Gaddafi has been captured

bush_cheney2004 · October 26, 2011

Gadhaffi was switching to gold dinars and dumping the green back. that is the only reason we interfered

Libya's GDP was about $96 billion in 2010....you can't turf the dollar hegemon with that.

same with saddam

Canada didn't officialy "interfere"...remember?

Edited October 26, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

ToadBrother · October 26, 2011

Gadhaffi was switching to gold dinars and dumping the green back. that is the only reason we interfered

same with saddam

What good would have done either of them, since all the other oil producing countries sell in dollars. As to Saddam, the fact that he invaded Kuwait might have something to do with the First Gulf War, and after that, well, oil exports were at least theoretically controlled.

And again, even if Gaddafi had, so what? The guy had no real influence, he was regarded as a maverick and a lunatic by just about everyone, with the possible exception of Chavez, but with his reliance on US markets, no matter how anti-American he gets, he knows which side the bread is buttered on. Besides, Chavez is going to be six feet under soon, and even he, though such a great pal of ol' Colonel Gadafi, didn't do much more than make some muted noises. He didn't even let Gaddafi and his clan move into a nice villa.

Gaddafi said lots of absurd of bizarre things, and made all sorts of grandiose plans. The guy was a monomaniac who believed his every utterance was brilliance personified. All of sudden NATO's critics are latching on to one of them and declaring "Yeah, that's why he was toppled."

Edited October 26, 2011 by ToadBrother

GostHacked · October 27, 2011

What good would have done either of them, since all the other oil producing countries sell in dollars. As to Saddam, the fact that he invaded Kuwait might have something to do with the First Gulf War, and after that, well, oil exports were at least theoretically controlled.

No arguments about the invasion of Kuwait. But if you want to talk about invasions, find out in the last 30 years which ones have been invaded by NATO (or the west or unilaterally the USA) and then look at oil production in those countries. Afghanistan might not fit my argument right, but they are building a huge pipeline through the country. Something the Taliban would not allow back in the day as far as I know. All you need is a couple countries to use something other than the dollar, and you can get more trying to get away from trading oil in the US dollar.

And again, even if Gaddafi had, so what? The guy had no real influence, he was regarded as a maverick and a lunatic by just about everyone, with the possible exception of Chavez, but with his reliance on US markets, no matter how anti-American he gets, he knows which side the bread is buttered on. Besides, Chavez is going to be six feet under soon, and even he, though such a great pal of ol' Colonel Gadafi, didn't do much more than make some muted noises. He didn't even let Gaddafi and his clan move into a nice villa.

So do you still buy NATO went in for humanitarian purposes? When we see in the news in the last few days where oil companies are scrambling to get into Libya? Wonder what changed for them?! And then we see the leader of the NTC proposing Sharia Law? From bad to worse? And we will see tribal factions at each others throats, like we see now in Iraq? Is that humanitarian? Depose a dictator so the people can fight each other? Is that what we are doing?

Gaddafi said lots of absurd of bizarre things, and made all sorts of grandiose plans. The guy was a monomaniac who believed his every utterance was brilliance personified. All of sudden NATO's critics are latching on to one of them and declaring "Yeah, that's why he was toppled."

NATO won't tell you it's about the oil, or control of it through the currency. it's fluffed up by obvious rhetoric. Proof of that is the propaganda towards Saddam before the USA invaded in 2006. WMDs?? Still can't find them!!!!!

Another market where oil is traded in another currency would provide some nice competition on the global market. OPEC is essentially a monopoly backed by the US dollar. I thought people were against monopolies, and this one is not just regional, but global.

GostHacked · October 27, 2011

I'm trying to follow the logic of anyone taking this lunatic's grand pronouncements seriously. He wasn't going to change the currency that oil was sold in. It's absolute fantasy.

I've shown the proof. I'll show it again.

https://goldsilver.com/video/must-watch-gaddafi-s-golden-oil-plan-bomed-away-by-coalition-libyan-mission/

Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.
“It’s one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted,” says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. “There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen.”

Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars.

It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world.

That's the key here, shifting the economic balance.

But to show it has happened before...

