gadhafi vowed that his own parents, who lived in a tent in the desert, would not be housed until every Libyan was housed. He fulfilled that promise.
• Under Gadhafi, Libya has now attained the highest standard of living in Africa.
• Gadhafi put up a communications satellite—the first in Africa—to bring the continent of Africa into the 21st century of technology. This also interrupted the massive fees that European companies had been charging the Africans.
• He gave women full access to education and employment, and he has enabled women to serve in the armed forces.
• Gadhafi started and financed the African Union to tie all of the Mother continent into an eventual body with a common purpose called the “United States of Africa.”
• He was the first and only leader in the Arab world to formally apologize for the Arab role in the trade of African slaves. He acknowledged that Blacks were the true owners of Libya and proclaimed in his Green Book, “the Black race shall prevail throughout the world.”
• Nelson Mandela called Muammar Gadhafi one of the 20th century's greatest freedom fighters, and insisted that the eventual collapse of South Africa's apartheid system owed much to Gadhafi and Libyan support.
Big words and opinions are OK. But they don't trump facts. -
What fact did you just put forward that should compel me to believe that the report from RT that you enthusiastically c/sed and elaborated upon is a valid explanation for the NATO's incursion? And I oppose that incursion btw, but nothing you put forward demonstrates the conspiracy that you drew out in your previous post in the least. It is just a laundry list of things about Libya/Gaddafi.
Africa will likely see little regional currency zones form, and pegged to dollar/euro/baskets, and MAYBE in the long run something approaching a PanAfrican currency zone, but that is a huge maybe that would first require the unraveling of a very much intertwined and interconnected system of pegs and cross reserves. But regional currency zones with the potential to eventually become panAfrican will happen with or without Gaddafi, there are already regional monetary alliances on the continent that are not at all related to Libya.
That was just an aside tho, the more important point is that NATO is a coalition and invaded Libya very much as a fractured coalition (meaning it wasn't a singularly informed decision by a unified central body). -
And let me say, I do think there is a bit of neoimperialism at work here mostly by the French and to a lesser extent the Brits, so don't get me wrong, but I don't take seriously the notion that Gaddafi is any threat to Dollarization or the other tenets of the current currency regime, nor that the NATO incursion is attributable to concern over said threat.
-
I doubt that Qaddafi would manage to get Africa to adopt one currency, remember the AU? When he appointed himself leader, that didn't go too well. But it seems most African leaders support him but they would not abandon their currency. I am still not sure of why NATO went there though, because the rebels were on the verge of overthrowing him and suddenly they were blocked, honestly, I can understand why the "terrorists" are so mad, if I was in their shoes I would be doing the same thing
-
true, NATO has been ignoring the rebellion for two years until just this year when... waitSo, NATO just haphazardly decided to intiate an aggressive campaign, when over the last two years, nearly every European leader and American President were wooing Qadaffi coming to visit him after years of sanctions? SMH. SO I guess when Qadaffi bankrolled Sarkozy election bid this was a sign that they were enemies? SMH.
an American being the head of NATO can PROBABLY be attributed to what members of NATO bring serious amounts of military power to NATO's table. also, how much oil does the US import from Libya again?Let's remember the head of NATO has ALWAYS been an American. Also, America and Europe are dependent on the type of oil that is only found in Libya. -
true, NATO has been ignoring the rebellion for two years until just this year when... wait
unnnnn! Try again. CIA had been formenting rebellion longer than two years. That lawyer thing was just a pretext. Go ask Khalifa Hifter.an American being the head of NATO can PROBABLY be attributed to what members of NATO bring serious amounts of military power to NATO's table. also, how much oil does the US import from Libya again?
The issue is not how much they import(less than 1 percent), but how much they expect to gain. Surely you don't think this is about Libyan people do you? President Bush was cozying up to Qadaffi and even normalized relations so they could get at that oil.
But I'll humor you. Here is the list of companies who do bidness with Libya:
Chevron Oil
ConocoPhillips
Hess Corporation
Marathon Oil Corporation
Occidental Petroleum
Sheraton Hotels
Exxon Mobil
Dow Chemical
Halliburton
Raytheon
Shell Oil
United Gulf Construction
Valmont, and White & Case
They are there for one thing. And it ain't mangos.
With the unrest in oil producing countries, America knows it needs oil from other areas, so it was cozying up to Libya, and when Qadaffi wasn't going to be as pliant then it was a wrap.
