Libyan War is first act of One World Government

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Libyan War is first act of One World Government

The Judge and Ron Paul talk of the illegal war and how Obama has entered this war, based on a United Nation's vote, rather than a Congressional blessing as outlined in the US Constitution.

WiredUp's picture
WiredUp
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 12 2011
Posts: 4
I wouldn't be surprised if

I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Obama allowed himself to be led around by the UN instead of putting American interests first. I have no love for Qaddafi, though.

ewilkerson's picture
ewilkerson
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 18 2010
Posts: 390
THE THING I LIKE MOST ABOUT

THE THING I LIKE MOST ABOUT CHRIS IS THAT HE KEEPS POLITICAL VIEWS OUT OF HIS WRITINGS.  WE'RE ON A SINKING SHIP.  WHAT DOES IT MATTER ABOUT MOSTLY ANYTHING BESIDES PEAK OIL AND OUR GREAT DEBT.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Not in my lifetime...

I do not believe there will be a one world government any time soon - not in my lifetime - not for a long time, if ever.  It would require massive changes that the human race is just not up for.  The UN is a joke.  It is corrupt and full of idiots.  It certainly will not be the focus of a one world government.  My advice would be to not stay up nights fretting over one world government.  There are lots of other things going on to fret over.  One would government is not one of them.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
oh no?
dshields wrote:

I do not believe there will be a one world government any time soon - not in my lifetime - not for a long time, if ever.  It would require massive changes that the human race is just not up for.  The UN is a joke.  It is corrupt and full of idiots.  It certainly will not be the focus of a one world government.  My advice would be to not stay up nights fretting over one world government.  There are lots of other things going on to fret over.  One would government is not one of them.

dshields,

I usually find myself in agreement with you but not this time.  Put yourself back in 1998.  Look at the world around you then.  Now fast forward to 2011.  Did you ever dream you'd see the things you're seeing and hear the things you're hearing?

It's already happening.  If I go any farther, this will wind up in the basement. 

 

land2341's picture
land2341
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2009
Posts: 402
What a crock of hooey. What

What a crock of hooey.

What is going on all around the planet is the general public of many many coutrnies showing that they will not stand for a one world government.  Look, I am a believer in the oligarchic power elite that is destroying the economies of the world fairly systematically.  That does not mean that either they are getting or ever will get a one world government.  They may try,  but they won't.  And this,  this is just one more example of some on straddling a fence so long his  ****s  fall off. 

If Bush had done this Fox would have been all gushing about how wonderful and decisive he was.  At this point no matter what Obama does right or wrong Fox will make it wrong, no matter what Bush did right or wrong they made it all right.

The ship is going down friends,  who cares who is pretending to be at the helm.  The engine room is flooded and the captains order's go no where.

Benjamin Barber was right we won't have one world government we will have anarchic tribalism. 

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
I think every thing is

I think every thing is moving along quite nicely and according to plan. Remember the IMF has ramped-up its lending facility (Link). The TPTB are bankrupting the US.  Russia and China have been calling for a new world currency, and when the bankers suck the last remaining $.99 out of the US Treasury, the USD will collapse and have to be replaced by the new global debt-slave fiat currency. Perfect!

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Inevitability of complex system failure.....
John99 wrote:

I think every thing is moving along quite nicely and according to plan. Remember the IMF has ramped-up its lending facility (Link). The TPTB are bankrupting the US.  Russia and China have been calling for a new world currency, and when the bankers suck the last remaining $.99 out of the US Treasury, the USD will collapse and have to be replaced by the new global debt-slave fiat currency. Perfect!

John -

What is in "The Plan" that makes the PTB immune to Peak Oil and 6.9 billion pissed off "debt slaves"?

I don't believe there is a "plan".  I believe that a debt based monetary system and central banking creates a system that fosters greed and corruption and power seeking - for awhile.  It also creates a system that is so complex that it will inevitably collapse under it's own weight - as all complex systems must do.

Got Community?

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1208
Re: Inevitability of complex system failure.....
Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:

John -

What is in "The Plan" that makes the PTB immune to Peak Oil and 6.9 billion pissed off "debt slaves"?

I don't believe there is a "plan".  I believe that a debt based monetary system and central banking creates a system that fosters greed and corruption and power seeking - for awhile.  It also creates a system that is so complex that it will inevitably collapse under it's own weight - as all complex systems must do.

