What did we get out of toppling Ghadaffi?

[surada]

Technofarm's Irrigation Project Aims to Boost Libya's Self ...

Technofarm's Irrigation Project Aims to Boost Libya's Self-sufficiency in Food Production

New agriculture projects feed Libya, thanks to the Great Man Made River. The artificial irrigation project, the most expensive in history, is good whi

www.greenprophet.com

Jul 01, 2010 · Libya imports 90% of its food “The choice was growing food in the south and bringing it north, or bringing the water north,” he said. “Libya imports almost 90 percent of its food. Now that the

 

[surada]

Libyan refugee and food crisis looms | Libya | The Guardian

World news | World | The Guardian

www.theguardian.com

...
Mar 01, 2011 · Meanwhile, Sheeran said, there was concern about the situation inside Libya, which relies on imports for more than 90% of its food. Those imports have been badly hit by the turmoil inside the...

 

[surada]

Aid agencies face escalating crisis as foreign workers ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/01/aid

...
Mar 01, 2011 · Libya relies for more than 90% of its food on imports that have been badly hit by the turmoil. She said she was particularly worried about the situation in Zawiya, which is held by rebels but ...

Focus on Libya | World-grain.com | January 26, 2018 21:15

Focus on Libya

A lack of functional milling capacity has increased the country's flour imports.

www.world-grain.com

“The country relies heavily on imports (up to 90%) for its cereal consumption requirements, mostly wheat and barley. By the end of 2017, the WFP aims to assist up to 175,000 beneficiaries (including both

 

[Dale Smith]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

Where is the gold that would have backed the Dinar? What happened to it???? They imported on average 26 percent of their food. You are an idiot and a liar that still sucks the dick of the Barrypuppet and the Hildebeast.

LOLOL.. Dinars are gold coins and Libya has had gold dinars forever.. Like Arabia has the gold Sovereign.

Libya imports 90% of their food. Where did you live in Libya?

Show me the link where Libya imports 90 percent of their food......

I'll provide several links.
Did you live at Wheelus?

A Plan for Libya - TIME
content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2058158,00.html

Mar 21, 2011 · But refugees are only part of the potential humanitarian disaster. Libya imports 90% of its food, much of it through a handful of ports on the Mediterranean …

Libya Food imports, 1960-2023 - knoema.com

In 2019, food imports for Libya was 21.6 %. Though Libya food imports fluctuated substantially in recent years, it tended to increase through 1978 - 2019 period ending at 21.6 % in 2019. Food comprises the commodities in SITC sections 0 (food and live animals), 1 (beverages and tobacco), and 4...

knoema.com

 

[Rigby5]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

Two things.
First of all, someone got this confused, because it was Saddam who was hoarding gold and wanted to bypass the US petro dollar, not Qaddafi. Saddam had enough oil to do it, Qaddafi did not.
Second is that moving to a gold standard decreases interest payments, not increases them.
But I really don't see how it matters if any country has 330 tons of gold or not, because the US could not legally get its hands on any gold any country might have. In Iraq the gold had to go to the Shiite government we created, and in Libya never had any control on the ground at all.

 

[surada]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

Two things.
First of all, someone got this confused, because it was Saddam who was hoarding gold and wanted to bypass the US petro dollar, not Qaddafi. Saddam had enough oil to do it, Qaddafi did not.
Second is that moving to a gold standard decreases interest payments, not increases them.
But I really don't see how it matters if any country has 330 tons of gold or not, because the US could not legally get its hands on any gold any country might have. In Iraq the gold had to go to the Shiite government we created, and in Libya never had any control on the ground at all.

Nobody transfers gold to pay bills.. It takes too much time and runs up the interest. They made up a bunch of crap about Saddam and then used the same lies against Gadaffi.

 

[Rigby5]

Dude...that was a Bush Baby....all the way.

It's Bush's fault that Obama decided to take out Gaddafi?

Obama didn't "take out" Gaddafi. Not like Bush took out Saddam.

Saddam was the first domino.

Boy were we stupid.

Actually Obama did take out Qaddafi.
Under the urging of Hillary, we attacked Qaddafi's forces moving towards Benghazi, and wiped them out.
It was a massacre of tens of thousands of people.
There was no one left to defend Tripoli, so then Benghazi radicals moved in using captured weapons from the dead, and assassinated Qaddafi.
The difference is that unlike with Saddam, we had no troops on the ground.
We helped al Qaeda and ISIS do it instead.

How inventive.. There was no massacre of thousands.. Tripoli was already controlled by the rebel presence from the East. AQ and ISIS were not a factor in Libya, but ALL dictators claim its the "outsiders" who want to overthrow the government... Assad says the same thing.. Heck, the US made that claim during the civil rights struggle.

Remember, Gadaffii took credit for the social programs developed by Idris from 1953 to 1969.. Sound familiar?

If there was no massacre of thousands who had planned to attack Benghazi, then what happened to this force of hundreds of thousands that Qaddafi had sent to capture Benghazi?
Obviously the rebel presence was only in Benghazi, and we were told that the US and European coalition had to strike this Qaddafi force in order to prevent a massacre of civilians in Benghazi.
We did strike this force.
Which means Qaddafi no longer had this force any more, as it was utterly destroyed.
And THAT is why the rebels then were able to leave Benghazi and attack Tripoli.
It is obvious Qaddafi had control of Tripoli and all of Libya except Benghazi before the coalition attack.
And then Qaddafi had no control of Tripoli or any of Libya after the coalition attack.

And I disagree that the rebel forces in Benghazi were Libyan.
I believe the evidence is they were largely al Qaeda, ISIS, radical Muslims from Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, etc., and ever where that radical Muslims had been kicked out.

Again, the only reason for Stevens to go to Benghazi was to contract rebels for the civil war in Syria.
The only point of building a CIA annex there would be to store weapons for Syrian rebels.
There are no native groups in Benghazi.
They were all from other countries, and far more radical then the groups in Tripoli and other legitimate Libyan locations.
Just like the US created al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 1979, the US always tries to create fake sock puppets in order to make it look like the US is the lesser of 2 evils, when in reality were are both of the evils.

 

[Rigby5]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

Where is the gold that would have backed the Dinar? What happened to it???? They imported on average 26 percent of their food. You are an idiot and a liar that still sucks the dick of the Barrypuppet and the Hildebeast.

LOLOL.. Dinars are gold coins and Libya has had gold dinars forever.. Like Arabia has the gold Sovereign.

Libya imports 90% of their food. Where did you live in Libya?

Show me the link where Libya imports 90 percent of their food......

I'll provide several links.
Did you live at Wheelus?

A Plan for Libya - TIME
content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2058158,00.html

Mar 21, 2011 · But refugees are only part of the potential humanitarian disaster. Libya imports 90% of its food, much of it through a handful of ports on the Mediterranean …

How much food Libya imports is irrelevant as long as they export more of something else, like oil.
You only loose gold if you import more than you export.
Since oil is more valuable than food, then Libya would be increasing its wealth constantly, not decreasing it.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

Ghaddafi was pretty much done before we intervened. He no longer had control of nearly all the country. The final straw was when it became apparent he was going to just kill anyone in the coastal cities that did not bend the knee. So the coalition slaughtered his military convoy and smoked him out of Tripoli. The Libyans did the rest.

THE US CIA and administration aided the terrorists who would eventually kill Ghaddafi by sodomy from what I have read.......the intention was never to stabilize Libya but to allow other rich ME nations to control it as per their donations to our US pols.

 

[surada]

Dude...that was a Bush Baby....all the way.

It's Bush's fault that Obama decided to take out Gaddafi?

Obama didn't "take out" Gaddafi. Not like Bush took out Saddam.

Saddam was the first domino.

Boy were we stupid.

Actually Obama did take out Qaddafi.
Under the urging of Hillary, we attacked Qaddafi's forces moving towards Benghazi, and wiped them out.
It was a massacre of tens of thousands of people.
There was no one left to defend Tripoli, so then Benghazi radicals moved in using captured weapons from the dead, and assassinated Qaddafi.
The difference is that unlike with Saddam, we had no troops on the ground.
We helped al Qaeda and ISIS do it instead.

How inventive.. There was no massacre of thousands.. Tripoli was already controlled by the rebel presence from the East. AQ and ISIS were not a factor in Libya, but ALL dictators claim its the "outsiders" who want to overthrow the government... Assad says the same thing.. Heck, the US made that claim during the civil rights struggle.

Remember, Gadaffii took credit for the social programs developed by Idris from 1953 to 1969.. Sound familiar?