In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.
A gold dinar would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something black activists say the US wants to avoid at all costs.

“The US have denied self-determination to Africans inside the US, so we are not surprised by anything the US would do to hinder the self-determination of Africans on the continent,” says Cynthia Ann McKinney, a former US Congresswoman.

The other thing is that McKinney was in Libya for a good deal of the year doing reports about the goings on in Libya.

I'm sorry, your conspiracy theory is B.S. Gaddafi neither had the influence nor the friends to pull it off. He was pretty much universally hated throughout the rest of the Arab world. There's no way major oil producers like the Saudis were ever going to get on board with his plan. The Saudis wouldn't have crossed the street to urinate on him if he had been on fire, and now you're saying he was going to single-handedly alter the way oil was sold on the world market? Give your head shake.

Actually , you need to give your head a shake. He would not be able to do it alone, but why would they be prevented from trying it in the first place? If they managed to create another market where oil was traded, what does that mean for OPEC nations and their current trading system?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/588ce75a-53e4-11e0-8bd7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1bzCfxMsV

Gadhafi and Libya were sitting on over 140 tonnes of gold. This gold was all in Libya , and those assets were ;frozen' buy NATO and given to the NTC.

http://www.moneynews.com/Markets/gadhafi-death-oil-exports/2011/10/21/id/415273

The death of Moammar Gadhafi removes a threat to the stability of global oil markets.
It will still be several months before Libya can export as much oil as it did before it descended into civil war earlier this year. But the killing of Gadhafi reduces the chance that violence will get in the way as Libya cranks up production again.

And as Libyan crude returns, it could lower the price of oil on the international markets and gasoline at American pumps.

The type of crude produced by Libya, known as light, sweet crude, is rare. It is especially valuable because it is easier for refineries to convert into diesel and gasoline. Many refineries can't switch easily to processing other varieties of crude.

Before the civil war, Libya produced only 2 percent of the world's oil. But even small interruptions in oil production can have a big effect on the price because the balance between supply and demand is delicate.

AHAHAHAHAH .... do you really think prices are going to come down after production in Libya is ramped back up? Checked the prices at the pumps as of late? I recall friends telling me that gas here in Canada will go back below a dollar a liter. It's still over $1.15, and in many cases hovering around $1.25 to $1.30 CND per liter.

A year ago it cost me 50 dollars to fill my tank, now in some cases close to 80 dollars. I'll bet that 30 dollars difference you will only see the price go up (with minor decreases them big increases).

Wars are fought over resources now,but packaged as humanitarian aid.

Edited October 27, 2011 by GostHacked

kactus · October 27, 2011

I've shown the proof. I'll show it again.

https://goldsilver.com/video/must-watch-gaddafi-s-golden-oil-plan-bomed-away-by-coalition-libyan-mission/

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz1bzCfxMsV

http://www.moneynews...10/21/id/415273

Wars are fought over resources now,but packaged as humanitarian aid.

Absolutely correct! Make no doubt about this. Now we wouldn't want to fight a war over Zimbabwe and package it as "humanitarian aid" to support their people from "mad dog" Mugabe.

Talking of resources there's an interesting link on BBC today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

Edited October 27, 2011 by kactus

ToadBrother · October 27, 2011

I've shown the proof. I'll show it again.

https://goldsilver.com/video/must-watch-gaddafi-s-golden-oil-plan-bomed-away-by-coalition-libyan-mission/

You've shown conspiracy theories. Gaddafi had no support from anyone. The Saudis loathed him, the Iranians distrusted him, and other than rather lukewarm support from Chavez (who was conveniently half a world away), Gaddafi had no influence at all. He was a pariah, a lunatic who said every manner of absurd thing.

If Gaddafi had decided to use bananas as the medium of exchange in oil, it would not have made any difference. No one, and I repeat no one, was going along with anything that maniac had to say.

ToadBrother · October 27, 2011

So do you still buy NATO went in for humanitarian purposes? When we see in the news in the last few days where oil companies are scrambling to get into Libya? Wonder what changed for them?! And then we see the leader of the NTC proposing Sharia Law? From bad to worse? And we will see tribal factions at each others throats, like we see now in Iraq? Is that humanitarian? Depose a dictator so the people can fight each other? Is that what we are doing?