+1

While I think there are agencies and individuals interested in and trying to lay the groundwork for a global government, I just don't see how they could sustain such a large complex system with dwindling energy access.  The only way I can see it happening is if the majority of the world population, say 95-99%, has their standard of living forced down to extremely low levels, where even circa-2010 Third World average standards of living look more favorable.  AND under the condition that the people taking that standard of living hit mostly do so peacefully and quietly.  Seems about as likely as finding the Pope doing bong hits with Marilyn Manson...

- Nickbert

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
ao
ao wrote:
dshields wrote:

I do not believe there will be a one world government any time soon - not in my lifetime - not for a long time, if ever.  It would require massive changes that the human race is just not up for.  The UN is a joke.  It is corrupt and full of idiots.  It certainly will not be the focus of a one world government.  My advice would be to not stay up nights fretting over one world government.  There are lots of other things going on to fret over.  One would government is not one of them.

dshields,

I usually find myself in agreement with you but not this time.  Put yourself back in 1998.  Look at the world around you then.  Now fast forward to 2011.  Did you ever dream you'd see the things you're seeing and hear the things you're hearing?

It's already happening.  If I go any farther, this will wind up in the basement. 

 

I hear you.  We are in a heap of trouble.  Two of the three E's are coming together - Economy and Energy.  It looks pretty bad.  The more you look at it the worse it looks.  Debt in all its various forms is sinking the economy.  Energy just keeps going up.  It is a nasty brew.  And, I try to be optimistic but lately it is becoming difficult.  When you really take a good hard look at the numbers it is pretty bad.  I do not see how the fed, state, and local governments are going to be able to sort this out without some pretty major upheaval.  I am starting to become a doomsday guy.  Yep, I said it.  A doomsday guy.  After the 2010 election I had great hopes that the politicians might act and try to take a serious shot at cutting spending.  They could not do it.  It is a long way to the 2012 election and I fear a lot of crazy stuff may go down between now and then.  If we could get gov spending in line with revenue we would be in a whole lot better shape.  I do not think we have the political will do to it.

That said, I do not see how that leads to a one world government.  All that means is that we are stupid and greedy and elected the wrong politicians for a long time.  Now we are going to pay the price.  I do not see part of that price as being a one world government.  I know there is a lot of talk about that and I am sure there are people that believe that it would be a good thing to have a one world government.  It is just not going to happen any time soon.  For one thing, half the world hates the other half so bad they actually want to kill them.  Vastly different cultures, laws, human treatment, standards of living, fundamental belief systems and value systems that differ tremendously, you name it.  One day there may be a one world government but it is not going to happen any time soon.  Quite simply, we could not handle it.

 

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
it may not be what you think it is

Folks,

One world government does not mean a world of one single unified nation.  It means a government controlling the entire world.  It doesn't necessarily mean a legitimate, duly elected, overt, and visible government where everyone gets along.  It means a controlling element functioning as a behind-the-scenes shadow government that nevertheless dominates all and that takes all the disparate political parties and orientations, religions, ethnicities, cultures, regions, and nations and despite their differences, has them essentially all moving in lockstep because they all have to pay obesiance to the banking system.

We've all heard the famous Mayer Rothschild quote, "Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws."  Think about it.  Isn't it obvious that the same concept is being applied globally?

Look at things like the IMF and BIS.  Look at the move towards the Fed increasing its power rather than having it taken away and the Fed leading the other central banks.  Look at the move towards SDRs or some other global monetary equivalent.  Look at the shifting towards joint United Nations and "coalition" military actions and the superceding of sovereign military decison making and control.  Look at the consolidation of the number of media organizations into a very few and also those few organizations getting all their news from AP and Reuters and who controls those organizations.  Look at the dominance of multi-national corporations and their financial influence upon governments.  It just goes on and on and on.  One world government, one world currency, one word media control, one world security forces, etc. ... it's all coming to pass, bit by bit, in fits and starts, advancing here, retreating there only to advance someplace else, probing, testing, seeking weakness, exploiting it, working around resistance and strength, and inevitably infesting, infiltrating, growing, and spreading.

"Little by little, more and more is being controlled by fewer and fewer".  If you don't see the pattern, I don't know what else I can say.  

