Qaddafi Ouster Revenge for Threatening USD and Euro Hegemony in Oil Market
Now that the Libyan “rebels” have taken Tripoli, and
Gaddafi’s days are quickly ending, it’s time to take stock about the
meaning behind the war, and why we’re really there.
A War For Oil and Gold?
Initially, many say
Libyan war is really about .oil. If Libya didn’t have large oil
reserves, we wouldn’t be there.
And the Independent … noted
in April that one of the main movers and shakers for the Iraq oil
shenanigans has been mucking around in Libya as well:
59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that
cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she
severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya’s National Economic
Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters
In 2009, Gaddafi proposed
nationalizing Libya’s oil reserve. As Reuters reported
at the time:
Hundreds of thousands of Libyans gathered on
Wednesday to discuss the proposal by their leader Muammar Gaddafi to
disband the government and allow the country’s oil wealth to flow
straight to the people.
“Libyans, this is your historic
opportunity to take over your oil wealth, power and full freedom. Why
do you want to let the chance slip away from you?”
of a country’s resources is often a cause for invasion. For example,
Guatemala’s nationalization of it’s fruit processing facilities led to a
(Incidentally, prior to the invasion, Libya had the highest
level of well-being, the best economic policies for the quality of
life, the lowest infant mortality and the highest life expectancy of any
country in Africa, according to the UN’s Human
Libya also has 143.8
tons of gold … and some speculate that is the real reason for the invasion.
Of course, most Americans strongly
opposed invasion of Libya or other Arab countries – but that is
only because they didn’t see the value of spilling our sons’ and
daughters’ blood to secure oil and gold.
And the Arab states themselves were
not motivated to take down Gaddafi, leading to accusations that
this is Western colonialism and imperialism. (And some of the other
Arab states have large oil reserves as well, and so aren’t as keen to
obtain Libya’s stash).
We are certainly not “liberating” Libya for democracy or even
to stop violence. As I noted
War Planned Right After 9/11 … Or Before
Toppling Gaddafi was planned right after 9/11, or perhaps
reporter Gareth Porter reported
Three weeks after the September 11, 2001,
terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld
established an official military objective of not only removing the
Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as
well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East,
according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of
defense for policy Douglas Feith’s recently published account of the
Iraq war decisions. Feith’s account further indicates that this
aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military
force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the
country’s top military leaders.
Feith’s book, War and
Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of
the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30,
2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down
Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing
“new regimes” in a series of states…
General Wesley Clark, who commanded the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war,
recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a
friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that
Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to
take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria,
Libya, Sudan and Somalia [and Lebanon].
When this writer asked Feith . . . which
of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld
paper, he replied, “All of them.”
The Defense Department guidance document
made it clear that US military aims in regard to those states would
go well beyond any ties to terrorism. The document said the Defense
Department would also seek to isolate and weaken those states and to
“disrupt, damage or destroy” their military capacities – not
necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction (WMD)…
Rumsfeld’s paper was given to the White
House only two weeks after Bush had approved a US military operation
in Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the Taliban regime.
Despite that decision, Rumsfeld’s proposal called explicitly for
postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of ground forces in
support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to try to
catch bin Laden.
Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that
the US should target states that had supported anti-Israel forces such
as Hezbollah and Hamas.
A senior officer on the
Joint Staff told State Department
counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes
characterized more than once by colleagues as a “small price to pay
for being a superpower”.
General Clark added
some details in 2007:
I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11.
About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw
Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs
just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to
work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir,
you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re
too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re
going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September.
So I came back to see him a few
weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said,
“Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse
than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper.
And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the
Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo
that describes how we’re going to take
out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
Obama is simply carrying out the Neocons’ war plans created right after
9/11 … if
Challenging The Supremacy of the Dollar
and Western Banks
Ellen Brown argues
in the Asia Times that there were even deeper reasons for the war than
gold, oil or middle eastern regime change.
Brown argues that Libya – like Iraq under Hussein –
challenged the supremacy of the dollar and the Western banks:
the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five
years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of
banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56
member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That
evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central
bankers’ central bank in Switzerland.
The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that
have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on
Examiner.com, noted that “[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to
take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept
euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global
dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as
According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Libya – Punishment
for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar”, Gaddafi 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. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African
continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.
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
the Federal Reserve provided billions
in loans to Gaddafi not too long ago.
But in this 1984 world, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
Postscript: I have no love for
Gaddafi, just like I hated Saddam Hussein, who was a ruthless dictator.
I am simply pointing out that the stated reasons for the Libyan war –
just like the Iraq war – were false.
- Loading ...