This is mob action. Gangster takeover and divey up the spoils. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »What fact did you just put forward that should compel me to believe that the report from RT that you enthusiastically c/sed and elaborated upon is a valid explanation for the NATO's incursion?
The fact that he threatened to do business with Asia and reduce his dealing with Europe, who is very dependent on the sweet crude with low sulphur content that can not be found anywhere else. If he withdrew that Europe would come to a grinding halt.
The fact that they funded a satellite development that cost the Euros and America billions in terms of fees and telecommunication usage.
These are sufficient. Nothing else is needed.
Did I mention these were facts and not opinions? -
The fact that he threatened to do business with Asia and reduce his dealing with Europe, who is very dependent on the sweet crude with low sulphur content that can not be found anywhere else. If he withdrew that Europe would come to a grinding halt.
The fact that they funded a satellite development that cost the Euros and America billions in terms of fees and telecommunication usage.
These are sufficient. Nothing else is needed.
Did I mention these were facts and not opinions?
Excellent points Step. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Its a hugely over the top extrapolation. A fun sort of secular conspiracy (so to speak) but not compelling as an explanation. I doubt it has to do with gold or currency to anyone in the Pentagon, or really anywhere else in the Western military establishment, and anyone who has been following this can see it is a coalition of nations as opposed to a transnational incursion, which undermines the notion that it is orchestrated as a grand panWestern scheme to maintain global dominance (mwahahahaha)... And moreover, the notion that Gaddafi, a longtime ? artist btw, could get a viable panAfrican reserve currency off the ground and use it to dedollarize the global economy is utterly preposterous.
RT is cool but they stay making me raise my eyebrow on some "wtf" ? . And lmao at that antiwar activists they interviewed as though he is expert.
You're not just putting blinders on purposely, are you? The video link is true, Gaddafi really did want to trade oil using only African gold dinars. Now Gadafi is out the way, the USA and other European nations are free to do what they've been doing for centuries: exploit new lands for resources. Do some research, the facts are the facts. We didnt go into Libya to free or protect civilians, if we did, why arent we in Syria right now? The Syrian govt is actively killing protestors in the streets by the thousands, lol. America's empire lives on with European support. -
The fact that he threatened to do business with Asia and reduce his dealing with Europe, who is very dependent on the sweet crude with low sulphur content that can not be found anywhere else. If he withdrew that Europe would come to a grinding halt.
The fact that they funded a satellite development that cost the Euros and America billions in terms of fees and telecommunication usage.
These are sufficient. Nothing else is needed.
Did I mention these were facts and not opinions?
Please b. Not one thing you've presented vindicates that conspiracy. Only thing you've demonstrated is that a list of random factoids don't amount to a coherent argument/explanation.
What I'm saying about currency zones and reserves isn't my opinion, it is an accurate explanation as to how the mechanisms of international currency exchange operate. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »You're not just putting blinders on purposely, are you? The video link is true, Gaddafi really did want to trade oil using only African gold dinars. Now Gadafi is out the way, the USA and other European nations are free to do what they've been doing for centuries: exploit new lands for resources. Do some research, the facts are the facts. We didnt go into Libya to free or protect civilians, if we did, why arent we in Syria right now? The Syrian govt is actively killing protestors in the streets by the thousands, lol. America's empire lives on with European support.
Hugely over the top extrapolation to take the evidence at hand and from it derive the conspiracy in question.
I wouldn't say I have blinders on, but I see nuance in international relations and political economy where you see an overarching macro paradigm that is frankly too-simplistic to be accurate on a case by case basis, even if it does have some validity in macro terms.
And America/Europe have been doing just fine exploiting Africa during Gaddafi's reign. I'm quite sure that most NATO countries including the US would have been happy to maintain the arrangement as was in Libya, but as I've explained the French dragged us into it, in part for neoimperialist reasons and in part for other reasons. I oppose the action and think Obama got bamboozled into supporting something that has nothing to do with US national interests and not much to do with humanitarianism. Nevertheless the notion that this has anything to do with Gaddafi's PanAfricanism is to me not a bit convincing, nor is the notion that Gaddafi is even enough of a player in African politics (let alone international/global politics) to put together a PanAfrican reserve currency (the last half of that sentence is so preposterous that I feel silly even typing it out)
Syria is a whole different animal, but part of the reason that the int'l community has lost what little appetite they have for intervention is because the UNSC saw how the French played everyone on Libya and they don't want to see that happen again. But as soon as it looked like Assad was on the ropes, there was be renewed calls for action in the UNSC, remember that the Libya incursion didn't come together overnight, it took the UNSC a month to cobble the coalition together and sell everyone on a plan, and even then it was very touch and go (I remember being shocked that the resolution 1973 passed). -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Please b. Not one thing you've presented vindicates that conspiracy. Only thing you've demonstrated is that a list of random factoids don't amount to a coherent argument/explanation.