 

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Hey ao +1 I especially

Hey ao +1

I especially liked,

One world government does not mean a world of one single unified nation.  It means a government controlling the entire world.  It doesn't necessarily mean a legitimate, duly elected, overt, and visible government where everyone gets along.  It means a controlling element functioning as a behind-the-scenes shadow government that nevertheless dominates all and that takes all the disparate political parties and orientations, religions, ethnicities, cultures, regions, and nations and despite their differences, has them essentially all moving in lockstep because they all have to pay obesiance to the banking system.

Just like they have in the EU now - the people do not get to vote for the leaders. The shadow leaders tell each country what their yearly debts and charges are, and the local country government can collect the taxes and remit the payments -  perfect. (as long as the people don't mind being eternal debt slaves).

in fact it is happening as we speak. George Soro has organized 220 of his closest, yes men, to have a resurected Bretton Woods conference to hammer out a new global currency.

Unreported Soros Event Aims to Remake Entire Global Economy
Left-wing billionaire's own experts dominate quiet push for 'a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.'
  • By Dan Gainor
  • Wednesday, March 23, 2011 4:48 PM EDT

Two years ago, George Soros said he wanted to reorganize the entire global economic system. In two short weeks, he is going to start - and no one seems to have noticed.

On April 8, a group he's funded with $50 million is holding a major economic conference and Soros's goal for such an event is to "establish new international rules" and "reform the currency system." It's all according to a plan laid out in a Nov. 4, 2009, Soros op-ed calling for "a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order."

 

 

The event is bringing together "more than 200 academic, business and government policy thought leaders' to repeat the famed 1944 Bretton Woods gathering that helped create the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Soros wants a new 'multilateral system," or an economic system where America isn't so dominant.

http://www.mrc.org/bmi/commentary/2011/Unreported_Soros_Event_Aims_to_Remake_Entire_Global_Economy.html

 

and then there is this report, (check out the speakers list):

Bretton Woods Conference

ShareThis

CRISIS and RENEWAL: International Political Economy at the Crossroads, April 8-11, 2011

INET is pleased to announce that it will hold its annual conference April 8-11, 2011 at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the scene of the great conference that established a renewed global economic architecture as World War II drew to a close.

Today, as the aftershocks of our own Global Finance Crisis continue to reverberate, we face our own challenge of reconstruction. The 1944 conference was, famously, largely an Anglo-American affair, whereas today's reconstruction must engage the larger European Union, as well as the emerging economies of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia. In the years since the 1944 conference, the globalization of production, trade, and especially finance, has transformed our economy, but has not yet transformed our system of regulation or our tools of policy intervention. Indeed, our very habits of thought and speech lag behind the realities that we desperately need to think and speak about.

 

Confirmed Speakers

A

Anat Admati, Professor of Finance and Economics, Stanford University

Phillipe Aghion, Professor of Economics, Harvard University

W. Brian Arthur, Fellow, Econometric Society

B

Jim Balsillie, Founder and Chair, CIGI

Eric Beinhocker, Senior Fellow, McKinsey and Company

Erik Berglöf, Chief Economist and Special Adviser, European Bank for Reconstruction & Development

Tom Bernes, Executive Director, CIGI

Paul Blustein, Brookings Institute

James Boughton, Historian, IMF

Richard Bronk, London School of Economics

Gordon Brown, Former Prime Minister, United Kingdom

C

Wendy Carlin, University College London

Mark Carney, Governor, Bank of Canada

Ha-Joon Chang, Reader, Political Economy of Development, University of Cambridge

Barbara Craig, Oberlin College

Marcello De Cecco, Professor of Monetary and Financial History, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa

D

Charles Dallara, Institute of International Finance

Paul Davidson, Co-Founder, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics

Brad Delong, Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley

E

Barry Eichengreen, Professor of Economics and Political Science , University of California Berkeley

Alex Evans, Head of Research Program on Climate Change, Resource Scarcity and Multilateralism, Center of International Cooperation, NYU

F

Niall Ferguson, Professor of History, Harvard University

Tom Ferguson, Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts

Jean-Paul Fitoussi, Professor of Economics, Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris

Duncan Foley, Professor, New School of Social Research

Jeffrey Frankel, Professor of Capital Formation and Growth, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Chrystia Freeland, Editor at Large, Reuters

