noworldsystem.com


British Troops Caught in Libya

British Troops Caught in Libya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSHCSHdtg1A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr7z2-5VqAc

Is Libya The New Iraq? U.S. Prepares Libyan Invasion

 

Advertisements


Obama gave $400,000 to Gaddafi family

Obama gave $400,000 to Gaddafi family

NoWorldSystem.com
February 27, 2011

The U.S. continues to support dictators around the world militarily and financially.

Last year the Obama administration contributed $400,000 of taxpayer money to the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, run by his son Saif, and to ‘Wa Attassimou’ which is another charity run by Gaddafi’s daughter, Aisha.

    The money would be divided between two foundations run by the family of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi. A $200,000 share is set to go to the Gadhafi Development Foundation, which is run by Gadhafi’s son, Saif, and another $200,000 are to go to Wa Attassimou, an organization run by Muammar Gadhafi’s daughter, Aisha.

    Kirk says the grants should be withdrawn in light of the recent return to Libya of Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Baset Megrahi. The terminally ill prisoner was released from in Scotland on compassionate grounds, and got a hero’s welcome from Muammar Gadhafi and other Libyans upon his return.

    Saif Gadhafi was involved in negotiating for Megrahi’s release, and accompanied him back to Libya.

    “Just weeks after the Gadhafi family celebrated the return of a terrorist responsible for the murders of 189 Americans, the U.S. taxpayer should not be asked to reward them with $400,000,” Kirk wrote to the president. “For the sake of the victims’ families who have endured so much pain these last few weeks, I ask you to withdraw your Administration’s request.”

Clearly there has been no ‘change’ in the U.S. supporting dictators that are a menace to the population. America funds so many dictators around the world, the most famous are; Hosni Mubarak, Anwar El Sadat, Saddam Hussein, Papa Doc, Pol Pot, Noriega, Fahd bin’Abdul-Aziz, and many more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtj1uqXqKok

Is Libya The New Iraq? U.S. Prepares Libyan Invasion

 



Is Libya The New Iraq? U.S. Prepares Libyan Invasion

Is Libya The New Iraq? U.S. Prepares Libyan Invasion

NoWorldSystem.com
February 26, 2011

Many signs are pointing to the potential U.S. military invasion of Libya, much like how the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil, to topple Saddam and replace him with a brand new puppet dictator.

Obama announced that he will send CFR member and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns to Europe and the Middle East. According to Obama, Mr. Burns will “intensify our consultation with allies and partners.” In other words Burns will serve as the point man ahead of the coming intervention in Libya, where there is around 46 billion barrels of estimated oil reserves.

According to the White House spokesman Jay Carney, “no options” have been taken off the table when it comes to the situation in Libya. “Our job is to give options from the military side, and that is what we are thinking about now,” “We will provide the president with options should he need them.” By saying that “all options” are being considered, that is basically a way for the Obama administration to threaten Gadhafi without actually coming right out and threatening him.

It’s quite humorous how Obama is calling out Gaddafi when it was only just last year that Obama contributed $400,000 to Gaddafi’s family. This should be no surprise as the U.S. routinely gives military and monetary aide to dictators including Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak.

The similarities of the Iraq invasion and the coming Libyan invasion are overwhelming, According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. government is concerned about “weapons of mass destruction” Gaddafi apparently has:

“The government of Col. Moammar Gadhafi hasn’t destroyed significant stockpiles of mustard gas and other chemical-weapons agents, raising fears in Washington about what could happen to them—and whether they may be used—as Libya slides further into chaos.”

The Wall Street Journal article also stated that U.S. officials believe that Gadhafi possesses “1,000 metric tons of uranium yellowcake” which they believe are a serious threat to the international community.

There are also rumors of Al-Qaeda being in Libya, earlier today it was reported that Al-Qaeda has set up an Islamic emirate in eastern Libya, headed by a former U.S. prisoner from Guantanamo Bay.

Does this sound familiar? Remember the Bush administrations main reasons for invading Iraq were; 1) Saddam has WMDs 2) Al-Qaeda was there. But currently the excuse to invade Libya would be about humanitarian issues.

(Libya’s Justice Minister is saying Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie Bombing)

More troubling signs that the U.S. is preparing for something. The U.S. embassy in Libya has been closed, sanctions imposed, and U.S. personnel have been pulled out of the country.

The White House said on Thursday that enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya was among the options on the table. “When we are examining all options, and that option has been tabled, at least in the press, but certainly has been discussed in other venues, that by exploring those options we are looking at feasibility, and I mean that broadly,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

This was one of the options ordered by the Bush administration that impacted the military and the citizens of Iraq on almost a weekly basis, especially after the intense “Desert Fox” bombing campaign of 1998. The Anglo-American military used these zones to prevent Saddam’s government from using military aircraft to attack the Kurds and Shiite Muslims, but in time the no-fly zones became a means to force Iraq to comply with the UN and Coalition demands to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq. A likely scenario would be implementing a no-fly zone over Libya to stop the government from bombing protesters again if the protest situation persists.

Ynetnews.com says that an anonymous “European official” is claiming that the U.S. and NATO have already been very busy making plans for military action against Libya….

“The source said NATO and US warplanes stationed in Italy may be ordered to take down Libyan planes, and that electronic warfare against them may already have been implemented.”

“The source told al-Quds al-Arabi that NATO forces may launch an aerial attack on Libya or fire missiles from warships positioned in international waters near Tripoli. Libyan army weapons caches may also be targeted, the source said.”

The truth is that Libya is not a place we want to be sending U.S. troops to take out Gaddafi and his government. Like Iraq, Libya is a deeply divided nation made up of a large number of tribal factions that hate each other. That isn’t a place we want troops in the middle of.

Not only that, but the people of Libya are not too fond of the United States. Any U.S. military intervention, no matter how desired, would soon be deeply resented. Our soldiers would rapidly become targets just like they are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not only that, but when the U.S. military gets into a country they almost never leave. The U.S. would remove Gaddafi and replace him with a better U.S. puppet dictator who will also be hated if not more by the Libyan people.

The U.S. military is stretched way to thin to even think about invading another country, the U.S. is in a financial crisis and have already spent over $2.5 TRILLION dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Neocons Fueling Another Invasion

Military intervention “is something which I hope doesn’t happen, but it looks as though at some point that it should happen,” Simon Henderson, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told CNN.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a fanatical neocon operation. It supports the positions of the Likud and other racist warmongers in Israel. It was founded by Martin Indyk, the former research director of AIPAC.

WINEP is also involved with the Council on Foreign Relations in policymaking on the bogus war on manufactured terrorism and the intelligence created network of radical Islamists.

“What’s an acceptable number of civilian deaths? I don’t know. Choose your figure,” Henderson said. “At the very least, instead of having a casualty list certainly in the hundreds, possibly in the thousands, we don’t want a casualty list numbering in the tens of thousands, or 100,000 or so.”

WINEP was intimately involved with Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans making the case – including cooking up bogus intelligence and scary WMD stories – for the illegal invasion of Iraq that ultimately resulted in the murder of over a million Iraqis, so any crocodile tears over the lives of Arabs is disingenuous, to say the least.

Bush era diplomat Nicholas Burns, who sits on the board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and is more or less a permanent fixture at the Pentagon psyop CNN these days, says Moammar will probably go out in destructive fashion. “You’ve got to assume the worst about Moammar Gaddafi,” he said. “With his back to the wall, he’s going to go out in a blaze of vicious attacks.”

Other prominent neocons seem to be a bit more reticent. Propagandist Robert Kagan, who served as an advisor for the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq – or rather the committee for the invasion and destruction of Iraq – told CNN the global elite are not “talking about immediate military actions now.” In other words, attacking Libya is a distinct possibility. It may just take some time to get things rolling.

Kagan is a founding member of Project for the New American Century – the organization most responsible for creating the ideological underpinnings of the Iraq invasion – and is also a globalist stooge at the Council on Foreign Relations. He worked in the State Department.

Ibrahim Sharqieh, deputy director of Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, interpreted Kagan’s statement as indicating that military force remains a possibility. “In my opinion, it’s still premature to talk about U.S. military intervention in Libya at this point, but we should not eliminate it completely,” Sharqieh said.

The Brookings Institute takes money from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the United Nations, JP Morgan Chase, Shell Oil, the World Economic Forum, and no shortage of other transnational banks and corporations. It is a premier globalist operation.

Finally, it should be noted that Libya has refused to obey the IMF and the Wall Street banksters. It’s not just about oil, dictator Gaddafi made a fatal mistake by attacking his own people thus allowing the globalists the opportunity to invade his country.

The people of the Middle East and Libya are pawns in this Anglo-American New World Order of the middle east and are doing their bidding by buying into the protests that are engineered by the U.S. and Britain.

Organizers who ran the “Egyptian Revolution” attended a CIA-coup college that is partnered with a neocon institution called International Republican Institute (IRI) that includes the board of directors John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Brent Scowcroft.

There will be no change for the Libyan people when Gaddafi is gone, but they will be in for a surprise after their oil is stolen and they are reduced to groveling at the feet of the banksters and their loan sharking operations run out of the IMF and the World Bank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_J76ddRJRE

Related:
Neocon Analysts Push for Invasion of Libya

Is Barack Obama About To Order The U.S. Military To Invade Libya?

Obama Prepares Invasion Of Libya Under Humanitarian Cover

Castro: U.S. to Invade Libya for Oil

Gaddafi blames unrest on al-Qaeda

 



For US, more at stake in Bahrain than base alone

For US, more at stake in Bahrain than base alone

AFP
February 20, 2011

As political unrest shakes its tiny Gulf ally Bahrain, much more is at stake for the United States than just the fate of the US Fifth Fleet’s base, analysts said.

Also in play are Washington’s extensive strategic ties with Bahrain’s influential oil-rich neighbor Saudi Arabia and efforts by US arch-foe Iran to spread its influence from across the Gulf, they said.

In many ways, the unrest in Bahrain “is much more dangerous” for the US than the current state of affairs in Egypt, more than a week after mass protests forced president Hosni Mubarak to step down, said analyst Aaron David Miller.

To be sure, Egypt has greater weight than Bahrain, said Miller, a former State Department analyst and negotiator who is now an analyst with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

It is the largest and most powerful Arab state, has a peace treaty with Israel and receives $1.3 billion in US military aid each year.

And the Egyptian-US alliance remains intact, at least for now.

However, Bahrain’s vulnerability “to more convulsive change and the impact that it could have vis-a-vis Arab policy for Iran, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf makes it … a more hot-button issue right now,” Miller told AFP.

The Sunni Arab leaders of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, who govern over restive Shiite Arab populations near Shiite but non-Arab Iran, fear Washington’s push for reform will sow greater instability, said analyst Patrick Clawson.

They strongly opposed Washington’s pressure on Egypt for a transition to democracy to ease out Mubarak, according to Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“The perception in the (Gulf) region is that democracy means either the complete chaos you had in Iraq or else the stasis and bickering you had in Kuwait,” he said.

And if needed, the Saudis may be prepared to repeat their intervention in Bahrain in the 1990s, when they sent armored personnel carriers across the causeway linking the neighbors.

“So the Saudis are in a position to ensure that things don’t get out of hand in Bahrain and they are of a mind to do that. That is a powerful constraint to what the United States can do under these circumstances,” Clawson said.

The course of events could put a strain on the US-Saudi strategic relationship, which involves US military bases and billions of dollars in US weapons sales, as well as close cooperation on regional diplomacy and counter-terrorism.

Bahrain, fearing Iran’s meddling, may continue taking a tough line toward unrest, although Bahraini security forces withdrew Saturday from a Manama square that had been the focal point of bloody anti-regime protests.

The implications of the apparently conciliatory move were not immediately clear.

“The Gulf rulers will be petrified that there is an Iranian influence in all of this, but I think the Iranians will be pretty incompetent” in trying to gain influence in the region, Clawson said, noting that will not prevent them from making a “good attempt” to do so.

What’s more, he said, Arab Shiites increasingly look to their own leaders rather than Iran for guidance.

Nonetheless, analysts expressed concern about Iran.

“The issue of Iran is critical. What is a good outcome for us?” Miller asked.

“Here you have Iranian access to that Shia majority. You could argue that an Iraq-like outcome is not out of the question,” he continued, referring to how Shiites now dominate affairs in Baghdad with some backed by Iran.

Michelle Dunne, a former Middle East specialist at the State Department, agreed that the Saudis would have a hard time accepting political change in Bahrain and that the Iranians would try to exploit instability there.

“The Bahraini problem is definitely a home-grown problem,” said Dunne, now a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“This is not Iran manipulating the politics of an Arab state, but the Bahraini Shia are desperate. They will accept support from where they can get it.”

As for the naval base, analysts said its presence is not currently the focus of Shiite-driven protests, though it could develop as such if protesters eventually succeed in changing the government.

“At some point, that’s going to be rethought… whether it’s appropriate to have a US naval base there or not,” said Dunne.

Anthony Cordesman, a former Defense Department intelligence analyst, said the US base in Bahrain is “very important” in light of the “steady buildup” by the naval branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards over the past decade.

 



Total Cost Of Wars Exceeds $2.5 Trillion

Total Cost Of Wars Exceeds $2.5 Trillion – No Worries! US Media ‘Fluff’ Numbing Nation, Robbing Next Generation

The Daily Bail
February 8, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56zcUcjpzsY

Thus far, the war in Iraq has cost over $740,000,000,000 — but the cumulative cost could be between two and three trillion dollars. The war has caused the death of over 4,400 American troops, and left more than 31,000 wounded.

Video – Americans consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan among the less important problems facing their country – according to a recent opinion poll. That’s despite thousands of U.S. soldiers killed in action and more than one trillion dollars spent. But as RT’s Lauren Lyster reports it may be the mainstream media that decides what really matters for the public…

What does a Trillion dollars look like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNFb6qe7Tmg