What I'm saying about currency zones and reserves isn't my opinion, it is an accurate explanation as to how the mechanisms of international currency exchange operate.
Ha Ha. Ok, random factoids. ha Ha.
Save all that pseudo intellectual ? babble, ? .
It is nothing complex. It is simple. They want want he has and they are trying to get it. The facts I presented are clear, linear and logical if you have half a brain and know the historical backdrop between Europe and Africa. This is not new. They don't do anything new. They fear a common currency among Africans because if tied to the economies with all their resources it sounds the death knell for Europe and the West as we know it.
Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Mohammed Mossadegh, and others like them were all victims of the same thing. -
Ha Ha. Ok, random factoids. ha Ha.
Save all that pseudo intellectual ? babble, ? .
It is nothing complex. It is simple. They want want he has and they are trying to get it. The facts I presented are clear, linear and logical if you have half a brain and know the historical backdrop between Europe and Africa. This is not new. They don't do anything new. They fear a common currency among Africans because if tied to the economies with all their resources it sounds the death knell for Europe and the West as we know it.
Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Mohammed Mossadegh, and others like them were all victims of the same thing.
What you've presented as evidence of the conspiracy at hand (as reported by RT in the opening post) is hardly compelling to anyone who actually has been following the incursion, nor is your explanation of macro-currency development or interregional relations an accurate one. Instead of looking at nuance you're going even more toward a macro/abstract argument that doesn't hold up to nuanced scrutiny. All this demonstrates to me that when we get into nuts and bolts of this matter you can't make a compelling argument at all so you're looking to save face by insulting me personally and attempting to recast the terms of the debate away from the narrow focus that I'm far better able to articulate n this case.
And there is nothing pseudo about my intellect when it comes to international political economy. Doesn't even matter that I have real credentials in this area and bout to get the big one, because all u gotta do is look at my IPE related posts on this forum to see that I know about this ? for reals. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »We didnt go into Libya to free or protect civilians, if we did, why arent we in Syria right now? The Syrian govt is actively killing protestors in the streets by the thousands.
Y'all really have to learn the definition of feasibility.Jonas.dini wrote: »What you've presented as evidence of the conspiracy at hand (as reported by RT in the opening post) is hardly compelling to anyone who actually has been following the incursion, nor is your explanation of macro-currency development or interregional relations an accurate one. Instead of looking at nuance you're going even more toward a macro/abstract argument that doesn't hold up to nuanced scrutiny.
And lets not forget how he casually disregards Gaddafi's promise of killing all protesters.
I do say, his facts pose a good question. Those facts make Gaddafi look like the greatest thing since sliced bread. And Step, exactly why were Libyans protesting against the status quo? -
I do say, his facts pose a good question. Those facts make Gaddafi look like the greatest thing since sliced bread. And Step, exactly why were Libyans protesting against the status quo?
Because, they were dissatisfied. What government on Earth has 100 percent acceptance from their people? Most of those protestors from Bengazi are affiliated with Al-Qaeda who feel like Qadaffi has compromised their view of what an Islamic republic should be because he dares use Socialist principles in many facets of their governance. And the CIA had been working underground in Libya to forment division. Why you think they flew, Khalil Hifter into Libya? He left the Libyan government and set up his own group financed by the CIA. He then spent twenty years living within minutes of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, he had no apparent source of income. Shortly after the 2011 “protests” began, the CIA flew him into Benghazi and told the press to start calling him the “leader” of the rebels.
The reason why the armed rebels(protestors my ass, when have you ever seen protestors with rocket launchers and machine guns?) and CIA called for NATO is because Qadaffi had the support of the Masses of the Libyan people based on his works and the armed rebels(not protestors) really were weak and they had no support outside of Bengazi. Many in the Arab world don't like Qadaffi because he calls them out on their weakness and hypocrisy and he doesn't subscribe to their rigid version of Islam. Particularly the Saudis because they want to maintain their custodialship over Islamic scholarship.