Roman Frydman, Professor of Economics, New York University

H

Andy Haldane, Executive Director, Financial Stability, Bank of England

Joseph Halevi, Professor of Political Economy, University of Sydney

Carl-Ludwig Holtfrerich, Professor of Economics and Economic History, Freie Universitat Berlin

Kevin Hoover, Duke University

Thomas Homer-Dixon, Chair of Global Systems, Balsille School of International Affairs

Yasheng Huang, Sloan School of Management, MIT

J

Joyce Jacobsen, Wesleyan University

Harold James, Professor of History, Princeton University

William Janeway, Senior Advisor, Warburg Pincus

Marleen Janssen Groesbeek, Policy Advisory, Eumedion

Paul Jenkins, Distinguished Fellow , Centre for International Governance Innovation

Robert A. Johnson, INET Executive Director

Simon Johnson, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Global Economics and Management, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C

K

Anatole Kaletsky, Associate Editor, The Times

Henry Kaufman, President, Henry Kaufman & Co., Inc.

John Kay, Columnist, Financial Times

Richard Koo, Chief Economist, Nomura Research Institute

Louis Kuijs, Senior Economist, World Bank (Beijing)

L

Deepak Lal, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of California, Los Angeles

William Lazonick, Professor, Regional Economic and Social Development, University of Massachusetts

Robert Litan, Vice President for Research and Policy, Kauffman Foundation

Barry Lynn, New America Foundation

M

Wolfgang Manchau, Associate Editor, Financial Times

Dalia Marin, Professor of International Economics, University of Munich

Felix Martin, Thames River Capital

Richard McGregor, Financial Times

Perry Mehrling, Professor, Barnard College, Columbia University

Zhu Min, Special Advisor, International Monetary Fund

Alan Murray, Wall Street Journal

N

Daniel Neilson, Bard College, Simon's Rock

O

Kevin O’Rourke, Professor of Economics, Trinity College (Dublin)

P

Jean Pisani-Ferry, Director, Bruegel, Brussels

R

Y.V. Reddy, Former Governor, The Reserve Bank of India, currently University of Hyderabad

William Rees, Professor, University of British Columbia

Carmen Reinhart, Dennis Weatherstone Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics

Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics, Harvard University

S

Jeff Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute

Andre Sapir, Professor of Economics, Université Libre de Bruxelles

Orville Schell, Director, Center on US-China Relations

Garry Schinasi, Visiting Fellow, Bruegel, Brussels

Mario Seccareccia, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa

Andrew Sheng, Chief Adviser, China Banking Regulatory Commission

Victor Shih, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University

Robert Skidelsky, Emeritus Professor of Political Economy, The University of Warwick

John Smithin, Professor of Economics, Schulich School of Business

George Soros, Chairman - Soros Fund Management and Open Society Foundations

Joseph Stiglitz, University Professor, Columbia University, Nobel Laureate

Larry Summers, Harvard University

Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)

T

Alan Taylor, Director, Center for the Evolution of the Global Economy at UC Davis

Gillian Tett, US Managing Editor, Financial Times

Niels Thygesen, Emeritus Professor of International Economics, University of Copenhagen

Camilla Toulmin, International Institute for Environment and Development

Adair Turner, Chairman, Financial Services Authority

U

Leanne Ussher, Assistant Professor of Economics, The City University of New York

V

Andrés Velasco, Chile's Former Minister of Finance

Paul Volcker, Former Chairman, Federal Reserve

W

Christian Westerlind Wigstrom, PhD Candidate, University of Oxford

Martin Wolf, Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times

Y

Yu Yongding, Director, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Z

Steve Ziliak, Professor of Economics, Roosevelt University

http://ineteconomics.org/initiatives/conferences/bretton-woods

I'm sure these bright banker's yes-men, will come up with a fair and equable system.

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1208
soft power or hard power
ao wrote:

One world government does not mean a world of one single unified nation.  It means a government controlling the entire world.  It doesn't necessarily mean a legitimate, duly elected, overt, and visible government where everyone gets along.  It means a controlling element functioning as a behind-the-scenes shadow government that nevertheless dominates all and that takes all the disparate political parties and orientations, religions, ethnicities, cultures, regions, and nations and despite their differences, has them essentially all moving in lockstep because they all have to pay obesiance to the banking system.