NATO went in because if they didn't do something to stop Gaddafi from going after his citizens, about a million refugees would be flooding into a destabilized Egypt, or more frightening from France and Britain's point of view, into Europe, at a time when immigration, particularly from the Muslim world, is a huge hotbutton issue in both countries.

I'll repeat, Gaddafi had no influence, with the exception of the Italians, who are heavily reliant on Libyan oil, and you'll notice how they largely stayed out of the whole thing other than the minimum treaty requirements of allowing NATO to use their airbases. Even if Gaddafi had made good on his threat (and come on, this guy has made so many grandiose claims that never came to pass, is there any reason to see this one as any different), no one was going to go along with his scheme. Do you actually think the Saudis, the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Kuwaitis, the Venezuelans and so forth would deliver their fortunes into the hands of Colonel Gaddafi?

Edited October 27, 2011 by ToadBrother

kactus · October 27, 2011

Do you actually think the Saudis, the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Kuwaitis, the Venezuelans and so forth would deliver their fortunes into the hands of Colonel Gaddafi?

Well...rhetorical questions but since you asked if this tyrant which I agree with you has the blood of many lybians on his hands and if he was not killed and I repeat not injured by Nato bombardments of his convoy and subsequently killed by rebels perhaps and only perhaps he could have answered some of these questions instead of flatly denying that he was not fit to answer any question in the court of law. You just can not take the law in your own hand and kill dictators especially when they have a lot to answer for. Look we can sit down and talk about how bad he was, the fact that none of the arab countries got along with him, etc etc etc It still doesn't change the fact that the very British prime minister was a so called friend of Gaddafi shaking his hand in his tent just a few months before the end of his prime ministerial role! This has nothing to do with conspiracy but everything to do with how a foreign policy can go pear shaped with devasting long term consequences to put it midly.

Edited October 27, 2011 by kactus

GostHacked · October 27, 2011

You've shown conspiracy theories.

It's no theory. It was a fact.

Gaddafi had no support from anyone. The Saudis loathed him, the Iranians distrusted him, and other than rather lukewarm support from Chavez (who was conveniently half a world away), Gaddafi had no influence at all. He was a pariah, a lunatic who said every manner of absurd thing.

And now we have a leader of the NTC calling for Sharia Law to be established in Libya .. from bad .. to worse. That's absurd.

If Gaddafi had decided to use bananas as the medium of exchange in oil, it would not have made any difference. No one, and I repeat no one, was going along with anything that maniac had to say.

You really need to think about what it means. If countries are able to trade oil in other markets with other currencies, that means the US dollar no longer has the monopoly on that market. I can't use Canadian dollars to trade oil in. I need to buy US dollars so I can buy oil. Simple as that. If I AM able to trade using the Canadian Dollar, I have no need to buy US currency, and not restricted to purchase oil from one global monopolized entity of the oil market.

GostHacked · October 27, 2011

NATO went in because if they didn't do something to stop Gaddafi from going after his citizens, about a million refugees would be flooding into a destabilized Egypt,

You mean the stable Egypt which went through it's own Arab Spring? That stable Egypt? And it's no more stable today than it was during the uprisings.

or more frightening from France and Britain's point of view, into Europe, at a time when immigration, particularly from the Muslim world, is a huge hotbutton issue in both countries.

The west helped create this mess, and now the west is paying for it.

I'll repeat, Gaddafi had no influence, with the exception of the Italians, who are heavily reliant on Libyan oil,

So why the hell did NATO get involved here? Why did we bomb a country to the stone age, when the beef was between Libya and Italy. Italy was ramped up at the start, as well as the French, who quickly backed out of the assault on Libya a month or two after the bombs started dropping.

and you'll notice how they largely stayed out of the whole thing other than the minimum treaty requirements of allowing NATO to use their airbases.

Yeah because Italy could not do the job on it's own. Also better to let someone ELSE take the blame in case screw ups happen. Italy and France were beating the drum for war, and then quickly backed out. Why?