They are being used and if they are able to overthrow the government, NATO forces will place a handpicked lackey to funnel the oil to the West and Libya will start to look like Iraq. To show you how dumb these idiots are. They are holding up a flag that was under the reign of King Iddris who had Libya as the poorest nation on the face of the Earth in 1952. He was basically taking the oil of Libya and giving it to the Italians and other Europeans for Nothing but personal gain.
What Qadaffi did for the Libyan People in a span of 50 years is unprecedented in modern times.
Sidebar: You from State College I see. Do they still offer that Ice cream making class at PSU for those who want to take it? -
Jonas.dini wrote: »What you've presented as evidence of the conspiracy at hand (as reported by RT in the opening post) is hardly compelling to anyone who actually has been following the incursion, nor is your explanation of macro-currency development or interregional relations an accurate one. Instead of looking at nuance you're going even more toward a macro/abstract argument that doesn't hold up to nuanced scrutiny. All this demonstrates to me that when we get into nuts and bolts of this matter you can't make a compelling argument at all so you're looking to save face by insulting me personally and attempting to recast the terms of the debate away from the narrow focus that I'm far better able to articulate n this case.
And there is nothing pseudo about my intellect when it comes to international political economy. Doesn't even matter that I have real credentials in this area and bout to get the big one, because all u gotta do is look at my IPE related posts on this forum to see that I know about this ? for reals.
I presented facts. You presented big words, flowery language and a supposed credential that you can't manifest with real tangible results. I am not impressed with credentials. You want to impress me improve the economic condition of a country like Qadaffi did taking them from the poorest on Earth to the Highest standard of living on that continent.
Dudes ? me with your "credentials" on the unemployment line or working for Starbucks with PHD's.
I have run my own business going on 8 years now. ? your credentials, I hire people who can produce. LOL
You my man though.......... -
I presented facts. You presented big words, flowery language and a supposed credential that you can't manifest with real tangible results. I am not impressed with credentials. You want to impress me improve the economic condition of a country like Qadaffi did taking them from the poorest on Earth to the Highest standard of living on that continent.
Dudes ? me with your "credentials" on the unemployment line or working for Starbucks with PHD's.
I have run my own business going on 8 years now. ? your credentials, I hire people who can produce. LOL
You my man though..........
You didn't present any facts that validate the OP that you c/sed. Everything factoid you've presented in this thread has been at worst irrelevant and at best only tangentially related to the OP. In my posts I explained the manner in which NATO invaded and the process by which a panAfrican reserve currency could come to being, and in the process I emasculated your whole underdeveloped conspiratorial argument.
And you were talking ? so I told you what it is, which is that when I get to talking about this political economy ? I'm not just talking out of my ass.
But it's all good b, u aight peoples....................... -
Jonas.dini wrote: »You didn't present any facts that validate the OP that you c/sed. Everything factoid you've presented in this thread has been at worst irrelevant and at best only tangentially related to the OP. In my posts I explained the manner in which NATO invaded and the process by which a panAfrican reserve currency could come to being, and in the process I emasculated your whole underdeveloped conspiratorial argument.
And you were talking ? so I told you what it is, which is that when I get to talking about this political economy ? I'm not just talking out of my ass.
But it's all good b, u aight peoples.......................
Taking the oil elsewhere and the satellite, and placing the oil on a common currency not the dollar and a solid track record of making your word reality. Yep.. That is all you need to know. You just towed the company line because that is what they train you to do.
Emasculate deeeees..................... lololo -
Taking the oil elsewhere and the satellite, and placing the oil on a common currency not the dollar and a solid track record of making your word reality. Yep.. That is all you need to know. You just towed the company line because that is what they train you to do.
Emasculate deeeees..................... lololo
The fact that you type half a sentence and then say "that's all you need to know" just demonstrates that you have no understanding for the nuance or processes that underlie all these developments. If you knew anything about process, you'd know that there is no way Gaddafi could put together a panAfrican reserve currency to upend the global currency regime, no serious person thinks that is realistic including the Libyan government. And you don't even need understanding for process to know that Gaddafi has been talking the same tired ? for fifty years. Moreover, if you had been reading up on the war and the politics in the UN and within NATO in the runnup to it, you'd know that the NATO incursion didn't unfold in a manner that lines up with the conspiracy theory in question. Nor is that the way that powerful states and nonstate actors go about manipulating emerging currency zones.
Your simplistic understanding of the processes at hand, combined with your disposition toward too-elaborate-and-centralized-to-be-accurate conspiracy theories, has led you down this rabbithole that you now apparently feel bound too, which I can understand, but real talk it's over dogg. -
Because, they were dissatisfied. What government on Earth has 100 percent acceptance from their people? Most of those protestors from Bengazi are affiliated with Al-Qaeda who feel like Qadaffi has compromised their view of what an Islamic republic should be because he dares use Socialist principles in many facets of their governance. And the CIA had been working underground in Libya to forment division. Why you think they flew, Khalil Hifter into Libya? He left the Libyan government and set up his own group financed by the CIA. He then spent twenty years living within minutes of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, he had no apparent source of income. Shortly after the 2011 “protests” began, the CIA flew him into Benghazi and told the press to start calling him the “leader” of the rebels.
The reason why the armed rebels(protestors my ass, when have you ever seen protestors with rocket launchers and machine guns?) and CIA called for NATO is because Qadaffi had the support of the Masses of the Libyan people based on his works and the armed rebels(not protestors) really were weak and they had no support outside of Bengazi. Many in the Arab world don't like Qadaffi because he calls them out on their weakness and hypocrisy and he doesn't subscribe to their rigid version of Islam. Particularly the Saudis because they want to maintain their custodialship over Islamic scholarship.
They are being used and if they are able to overthrow the government, NATO forces will place a handpicked lackey to funnel the oil to the West and Libya will start to look like Iraq. To show you how dumb these idiots are. They are holding up a flag that was under the reign of King Iddris who had Libya as the poorest nation on the face of the Earth in 1952. He was basically taking the oil of Libya and giving it to the Italians and other Europeans for Nothing but personal gain.
What Qadaffi did for the Libyan People in a span of 50 years is unprecedented in modern times.
Sidebar: You from State College I see. Do they still offer that Ice cream making class at PSU for those who want to take it?
Damn b you're just full of conspiracy after conspiracy. It couldn't be that the people legimately did not feel as if Gaddafi was as great as you make him out to be?
And I'm pretty sure they do. I do remember seeing a separate entrance at the Creamery the couple of times I went. But I never took it. Thought you had to be an Ag major to do it. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »The fact that you type half a sentence and then say "that's all you need to know" just demonstrates that you have no understanding for the nuance or processes that underlie all these developments. If you knew anything about process, you'd know that there is no way Gaddafi could put together a panAfrican reserve currency to upend the global currency regime, no serious person thinks that is realistic including the Libyan government. And you don't even need understanding for process to know that Gaddafi has been talking the same tired ? for fifty years. Moreover, if you had been reading up on the war and the politics in the UN and within NATO in the runnup to it, you'd know that the NATO incursion didn't unfold in a manner that lines up with the conspiracy theory in question. Nor is that the way that powerful states and nonstate actors go about manipulating emerging currency zones.
Your simplistic understanding of the processes at hand, combined with your disposition toward too-elaborate-and-centralized-to-be-accurate conspiracy theories, has led you down this rabbithole that you now apparently feel bound too, which I can understand, but real talk it's over dogg.
The fact I type half a sentence is because I have facts to back up what I say, I have people all over the Earth, and I have seen first hand the workings of geopolitical ? .
I don't give a ? about what Qadaffi can do. I am talking about what is being done, now. Quit trying to sidetrack the issue.
And no Qadaffi has not been talking the same stupid stuff for fifty years. This talk started before him. Get your head out of CNN's ass and learn what really goes on. The talk started back in Kwame Nkrumah, Seko Toure, and Gamel Nassers days. Reading up on the war? Bwaaaah! Dude this has been going on since the 70's they have been plotting to get him out of there. They have been plotting to overthrow him and have tried. Do you even know that Reagan initiated an assasination attempt in 1985? That killed his daughter? Get a late pass my dude.
The politics in the UN? LOL. I got news for you doggie. Many African nations are considering pulling out of the UN. And many nations are as well because they see it for what it is. A bully pulpit for the developed nations over the weaker ones. SMH, it is sad that you claim to be credentialed and don't even know simple things. You have been trained to bark like a seal but not critically think. Sad. You know nothing about the NATO excursion except what the corporate controlled western media told you. Go research some other sources then get back to me. LOL. The Europeans know it. That is why the formed the EU. They know what is coming. America does too that is why they are scurrying all over the earth trying to gain a foothold. There is no more global currency regime. The dollar is almost done and the Euro is falling fast. The pound is next.
You believe what you read in books, while the rest of us see what is really going on in real time. You are good at spouting elaborate sentences that really amount nothing. You should be a politician.
It was over before it started.