Ok, so you are talking more about soft power and manipulation instead of a more direct and visible system of control.  Personally I expect the first would just be a stepping stone to the second (I don't expect those in power to stop grabbing for more), but let's say for the sake of argument that the string-pullers remain satisfied with soft power.   Does not such a means of influence also require a highly complex system, in this case a more complex and integrated banking & financial system, to accomodate this means of soft power and manipulation?  Probably not nearly as complex as a direct 'hard power' system of control, but it's still more complex than what currently exists, and what currently exists is already showing itself to be too complex to sustain itself.  It might be a more efficient means of control, but IMO it's still unsustainable.  Especially when basic human greed tempts those in power to keep taking until they eventually ruin the nest they have made.  Now we are going into uncharted territory, so I could be wrong.  But considering the string-pullers would necessarily have to have in place a financial system more complex than currently exists, I still see it doomed to failure. 

Now that doesn't mean I'll roll over and say "go ahead and try it!" in regards to a unified banking/financial/monetary system.  The fact that it infringes my liberty and my freedom of choice (even if temporarily) is reason enough.  There is also a concern that creating further complexities in a system that's already unsustainable will ultimately do more lasting harm when it eventually does collapse to a much less complex state.  But given the ever-hastening collapse in our current complex systems, I personally think the probability is low that they will manage to fully establish the soft control you speak of in the first place, much less maintain it.  If Peak Oil wasn't around the corner I'd see that probability as significantly higher, but as it stands now I don't consider this a long-term threat.  Too many people, too few resources, too much systemic instability.

I see the pattern... I just don't see it panning out as the string-pullers intend.

- Nickbert

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Nickbert, As you say, it's a

Nickbert,

As you say, it's a stepping stone.

It's important to realize though that they thrive on instability.  That's a condition that contributes to their opportunities.   I'm not saying they are part of the elite but let's look at the example of the Krupps and Germany.  WW 1 happens.  Germany loses.  Krupps make their megabucks from the war and are doing fine while the rest of Germany suffers.  WW2 happens.  Germany loses again.  Again, Krupps make their megabucks and come out relatively unscathed while the rest of Germany suffers.  Or in our own country, Vietnam tears the country apart while David Rockefeller makes megabucks from the war. 

In terms of Peak Oil, do you think their spigots are going to be turned off at the same time as yours?  Do you think a Rothschild is going to have the same difficulty obtaining fuel for their private jet as a Nickbert or ao will for their vehicle.  Or food?  Historically, how often have monarchies or dynasties suffered to the same degree as those under them?  Quite the opposite.  They often thrive as a consequence of the suffering of others.

In terms of collapse, I think many have the view of the system as a building collapsing.  Since the system is composed of living, breathing humans, I think conceiving of it in biological terms is more useful.  It's like a hydra.  Cut off one head and it regrows two different ones.  I don't see collapse so much in the future as morphing into different forms, with the new form often more convoluted and difficult to navigate than the old.  We have a new problem?  We create a new regulation.  Now the spiderwebs grow in its reach and ability to snare the unsuspecting.  We selectively enforce laws.  You play ball with us, you get a free pass.  You get in our way, there's a law or regulation can take you out with.   

In terms of sustainability, there's no system yet that I know of made by man that is ultimately sustainable.  In terms of "ruining the nest", it's easy for these individuals to move to a new nest.  Think of the recent article about all the fund managers moving to Switzerland due to more favorable tax advantages and the political climate.  Think of a Jim Rogers moving to Singapore.  Granted, we know at one point, continuing on the way we are, all the nests will be spoiled but, hey, with a major de-populating event (or events) and allowing the restorative quality of nature some time, all should be fine <sarcasm>.

I know it's been mentioned here before but I think such books as Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley offer some insight as to what is going on.