Even if Gaddafi had made good on his threat (and come on, this guy has made so many grandiose claims that never came to pass, is there any reason to see this one as any different), no one was going to go along with his scheme.

Because when you do, you'll have humanitarian bombs dropped on them.

Do you actually think the Saudis, the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Kuwaitis, the Venezuelans and so forth would deliver their fortunes into the hands of Colonel Gaddafi?

I do think they would. It provides another alternative to the ONE US Petrodollar OPEC monopoly.

The Saudi's are probably the most tyrannical on the planet. Yet we deal with them all the time and do much business with them/ Our leaders kiss their hands and bow to them. WTF is up with that?

Our western leaders are nothing more than hypocrites to bomb Libya but continue doing business with Saudi Arabia. When the Saudi's are way worse than anything Gadhafi could become.

Edited October 27, 2011 by GostHacked

ToadBrother · October 27, 2011

Well...rhetorical questions but since you asked if this tyrant which I agree with you has the blood of many lybians on his hands was not killed and I repeat not injured by Nato bombardments of his convoy and subsequently killed by rebels perhaps and only perhaps he could have answered some of the questions instead of flatly denying that he was not fit to answer any question in the court of law. You just can not take the law in your own hand and kill dictators especially when they have a lot to answer for.

Well of course you can. Just last week I pointed out that Colonel Gaddafi was a lot luckier than Mussolini. Ol' Il Duce's corpse was stuck up on a meathook and Italians through rocks at him. That's what happens to tyrants.

Look we can sit down and talk about how bad he was, the fact that none of the arab countries got along with him, etc etc etc It still doesn't change the fact that the very British prime minister was a so called friend of Gaddafi shaking his hand in his tent just a few months before the end of his prime ministerial role! This has nothing to do with conspiracy but everything to do with how a foreign policy can go pear shaped with devasting long term consequences to put it midly.

It still doesn't demonstrate to me how Colonel Gaddafi, a man almost universally loathed in the Middle East, was going to transform the international oil markets by moving from the US dollar. That is a conspiracy theory, and so far as conspiracy theories go, it's an incredible moronic one.

ToadBrother · October 27, 2011

I do think they would. It provides another alternative to the ONE US Petrodollar OPEC monopoly.

The Saudi's are probably the most tyrannical on the planet. Yet we deal with them all the time and do much business with them/ Our leaders kiss their hands and bow to them. WTF is up with that?

Our western leaders are nothing more than hypocrites to bomb Libya but continue doing business with Saudi Arabia. When the Saudi's are way worse than anything Gadhafi could become.

I think you need to understand that Gaddafi had a long history of such grandiose proclamations. The oil producers were not going to go to the frickin' dinar. It's got to be the most moronic conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

GostHacked · October 27, 2011

I think you need to understand that Gaddafi had a long history of such grandiose proclamations. The oil producers were not going to go to the frickin' dinar. It's got to be the most moronic conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

And yet it was no theory it was fact.

ToadBrother · October 27, 2011

And yet it was no theory it was fact.

Not so far as I can tell. You're standards of evidence are pretty appalling.

maple_leafs182 · October 27, 2011

So I just looked into the claim that Gaddafi had 200 billion dollars...that is propaganda. A lot of what is claimed to be his was owned by national institutions. I'm working right now and am using my black berry so I can't post a source but they were claiming assets that the Libyan central bank owned, their nationalized oil company owned along with other assets other national institutions owned where Gaddafi's as oppose to being the owned by the people of Libya.

maple_leafs182 · October 27, 2011

I think you need to understand that Gaddafi had a long history of such grandiose proclamations. The oil producers were not going to go to the frickin' dinar. It's got to be the most moronic conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

Really, that is the most moronic conspiracy theory you ever heard, have you ever listened to david ike...I don't even know how that is a conspiracy theory, it was no secret the both Sadam and Gaddafi wanted to ditch the dollar. Why wouldn't they want to switch to the dinar, it would of gave them economic freedom from the west.

ToadBrother · October 27, 2011

Really, that is the most moronic conspiracy theory you ever heard, have you ever listened to david ike...I don't even know how that is a conspiracy theory, it was no secret the both Sadam and Gaddafi wanted to ditch the dollar. Why wouldn't they want to switch to the dinar, it would of gave them economic freedom from the west.

How? They're still selling oil on the international market. The way to gain economic freedom would be to sell to India and China. It's an absurd theory, made all the more absurd by the fact that Gaddafi and Hussein were both so loathed by almost everyone else, and thus couldn't hope to accomplish it anyways.

maple_leafs182 · October 27, 2011

How? They're still selling oil on the international market. The way to gain economic freedom would be to sell to India and China. It's an absurd theory, made all the more absurd by the fact that Gaddafi and Hussein were both so loathed by almost everyone else, and thus couldn't hope to accomplish it anyways.

They weren't against selling it on the international market, I don't think they cared who bought their oil, selling on the international market is economic freedom. However, forcing a nation to use dollars isn't economic freedom.

Having their countries stop selling oil for dollars would not of been hard to accomplish, they would just have to stop selling their oil for dollars. Its not like people weren't buying their oil when they were in power. Even if people decided to boycott their oil, that would drive the price of their oil down and I can't see countries like China or Russia passing up on a deal to by cheaper oil.

ToadBrother · October 27, 2011

They weren't against selling it on the international market, I don't think they cared who bought their oil, selling on the international market is economic freedom. However, forcing a nation to use dollars isn't economic freedom.

Having their countries stop selling oil for dollars would not of been hard to accomplish, they would just have to stop selling their oil for dollars. Its not like people weren't buying their oil when they were in power. Even if people decided to boycott their oil, that would drive the price of their oil down and I can't see countries like China or Russia passing up on a deal to by cheaper oil.

Other oil producers are selling oil to China and aren't being bombed. The conspiracy theory is idiotic.

GostHacked · October 27, 2011

Other oil producers are selling oil to China and aren't being bombed. The conspiracy theory is idiotic.

Those countries are still using the US dollar. Even China used the US dollar to buy oil. Go look for the info yourself. I helped you a bit.

ToadBrother · October 27, 2011

Those countries are still using the US dollar. Even China used the US dollar to buy oil. Go look for the info yourself. I helped you a bit.

You just found some crazy-ass conspiracy theory site which you have been thumping endlessly. That's not evidence, any more than waving David Icke books around is evidence for the Illumanati. So what if they pay in greenbacks? It's not like changing to another currency will quantitively change the nature of the marketplace.

GostHacked · October 28, 2011

You just found some crazy-ass conspiracy theory site which you have been thumping endlessly. That's not evidence, any more than waving David Icke books around is evidence for the Illumanati. So what if they pay in greenbacks? It's not like changing to another currency will quantitively change the nature of the marketplace.

It does change who's currency the market is controlled in.

jbg · October 28, 2011

No arguments about the invasion of Kuwait. But if you want to talk about invasions, find out in the last 30 years which ones have been invaded by NATO (or the west or unilaterally the USA) and then look at oil production in those countries.

You know, GostHacked, I'm getting a bit sick of knee-jerk self-flaggelation. If we have learned anything from the events in Libya, most non-Western countries have savagery as part of the governing process just at our below the surface. Why don't we admit for once that we're better?

GostHacked · October 28, 2011

You know, GostHacked, I'm getting a bit sick of knee-jerk self-flaggelation.

Aww muffin.

If we have learned anything from the events in Libya, most non-Western countries have savagery as part of the governing process just at our below the surface. Why don't we admit for once that we're better?

Actions speak louder than words, and the west's (NATO, UN) actions were quite different than their rhetoric.

Don't forget British SAS were in the country months before the 'civil war' started. So there was a plan already to get Gadhafi out of power. I would argue that the west instigated this mess because of those SAS looking to meet the rebels before they even were rebels. The SAS had multiple passports, arms, and explosives. What do you make of that?

And now look at those oil companies scrambling to get into Libya now that Gadhafi is gone. Do you see what just happened? It was not about humanitarian aid, no matter how you slice it. It's about oil, gold and control.

Gadhafi may have been a bad man, but doe bombing parts of the civilian infrastructure help the people of Libya? I challenge you to answer that one.