14 Potential Justifications For An Invasion Of Libya By The U.S. Military That Are Currently Being Floated In The Mainstream Media

March 3, 2011 by admin  
Filed under Featured Stories, US News, World News

Published on 03-02-2011

Source: The American Dream

Over the past couple of days, top government officials from both the United States and the EU have been openly discussing the possibility of military intervention in Libya. In fact, it has seemed like there has been a full court press in the mainstream media to sway public opinion toward supporting a potential invasion.  We are being told that we simply cannot stand by as Libyan civilians die.  We are being told that this would be a “humanitarian” mission.  We are being told that this would not be like Iraq or Afghanistan.  Even now, the U.S. military is moving the USS Enterprise and other warships closer to Libya in case they are “needed”.  Other nations are also sending warships into the Mediterranean and are preparing for military action.  It really does appear that authorities in the United States and Europe really are serious about potentially going into Libya.  But is there really any way that the United States can really justify getting involved in another war in the Middle East?  Will the American people ever be convinced that an invasion of Libya by the U.S. military is a good idea?

Fortunately, so far it appears that the mainstream media propaganda is not working.  A recent Rasmussen poll found that a whopping 67 percent of Americans do not want the U.S. to get more involved in the unrest going on in Arab countries and only 17 percent of Americans do want the U.S. to get more directly involved.

But that doesn’t mean that top politicians in the U.S. and in Europe are not going to continue to try to change our minds.

British Prime Minister David Cameron sure sounds like he is ready to go to war….

“If Col Gaddafi uses military force against his own people, the world cannot stand by.”

On Monday, Hillary Clinton made it clear that the U.S. government considers military action to be very much “on the table”….

“Nothing is off the table so long as the Libyan Government continues to threaten and kill Libyans.”

It is almost as if they want us to believe that their hands are being forced.

Of course nobody in the mainstream media seems to be bringing up the fact that the United States has stood idly by and watched millions and millions of Africans be slaughtered in bloody civil wars and genocides over the past couple of decades.

For decades the U.S. has looked upon the suffering of millions of Africans with indifference but now they are trying to convince us that it is a “moral imperative” that we intervene in the civil war in Libya.

It is funny how things can change when oil is at stake.  Libya is the biggest producer of oil in Africa and that makes it a very important nation to the global elite.

Fortunately, it appears that the American people are starting to get sick and tired of sending our young men and women off to the Middle East to fight these endless wars.

American blood should never be spent cheaply.  Each American life is precious, and our military men and women should never be sacrificed unless there is a darn good reason for it.

Well, right now the global elite are working overtime to try to create some “good reasons” for going into Libya.

The following are 14 potential justifications for an invasion of Libya by the U.S. military that are currently being floated in the mainstream media….

 

#1 “We Can’t Stand Aside And Watch Gaddafi Kill His Own People”

#2 “It Would Just Be A Humanitarian Mission”

#3 “Libya Is Torturing Prisoners

#4 “The Libyan Rebels Will Not Be Able To Take Down Gaddhafi With Our Help”

#5 “U.S. Interests Are Being Threatened”

#6 “Gaddafi Is Crazy”

#7 “Gaddafi Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction

#8 “Gaddafi Will Use Chemical Weapons If We Don’t Stop Him”

#9 “Gaddafi Has “1,000 Metric Tons Of Uranium Yellowcake

#10 “European Energy Companies Are Deeply Invested In Libyan Oil And Gas Fields”

#11 “Millions of Dollars Worth Of Infrastructure Will Be Destroyed If We Don’t Intervene”

#12 “The Crisis In Libya Is Bad For The Global Economy”

#13 “Someone Has To Protect The Oil”

#14 “We Have Got To Go Into Libya To Keep Al-Qaeda From Getting A Foothold”

Al-Qaeda?

Really?

Yes, they are being trotted out once again as a reason for us to invade someone.

A recent article in Time Magazine made the following claim….

“U.S. counterterrorism officials have noted the disproportionate number of Libyans turning up in the ranks of al-Qaeda both in northern Africa and in Iraq.”

You can always count on Time Magazine for some good government propaganda.

Hopefully the American people will not fall for this nonsense.

But it looks like it is not just going to be the U.S. military that is going to be involved.  This is already being framed as a “NATO operation”, and we are being told that a direct invasion will probably not happen immediately.

Rather, we are told that a “no fly zone” would likely be set up first and special forces troops may be sent in to help “advise” the rebel forces.

Well, the truth is that the moment that we shoot down one Libyan plane or we insert one U.S. solider into the country we are at war.

In fact, the Pakistan Observer is reporting that hundreds of “defense advisers” from the United States, the U.K. and France have already landed in Libya and are helping to train rebel forces.

Let us hope that the Pakistan Observer report and other similar reports in the international media are not true.

The American people are sick and tired of using the U.S. military as the police of the world.  The Libyan civil war belongs to the Libyan people and it should stay that way.

No mater how it is justified, if the U.S. military does go into Libya the Libyan people and most of the rest of the world are going to deeply resent it.

So what do you think?  Do you believe that it would be a good idea or a bad idea for the U.S. to get involved in the civil war in Libya?  Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below….

Libya’s Bankers Exposed: Goldman, JP Morgan And Citi

March 3, 2011 by admin  
Filed under Economic News, Featured Stories, World News

Published on 03-02-2011

Source: Zero Hedge

Ten days ago, when we first looked at the Libyan investment authority (its sovereign wealth fund), we asked “Which US Banks Are Managing Billions For The $32 Billion Libyan Sovereign Wealth Fund?” Based on Wikileaks data, it was disclosed that various US banks manage billions for the country which has just seen $30 billion of its assets largely frozen (although this is merely half of its total deposits). Obviously, we had “some” banks in mind, most of the variety whose directors believe they are above the law and can share inside information with criminal intent with utter disdain for the law. Now, courtesy of Marcus Baram of the Huffington Post we find that the usual suspects are, naturally, all here: among the key banks that serve as advisors and asset managers are Goldman Sachs (and not just anyone, but Jim “Revolutions are Bullish” O’Neill’s GSAM, Citi and JP Morgan. The only question now is how long before we get some sort of public statement out of the likes of Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon: on the 22nd we said: “perhaps it is time for the US banks who manage billions in capital for the LIA, to step up.” Now that they have been exposed by a third party, the CEOs should really take the hint before this escalates into a full blown PR disaster.

HuffPo writes:

The secretive Libyan Investment Authority has reportedly invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Goldman Sachs Asset Management funds, including a loan fund designed to invest in new hedge funds set up by the Kuwait Investment Authority. Goldman Sachs already has a relationship with Libya — in 2008, Goldman was the first U.S. bank to get a contract with the country following the removal of sanctions, when it was hired by Libya’s central bank  to provide information on its behalf to credit rating agencies. A spokesperson for Goldman Sachs did not return calls seeking comment.

The Libyan government, including LIA, has also banked with Citigroup, according to several sources familiar with the matter. A spokesperson for Citigroup declined to comment on the bank’s interactions with the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is in charge of carrying out Obama’s order regarding Libyan assets.

JPMorgan Chase reportedly handles much of the LIA’s cash and some of the Libyan central bank’s reserves. The summer after then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Gaddafi in 2008, LIA gave “mandates to some of the international banks, including JPMorgan to manage their funds in the interbank money markets, according to Vanity Fair.

 

 

Banks are not the only entities: Washington DC darling private equity firm, and alleged CIA front organization, Carlyle is also among the collaborators:

Two years ago, the Carlyle Group’s co-founder and managing director, David Rubenstein, and Blackstone chief executive Steven Schwarzman traveled to the Libyan capital of Tripoli to help celebrate the wedding of Mustafa Zarti, the deputy director of the LIA, in a massive tent set up on the outskirts of the city, reported the Financial Times. And when Gaddafi’s son and longtime likely successor, Saif al-Islam, visited New York in November 2008, Schwarzman hosted a lunch for him at the Blackstone CEO’s Park Avenue apartment. The younger Gaddafi was also honored on that trip by Carlyle’s retired chairman, former defense secretary Frank Carlucci, who hosted a dinner for him in a private room at the City Club.

Yet while nobody really cares about Carlyle which for decades now has managed to remain behind the scenes, even though in many regards it is the Goldman Sachs of the Private Equity world, many do care about Goldman, especially following today’s latest disclosure of supposed gross and criminal abdication of fiduciary duty by a person at the very top. The last thing Goldman needs is to be disarming a PR minefield in which various bloggers and the less than mainstream media (certainly excluding those that have Goldman Sachs Asset Management ad banners on their pages) try to pin the tail on the Blankfein donkey of PR blunder following PR blunder.