 

    

Broadspectrum's picture
Broadspectrum
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 14 2009
Posts: 90
The Collapse of Globalization

The Collapse of Globalization  By Chris Hedges

Adequate food, clean water and basic security are already beyond the reach of perhaps half the world’s population. Food prices have risen 61 percent globally since December 2008, according to the International Monetary Fund. The price of wheat has exploded, more than doubling in the last eight months to $8.56 a bushel. When half of your income is spent on food, as it is in countries such as Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia and the Ivory Coast, price increases of this magnitude bring with them malnutrition and starvation. Food prices in the United States have risen over the past three months at an annualized rate of 5 percent. There are some 40 million poor in the United States who devote 35 percent of their after-tax incomes to pay for food. As the cost of fossil fuel climbs, as climate change continues to disrupt agricultural production and as populations and unemployment swell, we will find ourselves convulsed in more global and domestic unrest. Food riots and political protests will be inevitable. But it will not necessarily mean more democracy.

http://carolynbaker.net/2011/03/28/the-collapse-of-globalization-by-chris-hedges/

Broadspectrum

 

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Good article, Broadspectrum,

Good article, Broadspectrum, yet I wish they had of gotten to the reason for this terrible situation. As with so many who are seeing and writing about the injustice and inequality of the system, they miss the real punchline as to why it is happening.

I am referring to our fiat global monetary systems that are really enslavement traps, and which are creating all this world misery.

There are four parts to the money scam:

1/ Private bankers create money from thin air (out of nothing)
2/ They issue that money as debt
3/ They do not issue enough money for the future interest payments (guaranteeing competition, and scarcity of money and guaranteeing perpetual bankruptcy)
4/ Inflation, which is a result of money printing, benefits the bankers while stealing our savings

The current monetary system is a scam because our governments can issue the same money without cost (to the government) and interest-free to the people.

There is a new article today:

Libyan rebels have already created a new Central Bank of Libya, and a new oil company for Libya - busy boys to fight long and hard during the day, and draft-up a new Central Bank and oil company at night! Now let's see, the current Libyan Central Bank is owned by the State (the people), so who owns the new bank? A few names come to mind.
http://dumpod.org/2011/03/29/wow-libyan-rebels-have-drawn-up-new-central-bank-of-libya-busy-boys/

Its all about money. Its all about debt

jumblies's picture
jumblies
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 13 2010
Posts: 244
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13008244

The commander of Libya's rebel forces has said Nato apologised for mistakenly hitting a column of rebel tanks near the eastern town of Ajdabiya.

Gen Abdelfatah Yunis said the deadly air strike had occurred despite a warning to Nato that the tanks were being moved to the front line.

Nato said it was investigating the claim, without giving further details.

Rebels said four rebels died, while local doctors told the BBC at least 13 fighters had been killed in the strike.

"We would like to receive answers about what happened. We would like a rational and convincing explanation," Gen Yunis said

I wonder if this was a gentle reminder to the rebels as to who wears the pants in the relationship?

 

jumblies's picture
jumblies
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 13 2010
Posts: 244
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13010170

Nato has refused to apologise for a "friendly fire" attack on rebel tanks in eastern Libya that killed at least four people.

Rear Adm Russ Harding said that until Thursday's incident, Nato had not been aware that rebel troops had started to use tanks.

[...]

He said that the UN mandate under which Nato is operating is to "protect civilians", whether from the forces of Col Gaddafi or the rebel troops themselves.

"Let me be clear, it did not say to gain the trust of either side in doing that," he said.

Wow. That's a bit of a FU, isn't it?

Seems a bit hypocritical to bomb your allies (the rebels - the ones the CIA are arming) and then shrug and say "you were in the way".

Again, could this be a warning to some of them that should they not do Nato's (the US) bidding then they're dead?

 

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
shame

I don't think we should be sticking our face in Libya's civil war.  But once there, the least we can do is try not to whack our allies.  Obama, this is his gig, should sit down and write a letter to the families of all the people killed or severly injured and apologize and put a big check in each envelope to assist them in their time of tragedy or something like that.  Shame on us. If we screw up the least we can do is try to help out the families.  It would not cost jack and it would make a big difference to them.

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
David Cameron's Gift of War and Racism

David Cameron's Gift of War and Racism, to Them and Us Thursday 7 April 2011 by: John Pilger

The Euro-American attack on Libya has nothing to do with protecting anyone; only the terminally naive believe such nonsense. It is the West's response to popular uprisings in strategic, resource-rich regions of the world and the beginning of a war of attrition against the new imperial rival, China.