If there was no massacre of thousands who had planned to attack Benghazi, then what happened to this force of hundreds of thousands that Qaddafi had sent to capture Benghazi?
Obviously the rebel presence was only in Benghazi, and we were told that the US and European coalition had to strike this Qaddafi force in order to prevent a massacre of civilians in Benghazi.
We did strike this force.
Which means Qaddafi no longer had this force any more, as it was utterly destroyed.
And THAT is why the rebels then were able to leave Benghazi and attack Tripoli.
It is obvious Qaddafi had control of Tripoli and all of Libya except Benghazi before the coalition attack.
And then Qaddafi had no control of Tripoli or any of Libya after the coalition attack.

And I disagree that the rebel forces in Benghazi were Libyan.
I believe the evidence is they were largely al Qaeda, ISIS, radical Muslims from Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, etc., and ever where that radical Muslims had been kicked out.

Again, the only reason for Stevens to go to Benghazi was to contract rebels for the civil war in Syria.
The only point of building a CIA annex there would be to store weapons for Syrian rebels.
There are no native groups in Benghazi.
They were all from other countries, and far more radical then the groups in Tripoli and other legitimate Libyan locations.
Just like the US created al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 1979, the US always tries to create fake sock puppets in order to make it look like the US is the lesser of 2 evils, when in reality were are both of the evils.

Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi for the dedication of an emergency services joint venture between Mass General and Benghazi Hospital. Benghazi always had tribes that hated Gadaffi.. So did Sirte and Marsa Brega. The CIA Annex was a listening post, strictly communications... to identify groups that had fought against Gadaffi and might support a return to the Idris Constitution.

The US didn't "create" Al Qaeda.. The US was fighting to keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan by using Arab fighters mostly from Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

My advice to surada is to research his statements BEFORE he makes them. He is frequently mistaken on things that are easily researched.

I lived in Libya across the street from the US Embassy and a block from the Palace. I knew Abdullah Tariki his oil minister who hated Americans and insisted on prematurely nationalizing Libya's oil business. I knew the brass at Tobruk and Wheelus and how much they cared about Libya... and I'm not a he.

You saw the western show in Tripoli.
That is not really Libya, in my opinion
The Pharaohs of Egypt were not Arab like the rest of Egypt was and is.
From the triangular skull shape, they most likely were Berbers, like Qaddafi.
And the Berbers have been living in the hills of Southern Libya for thousands of year, likely an Egyptian colony, and ruled by tribal elders.
Qaddafi was just their chosen puppet.
He had no source of power on his own, could not have lasted a day if not for him being the one picked for public appearance.

Nor do I think Libya was premature in nationalizing its oil.
It does not have that much, and western nations are holding their own oil in reserve, waiting until the rest of the world runs out, and the price of oil starts to greatly accelerate. We only have about 40 years worth of oil left.

Did you know Tariki? He was out for vengeance. He hated the US. He damn near killed Libya's oil business.

Libya has hardly been explored for oil. You don't know what you're talking about. LOLOL.. The Western nations are NOT holding their own oil in reserve.. They weren't drilling because the ppb was too low. Jeez.

No, I do not know Tariki, unless you mean Sheik Abdullah al-Tariki, the Saudi who started OPEC?
But obviously selling oil when the price is low is foolish, since the market is constantly increasing, and the supply is limited, never to be replaceable, ever. Eventually the price has to skyrocket, and anyone selling low now is an idiot.
The US not only is deliberately holding its own oil in reserve, but passed laws to prevent export of US oil in the past.
Obviously the whole point of Desert Storm, the Iraqi WMD lies, and the Arab Spring actually were a cover for the US to gain control over Mideast oil.

 

[surada]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

Ghaddafi was pretty much done before we intervened. He no longer had control of nearly all the country. The final straw was when it became apparent he was going to just kill anyone in the coastal cities that did not bend the knee. So the coalition slaughtered his military convoy and smoked him out of Tripoli. The Libyans did the rest.

THE US CIA and administration aided the terrorists who would eventually kill Ghaddafi by sodomy from what I have read.......the intention was never to stabilize Libya but to allow other rich ME nations to control it as per their donations to our US pols.

LOLOL.. No other "rich ME nation wants to control Libya".. Where did you come up with such an asinine idea?

 

[easyt65]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

Hillary was not running the Country and was NOT Commander And Chief. The decision to pimp our military out to Al Qaeda to help them assassinate a sovereign nation's leader - who was helping the Coalition fight terrorists in Northern Africa - and take over the nation for their own was ALL BARRY'S!

All evidence proves Barry was running weapons to the very terrorists the Coalition was fighting out of Libya.

 

[Rigby5]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

Two things.
First of all, someone got this confused, because it was Saddam who was hoarding gold and wanted to bypass the US petro dollar, not Qaddafi. Saddam had enough oil to do it, Qaddafi did not.
Second is that moving to a gold standard decreases interest payments, not increases them.
But I really don't see how it matters if any country has 330 tons of gold or not, because the US could not legally get its hands on any gold any country might have. In Iraq the gold had to go to the Shiite government we created, and in Libya never had any control on the ground at all.

Nobody transfers gold to pay bills.. It takes too much time and runs up the interest. They made up a bunch of crap about Saddam and then used the same lies against Gadaffi.

Transferring gold is as trivial as transferring credit.
You don't have to actually move it, just change who owns it in the vault manifest.
There is only interest if you negotiate it that way.
Qaddafi was not running up interest because he was paying in oil.
But I agree they used the same lies on Qaddafi that they made up about Saddam.
It really started with Desert Storm, because Saddam had asked for and been given permission to attack Kuwait first, and the US said we did not care.
We set up Saddam, and then turned on him.
We are evil liars.

 

[surada]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

Two things.
First of all, someone got this confused, because it was Saddam who was hoarding gold and wanted to bypass the US petro dollar, not Qaddafi. Saddam had enough oil to do it, Qaddafi did not.
Second is that moving to a gold standard decreases interest payments, not increases them.
But I really don't see how it matters if any country has 330 tons of gold or not, because the US could not legally get its hands on any gold any country might have. In Iraq the gold had to go to the Shiite government we created, and in Libya never had any control on the ground at all.

Nobody transfers gold to pay bills.. It takes too much time and runs up the interest. They made up a bunch of crap about Saddam and then used the same lies against Gadaffi.

Transferring gold is as trivial as transferring credit.
You don't have to actually move it, just change who owns it in the vault manifest.
There is only interest if you negotiate it that way.
Qaddafi was not running up interest because he was paying in oil.
But I agree they used the same lies on Qaddafi that they made up about Saddam.
It really started with Desert Storm, because Saddam had asked for and been given permission to attack Kuwait first, and the US said we did not care.
We set up Saddam, and then turned on him.
We are evil liars.

You're right about setting up Saddam. The US and the Brits and the Israeli wanted Saddam gone.

Obama was part of that nor did he have that mindset. The US had NOTHING to do with the Arab Spring in Libya.

 

[surada]

Wrong.

My advice to surada is to research his statements BEFORE he makes them. He is frequently mistaken on things that are easily researched.

I lived in Libya across the street from the US Embassy and a block from the Palace. I knew Abdullah Tariki his oil minister who hated Americans and insisted on prematurely nationalizing Libya's oil business. I knew the brass at Tobruk and Wheelus and how much they cared about Libya... and I'm not a he.

You saw the western show in Tripoli.
That is not really Libya, in my opinion
The Pharaohs of Egypt were not Arab like the rest of Egypt was and is.
From the triangular skull shape, they most likely were Berbers, like Qaddafi.
And the Berbers have been living in the hills of Southern Libya for thousands of year, likely an Egyptian colony, and ruled by tribal elders.
Qaddafi was just their chosen puppet.
He had no source of power on his own, could not have lasted a day if not for him being the one picked for public appearance.

Nor do I think Libya was premature in nationalizing its oil.
It does not have that much, and western nations are holding their own oil in reserve, waiting until the rest of the world runs out, and the price of oil starts to greatly accelerate. We only have about 40 years worth of oil left.

Did you know Tariki? He was out for vengeance. He hated the US. He damn near killed Libya's oil business.

Libya has hardly been explored for oil. You don't know what you're talking about. LOLOL.. The Western nations are NOT holding their own oil in reserve.. They weren't drilling because the ppb was too low. Jeez.

No, I do not know Tariki, unless you mean Sheik Abdullah al-Tariki, the Saudi who started OPEC?
But obviously selling oil when the price is low is foolish, since the market is constantly increasing, and the supply is limited, never to be replaceable, ever. Eventually the price has to skyrocket, and anyone selling low now is an idiot.
The US not only is deliberately holding its own oil in reserve, but passed laws to prevent export of US oil in the past.
Obviously the whole point of Desert Storm, the Iraqi WMD lies, and the Arab Spring actually were a cover for the US to gain control over Mideast oil.

Tariki didn't start OPEC. Trust me.. I was there. Tariki had an American wife and he hated Americans ..demanding that ARAMCO be nationalized immediately rather than following the timeline in the concession agreement. Tariki was fired from ARAMCO before 27 year old Gadaffi hired him.

Wars don't open the door for controlling ME oil.. Jesus.. The oil business HATES a war zone. You get nothing but sabotage and out of control prices.

 

[Rigby5]

Dude...that was a Bush Baby....all the way.

It's Bush's fault that Obama decided to take out Gaddafi?

Obama didn't "take out" Gaddafi. Not like Bush took out Saddam.

Saddam was the first domino.

Boy were we stupid.

Actually Obama did take out Qaddafi.
Under the urging of Hillary, we attacked Qaddafi's forces moving towards Benghazi, and wiped them out.
It was a massacre of tens of thousands of people.
There was no one left to defend Tripoli, so then Benghazi radicals moved in using captured weapons from the dead, and assassinated Qaddafi.
The difference is that unlike with Saddam, we had no troops on the ground.
We helped al Qaeda and ISIS do it instead.

How inventive.. There was no massacre of thousands.. Tripoli was already controlled by the rebel presence from the East. AQ and ISIS were not a factor in Libya, but ALL dictators claim its the "outsiders" who want to overthrow the government... Assad says the same thing.. Heck, the US made that claim during the civil rights struggle.

Remember, Gadaffii took credit for the social programs developed by Idris from 1953 to 1969.. Sound familiar?

If there was no massacre of thousands who had planned to attack Benghazi, then what happened to this force of hundreds of thousands that Qaddafi had sent to capture Benghazi?
Obviously the rebel presence was only in Benghazi, and we were told that the US and European coalition had to strike this Qaddafi force in order to prevent a massacre of civilians in Benghazi.
We did strike this force.
Which means Qaddafi no longer had this force any more, as it was utterly destroyed.
And THAT is why the rebels then were able to leave Benghazi and attack Tripoli.
It is obvious Qaddafi had control of Tripoli and all of Libya except Benghazi before the coalition attack.
And then Qaddafi had no control of Tripoli or any of Libya after the coalition attack.

And I disagree that the rebel forces in Benghazi were Libyan.
I believe the evidence is they were largely al Qaeda, ISIS, radical Muslims from Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, etc., and ever where that radical Muslims had been kicked out.

Again, the only reason for Stevens to go to Benghazi was to contract rebels for the civil war in Syria.
The only point of building a CIA annex there would be to store weapons for Syrian rebels.
There are no native groups in Benghazi.
They were all from other countries, and far more radical then the groups in Tripoli and other legitimate Libyan locations.
Just like the US created al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 1979, the US always tries to create fake sock puppets in order to make it look like the US is the lesser of 2 evils, when in reality were are both of the evils.

Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi for the dedication of an emergency services joint venture between Mass General and Benghazi Hospital. Benghazi always had tribes that hated Gadaffi.. So did Sirte and Marsa Brega. The CIA Annex was a listening post, strictly communications... to identify groups that had fought against Gadaffi and might support a return to the Idris Constitution.

The US didn't "create" Al Qaeda.. The US was fighting to keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan by using Arab fighters mostly from Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Ambassador Stevens would never have gone to someplace as dangerous as Benghazi over something as trivial as clinic opening ceremony.
In fact the US is so unpopular in the Mideast, especially in Benghazi where so many radicals hide out, that no one would ever advertise any US connection there.
Nor does the US ever invest in anything for pure humanitarian reasons, and we always have an ulterior motive.

Benghazi has never had any Libyan tribes at all. It has always been mostly Egyptian.
The actual Libyan tribes are Berber, and keep to the hills, away from the dangerous coast.

If the CIA annex was just a listening posts, then there would be no need for it to openly guarded by US soldiers in uniform. Instead it would have been a hidden, plain clothes operation, with a front like a laundry or something, with only a few additional antenna sticking up from its offices.
The only reason you need uniformed guards is if you are going to ask rebels to go there to pick up weapons and money.

And yes, the US created al Qaeda in 1979. It was the CIA that went to these Arab countries recruiting, and it was the US that paid the Afghan Mujahedeen to accept Arabs who they normally hated. The US even created the name "al Qaeda", which is the Pashtun words for "base camp", so the Arab volunteers could ask for directions back to camp if they got lost. While the US press tries to claim that Osama ben Laden created al Qaeda, he was only about 15 or so at the time, and did not even get there for a couple of years.

 

[Rigby5]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

Hillary was not running the Country and was NOT Commander And Chief. The decision to pimp our military out to Al Qaeda to help them assassinate a sovereign nation's leader - who was helping the Coalition fight terrorists in Northern Africa - and take over the nation for their own was ALL BARRY'S!

All evidence proves Barry was running weapons to the very terrorists the Coalition was fighting out of Libya.

But don't forget the CIA created al Qaeda as well in 1979 Afghanistan?
We always create the bad guys so we can then have an excuse come in and pretend to be the good guy when we take our our own creation.

 

[surada]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

Hillary was not running the Country and was NOT Commander And Chief. The decision to pimp our military out to Al Qaeda to help them assassinate a sovereign nation's leader - who was helping the Coalition fight terrorists in Northern Africa - and take over the nation for their own was ALL BARRY'S!

All evidence proves Barry was running weapons to the very terrorists the Coalition was fighting out of Libya.

The whole gun running claim is a really dumb lie.

Gadaffi had funded separatist groups all over Africa for decades.

 

[Rigby5]

Hillary’s baby. We came, we saw, he died!

What did that do for us as Americans? What did our tax dollars buy?

330 tons of the gold that he was going to use to bypass the petro dollar, for one.

LOLOL.. That hysterical.. That was just an ignorant conspiracy theory. REALLY ignorant.. Libya imports 90% of their food. If they paid for it in gold the interest would eat the alive.

Two things.
First of all, someone got this confused, because it was Saddam who was hoarding gold and wanted to bypass the US petro dollar, not Qaddafi. Saddam had enough oil to do it, Qaddafi did not.
Second is that moving to a gold standard decreases interest payments, not increases them.
But I really don't see how it matters if any country has 330 tons of gold or not, because the US could not legally get its hands on any gold any country might have. In Iraq the gold had to go to the Shiite government we created, and in Libya never had any control on the ground at all.

Nobody transfers gold to pay bills.. It takes too much time and runs up the interest. They made up a bunch of crap about Saddam and then used the same lies against Gadaffi.

Transferring gold is as trivial as transferring credit.
You don't have to actually move it, just change who owns it in the vault manifest.
There is only interest if you negotiate it that way.
Qaddafi was not running up interest because he was paying in oil.
But I agree they used the same lies on Qaddafi that they made up about Saddam.
It really started with Desert Storm, because Saddam had asked for and been given permission to attack Kuwait first, and the US said we did not care.
We set up Saddam, and then turned on him.
We are evil liars.

You're right about setting up Saddam. The US and the Brits and the Israeli wanted Saddam gone.

Obama was part of that nor did he have that mindset. The US had NOTHING to do with the Arab Spring in Libya.

If the US had nothing to do with toppling Qaddafi, then why was it most people in Libya were relatively happy with Qaddafi, why was it the press said the west was worried about Qaddafi about to be massacring the civilians in Benghazi with an attack, and why was it the press said western coalition of military forces wiped out Qaddafi's forces in the desert, between Tripoli and Bengazi?

Just look at the number hundreds of missiles and thousands of bombs, enough to murder hundreds of thousands in the open desert.

{...

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. The United Nations' intent and voting was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute crimes against humanity ... imposing a ban on all flights in the country's airspace – a no-fly zone – and tightened sanctions on the [Muammar] Gaddafi regime and its supporters."[20]


Coloured in blue are the states that were involved in implementing the no-fly zone over Libya (coloured in green)
American and British naval forces fired over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[21] while the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force[22] undertook sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces.[23] French jets launched air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles.[24][25] The intervention did not employ foreign ground troops.[26]

The Libyan government response to the campaign was totally ineffectual, with Gaddafi's forces not managing to shoot down a single NATO plane despite the country possessing 30 heavy SAM batteries, 17 medium SAM batteries, 55 light SAM batteries (a total of 400–450 launchers, including 130–150 2K12 Kub launchers and some 9K33 Osa launchers), and 440–600 short-ranged air-defense guns.[9][27] The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the United Kingdom; Operation Mobile for the Canadian participation and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the United States.[28] Italy initially opposed the intervention but then offered to take part in the operations on the condition that NATO took the leadership of the mission instead of individual countries (particularly France). As this condition was later met, Italy shared its bases and intelligence with the allies.[29]

From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US[30][31][32][33][34] expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (whilst keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed over objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments.[35][36] On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces.[37][38][39] The handover occurred on 31 March 2011 at 06:00 UTC (08:00 local time). NATO flew 26,500 sorties since it took charge of the Libya mission on 31 March 2011.

Fighting in Libya ended in late October following the death of Muammar Gaddafi, and NATO stated it would end operations over Libya on 31 October 2011. Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year,[40] but on 27 October, the Security Council voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October.[41]
...}

2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org