President Barack Obama's historical distinction is now guaranteed. He is America's first black president to invade Africa. His assault on Libya is run by the US Africa Command, which was set up in 2007 to secure the continent's lucrative natural resources from Africa's impoverished people and the rapidly spreading commercial influence of China. Libya, along with Angola and Nigeria, is China's principal source of oil. As American, British and French planes currently incinerate both "bad" and "good" Libyans, the evacuation of 30,000 Chinese workers is under way, perhaps permanently. Statements by Western officials and media that a "deranged and criminal Colonel Qaddafi" is planning "genocide" against his own people still await evidence. This is reminiscent of fraudulent claims that required "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo, the final dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the establishment of the biggest US military base in Europe.

The detail is also familiar. The Libyan "pro-democracy rebels" are reportedly commanded by Colonel Khalifa Haftar who, according to a study by the US Jamestown Foundation, set up the Libyan National Army in 1988 "with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]." For the past 20 years, Colonel Haftar has been living not far from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp. The Mujihadeen, which produced al-Qaeda, and the Iraqi National Congress, which scripted the Bush/Blair lies about Iraq, were sponsored in the same time-honored way, in leafy Langley.

Libya's other "rebel" leaders include Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Qaddafi's justice minister until February, and Gen. Abdel-Fattah Younes, who ran Qaddafi's interior ministry: both with formidable reputations for savagely putting down dissent. There is a civil and tribal war in Libya, which includes popular outrage against Qaddafi's human rights record. However, it is Libya's independence, not the nature of its regime, that is intolerable to the West in a region of vassals; and this hostility has barely changed in the 42 years since Qaddafi overthrew the feudal King Idris, one the more odious tyrants backed by the West. With his Bedouin hyperbole and bizarre ways, Qaddafi has long made an ideal "mad dog" (Daily Mirror), now requiring heroic US, French and British pilots to bomb urban areas in Tripoli, including a maternity hospital and a cardiac center. The last US bombing in 1986 managed to kill his adopted daughter.

What the US, British and French hope to achieve is the opposite of a people's liberation. In undermining efforts by Libya's genuine democrats and nationalists to free their country from both a dictator and those corrupted by foreign demands, the sound and fury from Washington, London and Paris has succeeded in dimming the memory of January's days of hope in Tunis and Cairo, and distracting many who had taken heart from the task of ensuring that their gains were not stolen quietly. On 23 March, the US-backed Egyptian military issued a decree barring all strikes and protests. This was barely reported in the West. With Qaddafi now the accredited demon, Israel, the real canker, can continue its wholesale land theft and expulsions. Facebook has come under Zionist pressure to remove a page calling for a full scale Palestinian uprising - a "Third Intifada" - on 15 May.

None of this should surprise. History suggests nothing less than the kind of machination revealed by two senior diplomats at the United Nations, who spoke to the Asia Times. Demanding to know why the UN never ordered a fact-finding mission to Libya instead of an attack, they were told that a deal had been done between the White House and Saudi Arabia. A US "coalition" would "take out" the recalcitrant Qaddafi if the Saudis put down the popular uprising in Bahrain. The latter has been accomplished, and the bloodied king of Bahrain will be a guest at the royal wedding in London.

The embodiment of this reaction is David Cameron, whose only real job has been as PR man to the television industry's asset stripper, Michael Green. Cameron was in the Gulf selling arms to the British-invented tyrannies when people rose up against Yemen's Abdullah Saleh; on 18 March, Saleh's regime murdered 52 demonstrators. Cameron said nothing of value. Yemen is "one of ours," as the British Foreign Office likes to say. In February, Cameron revealed himself in an attack on what he called "state multi-culturalism" - the code for Muslims. He said, "We need a lot less of the past tolerance of recent years." He was applauded by Marine Le Pen, leader of France's fascist National Front. "It is exactly this kind of statement that has barred us from public life for 30 years," she told the Financial Times. "I can only congratulate him."

At its most rapacious, the British Empire produced David Camerons in job lots. Unlike many of the Victorian "civilizers," today's sedentary Westminster warriors - throw in William Hague, Liam Fox and the treacherous Nick Clegg - have never been touched by the suffering and bloodshed which, removed in culture and distance, are the consequences of their utterances and actions. With their faintly trivial, always contemptuous air, they are cowards abroad, as they are at home. War and racism and the destruction of Britain's hard-won social democracy are their gift. Remember that when you next take to the streets in your hundreds of thousands, as you must.

~ VF ~

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Good find, Paul. Here's

Good find, Paul.

Here's another good bit of (video) journalism:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments