EU Demands Russia Bail Out EU & Ukraine


alfatah69:

THE BEST JOKE I HAVE HEARD FOR A LONG TIME!!!!IMF says Ukraine will be bankrupt ‘within weeks’ and needs $15 billion more for war against eastern Ukraine; EU threatens Russia with more sanctions if Russia lets Ukraine go bankrupt; EU will lose billions on Ukraine if Russia won’t bail them out.

The details are here and here.

And here’s the back-story to that:

Mark Adomanis of Forbes is the clearest and most honest writer in the West about Ukraine’s financial situation, though he propagandizes constantly against Russia just like all the rest of the West’s aristocracy-paid ‘reporters’ do (and must do, in order to keep their jobs). He wrote on 15 April 2014, that, “when it bought $3 billion worth of [Ukrainian Government] bonds at the end of 2013 Russia inserted a clause that stipulates that the total volume of Ukrainian state-guaranteed debt cannot exceed 60% of its annual GDP. If that threshold is breached, Russia can legally demand repayments on an accelerated schedule. Given the parlous state of the Ukrainian economy and its government’s extremely weak finances, this essentially means that if Ukraine’s debt exceeds 60% of its GDP Russia can legally force it to default.”

Ukraine’s foreign debt has soared above that $60 billion limit, because of a demand that the IMF placed upon its $17 billion loan on 1 May 2014, namely that Ukraine eliminate or otherwise crush the people in the area of Ukraine where the public had voted 90% for the pro-Russian Ukrainian President whomObama had overthrown on February 22nd. The way that CNBC headlined it on May 1st, the day beforepro-Government thugs massacred this new Government’s resistors at the Trade Unions Building in Odessa and so started the program to exterminate the residents of that region, was “IMF Warns Ukraine on Bailout if It Loses East.” What that meant was that, without the gas-fields and the other assets in the east, the Ukrainian Government wouldn’t have valuable-enough assets to sell off or “privatize” so as to be able to make good on the IMF’s $17 billion loan to Ukraine, and taxpayers in the U.S. and Europe would then need to absorb losses on those loans; so, the Ukrainian Government needed to follow-through andexterminate those people in order for the loans to keep coming. The aristocrats want to control their land, not the people on it. The residents are just an obstruction. This money was loaned by the IMF in order to enable Western corporations (mainly Big Oil and Big Ag and Big Military) to take over Ukraine. For examples: the residents in the areas that are being bombed did not want fracking there, and did not want a NATO missile base there.

In addition, the EU itself loaned the Ukrainian Government a further half-billion-euros on December 10th, at the way-below-market interest-rate of only 1.375% for 15 years. This money is being given away by EU taxpayers, and the interest-rate has become almost irrelevant, because it’s now absolutely clear that even the principal won’t be able to be repaid. Both the U.S. and Europe are investing heavily in thisextermination-campaign, but taxpayers are paying for it; the aristocratic potential beneficiaries are not — so, they don’t care about those losses to the taxpaying public. But, they want to blame “Putin” for the inevitable losses to taxpayers, and that’s what the new PR campaign against Russia is really all about. The West’s aristocrats want to destroy Russia, and want Russia to get the blame for everything along that rocky road.

So, now Russia is not only being blamed for supporting the residents whom Western aristocrats want to exterminate, but the propagandists for western aristocracies are already starting to blame Russia for not bailing out Western taxpayers — the people who will be absorbing the losses no matter what, even if aristocrats’ business-bets on Ukraine score those ‘entrepreneurs’ a few gains.

Few people are stupid enough to think that Russia will bail out the West for its aggression against Russia and against Ukraine’s ethnic Russians. However, the propaganda-campaign to blame Russia for Ukraine’s coming economic collapse is already well under way.

The Western ‘news’ media don’t lose their audiences even when their ‘news reports’ blame Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin for the hundreds of thousands of southeastern Ukrainians who have been fleeing into Russia, to escape the Western-sponsored ethnic-cleansing against them. Thus, for example, on December 9th, The New York Times bannered “Driving Ukrainians into Putin’s Arms” and opened by ‘reporting’ that:

“A recent United Nations report says that nearly half a million Ukrainians have fled the country since April.

The fact that families run from a war zone is heartbreaking but hardly unexpected. The disturbing part lies in the details — of the roughly 454,000 people who had fled Ukraine by the end of October, more than 387,000 went to Russia.

Most of those who fled were Russian speakers from the east, but this still raises a sobering question: If this is a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, why did so many Ukrainians choose to cast their lot with the enemy?”

The ‘reporter’ shows his ‘independence’ from Washington by denying a statement he alleges to Washington but that the Administration isn’t even asserting:

“Mr. Putin and the Russian news media say that western Ukrainians in Mr. Poroshenko’s government are neo-Nazis. The West denies these claims, averring that there are no neo-Nazi elements in the Kiev government. [But even Victoria Nuland did not deny that some ‘neo-Nazis’ helped bring the new Ukrainian Government to power, and she was never even asked whether some members of that Government are nazi; this ‘reporter’ is lying.] Both are wrong. The Kiev government and the armies fighting in eastern Ukraine contain a small minority of neo-Nazi ultranationalists.

To eastern Ukrainians, however, even one is too many.”

Actually, however, that Government is run by nazis; and the residents in Ukraine’s southeast are fleeing into Russia (or “Putin’s Arms”) in order to escape from them.

Why do people subscribe to lying ‘news’papers, even ones (such as the NYT) that were similarly stenographers for George W. Bush’s lies about “Saddam’s WMD” and “Saddam’s support for Al Qaeda”?

When will the consumer-boycott against America’s lying press begin? Or do the American people still trust them — and, if so, then why, and how long will that trust go on?

Originally posted on 2012: What's the 'real' truth?:

byEric Zuesse.
WashingtonsBlog

Thanks to J.

IMF says Ukraine will be bankrupt ‘within weeks’ and needs $15 billion more for war against eastern Ukraine; EU threatens Russia with more sanctions if Russia lets Ukraine go bankrupt; EU will lose billions on Ukraine if Russia won’t bail them out.

The details are here and here.

And here’s the back-story to that:

Mark Adomanis of Forbes is the clearest and most honest writer in the West about Ukraine’s financial situation, though he propagandizes constantly against Russia just like all the rest of the West’s aristocracy-paid ‘reporters’ do (and must do, in order to keep their jobs). He wrote on 15 April 2014, that, “when it bought $3 billion worth of [Ukrainian Government] bonds at the end of 2013 Russia inserted a clause that stipulates that the total volume of Ukrainian state-guaranteed debt cannot exceed 60% of…

View original 956 more words

About these ads

A VERY DANGEROUS MAN IS COMING TO LIBYA HIS NAME BERNARDINO LEON


A VERY DANGEROUS MAN IS COMING TO LIBYA HIS NAME BERNARDINO LEON

Bernardino León: “The EU wants to militarily support the Syrian rebels, but the weapons turn against us”

Posted: 02/05/2013 21:20 BST Updated: 02/05/2013 21:20 BST

The thousands of secret documents leaked by Wikileaks US repaired no praise when describing Bernardino León (Málaga, 1964). USA dubbed him “golden boy” of the government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and ventured that his career would take “far beyond where it is now.” Then he was the principal adviser to the president on foreign policy and today’s special representative of the European Union for the Southern Mediterranean and

Arab Spring that just will not bloom.

Two and half years later, Egypt lives on the edge, with a battered economy, high debt, low and tourism to survive an outstanding loan from the International Monetary Fund hours. The country, as in Tunisia, Islamism and grow governs the voices calling for restricting the rights of women or freedom of the press. Syria remains a tinderbox and other regimes resolve the dissatisfaction with the necessary concessions to perpetuate power.

Leon, waiting to be renovated in office in June, facing the situation calmly. The special representative, who runs marathons, believe in almost everything, even in the Arab Spring, perseverance is the key to success.

They’ve spent two and a half the outbreak of the Arab Spring years. Can you say who has spent a great feast to a tough hangover?

As Europeans, we are required to analyze it from a historical perspective. We know that transitions last long and in some European countries have not yet been completed. Pretender finding results very quickly and, above all, link their lack of real will to democracy is a huge mistake. I think the process continues to meet its logical steps. The Islamists are not building dictatorships and excluding others.

The Arab Spring – follows an Islamist winter?

They just finished the transition phases linked to the previous regimes and now we live in a completely logical process when you consider that this revolution did groups with a vision of politics and very different society. Now the Islamists have won in Tunisia and Egypt. There is polarization and instability is normal but in the end, what matters is an agreement between Islamists and liberals. In Tunisia, after a very difficult time after the Chokri Belaid murder was a moment of great tension. However, it has formed a coalition government. They have even gone more games than the previous.

That is, that the rise of Islam is not a risk but an unavoidable stage.

We are accustomed to see Islam as a threat, but not per se to be a hazard. We tend to confuse Islam with fundamentalism and jihadism. But governs Islam in Turkey and the country has proven to be the most pro-European reformers of the past decades.

They’re different countries makings. In the case of Turkey has always outweighed the influence and legacy of Atatürk, the father of the country and its secularism.

Ataturk and Habib Bourguiba [president of Tunisia between 1957 and 1977] have many similarities. The role of women in Tunisia is unmatched in other Mediterranean countries. In short, we know that Islam is not the problem. There are different types of Islam by country.

They will make mistakes. We are seeing and is common in such countries.

‘In Egypt there are fewer than Hosni Mubarak parliamentary and there are voices that criticize that there are pressures to restrict certain rights that existed before. Against Mubarak life was better?

No. The leaders of Islamist movements in Tunisia and Egypt have insisted that there will be no turning back. The gains for women are collective achievements and country. We’ve heard of Rachid Ghannouchi, the Tunisian Islamist leader. It is true that in the Egypt of Mubarak timid changes occurred. His wife, Suzanne Mubarak led a campaign against female genital mutilation.

Precisely Salafist groups now claim mutilation.

Salafism is a difficult qualifying as a political movement and the distances between them and the Islamists are enormous. Even within Salafism we are seeing big changes. Just before the revolution leaders were very rough, with very basic speeches, and in recent months have come a long way. When they commented to the IMF loan to Egypt I was told that “the Koran says that necessity makes the unacceptable acceptable.”

Very pragmatic.

Right. They begin to understand that politics is the art of the possible and you can not work on the basis of unrealistic principles. Islamist governments know they have to make virtue of necessity. Your credibility depends on foreign affairs as progress in women’s rights.

CAN THE ECONOMIC CRISIS TRANSITION TO THWARTING DEMOCRACY?

‘The Arab Spring was born not only as a requirement of democracy, but to improve the standard of living. Does the economic instability threatens political transitions?

Revolutions settled around dignity not only understood from the political arena. Egypt is now living a very difficult time, with most of the population in poverty, in unacceptable conditions, work without any protection. Investment has fallen and tourism. The situation has solutions that work for us immediately. The IMF is negotiating an agreement but not yet closed.

-What will happen it not?

Failure to reach an agreement with the IMF soon, which it will be an important opportunity for Europe and USA strengthen their investment in the country condition, the situation will be very difficult. In Egypt no reserves left. It is resisting because it has had a emergency loan of 3,000 million Qatar and Libya 2,000 million. The budget deficit will exceed 12,000 million and debt to energy companies is 9,000 million. Or we find a solution in a few weeks or there is a real risk that the economic problems to affect the political transition.

- Political and economic instability slows the spread of revolution to other countries, such as the Gulf monarchies? Stated another way, the experience of Tunisia and Egypt slows monarchies concessions to their citizens and avoid demands of society?

They are two different phenomena. Not the fear of instability which slows societies that have a thirst for freedom. We know that in Libya and Syria people took to the streets against regimes that had no scruples and commit savage acts. It is not that fear that stops them. But I do not think we can talk of contagion to countries in the Gulf. Except in the case of Yemen, who is a tribal society, the only country where there has been conflict in Bahrain, for problem which came back.

That is, the Arab Spring has consolidated only where there has already been riots, no more travel.

Has a long journey. Egypt has a key that can open or close a door. Tunisia also, but it is a very special case, because it is known as the Switzerland or Singapore of the Mediterranean, with unique characteristics. If a functioning democracy is consolidated in Egypt, I am convinced that we will gradually changes in all Mediterranean countries.

When? It depends on how long it takes Egypt to reverse the key. But once you do, it will be irreversible.

SYRIA: ARM THE REBELS YES, BUT HOW?

-What The EU and USA are unable to overthrow Bashar Al Assad, who massacres his people, which says on its ability to accompany transitions?

Syria is a very special country in which there are more than 20 minorities. We are not only witnessing a conflict between those who want democracy and they do not want, but the actors choose to support one side or another depending on future consequences. Decisions have to be taken with extreme caution, because there are close to Al Qaeda elements that make us all think twice. Many have memories of Afghanistan, where he supported the

Taliban. We have made mistakes in the past, supporting Mubarak, Ben Ali, Muammar Gaddafi. That mistake we are not committed in the Syrian case.

‘In March, the EU showed its division between those who wanted to arm the rebels and those who do not.

If the lowest common denominator in the EU does not serve to advance Syria, where 27 have tried to go beyond not have agreed.

Everyone would like to spend the economic and political opposition to military support, to help tip the balance in favor of supporting the rebels. At the same time, everyone wants to ensure that these weapons are paid with the money of our citizens do not end up turning against them. It is necessary that these weapons will ever be good hands to fight for truth and freedom democrtacia and are not elements that reinforce or elemenos of jihadists and Al Qaeda is a threat to Europe. Cyprus, Bulgaria and Greece are very close to

Syria.

- Arming the rebels is not the solution now. It’s not what but how I care at this time.

“SPAIN LIVE A CRISIS OF VALUES, MORALS CASI”

Spain -How seen in the distance?

The situation is difficult. We say that the situation will improve in 2014 or 2016 as if the crisis were only economic. It is, but also politics, values , almost moral. The trouble is that finding, but one does not see action with the depth and ambition needed by the whole of society and institutions. The perspective that gives you exposure to areas where everyone is involved, where a vehemence for solutions means you can not be optimistic.

How do you see the protest movements emerged in Spain and disaffection of the policy?

They are a logical answer. My own children are in that dynamic. It is a rejection of politicians who seem to engage in defending formulas always like things have not changed. I’m not worth the view that everything that has to do with politics is bad, because politics is nothing more than finding solutions. These movements are on the street are also political, but not enough to reject it. From politics to look for solutions in which everyone must get involved.

‘The corruption in countries like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, much of the carried resources to accompany a successful transition. Did he think the Corruption in Spain was so ingrained? Did you know?

I had no idea. It has been one of the biggest blows throughout this stage. It’s terrible, a big disappointment. Together, we must transform a model that goes beyond the legal or political. Have to focus on earlier stages as the field of education. A society with corruption, which does not take into account other values is a society that has no future.

- Europe is a part of his career, is he back from exile?

The question contains an assessment we make many times. When you come called black men, when it comes to giving sovereignty to Europe … we talk about Europe as alien, but it’s not. We are Europe. Spain is a huge part of it, so I, being Andalusian or Malaga, I am one of those realities. Many solutions involve the EU. The biggest challenge facing Europe is Spain and southern Mediterranean. That does not mean they do not ponder, does not take me that no part of the reflection and debate.

 

Why Was Gaddafi Overthrown?


Why Was Gaddafi Overthrown?

Video

This chaos in Libya was deliberate. It was deliberate because Libya was a stable African society in North Africa, where the leader of Libya wanted to use the resources of Libya for the reconstruction of Africa—the water resources, the oil resources, the financial resources, and the intelligence of the Libyan people.

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome back to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay in Baltimore.
March 19 will be the third anniversary of the NATO intervention into Libya.

Looking back, what were NATO’s objectives?

What Libya did they hope to find after the overthrow of Gaddafi?

And what in fact is today’s Libya?

Now joining us from Syracuse University is Professor Horace Campbell. He teaches African-American studies there and political science. He’s written extensively on African-American politics. And his new book is called Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya.
Thank you very much for joining us, Horace.

HORACE CAMPBELL, PROF. AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDIES AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, SYRACUSE UNIV.: Thank you for inviting me to discuss the failures of the U.S. foreign policy in Africa and the failure of NATO in Africa.
NOOR: So it was only a day or two ago, Navy SEAL sailors boarded a Libyan-North Korean boat carrying oil coming from a rebel-held oil port in Libya. This was, I guess, to send a message that the central government, so-called, of what is recognized by the United States, and nobody else should be selling oil. But it’s a reflection of what chaos there is in Libya. ****(what is not said by the US is that although the captured the ship they didn’t find the OIL ON BOARD)
Give us a sense now of what’s going on in Libya, and then we’ll kind of dig further back into why this all came about.
CAMPBELL: This chaos in Libya was deliberate. It was deliberate because Libya was a stable African society in North Africa, where the leader of Libya wanted to use the resources of Libya for the reconstruction of Africa—the water resources, the oil resources, the financial resources, and the intelligence of the Libyan people.
NATO intervened in spite of the differences between different sections of NATO, between France and the United States, between France and Germany, and the competition between Italy and France. Despite these differences, they came together after France precipitated this massive invasion to destroy Libyan society in 2011.
But that destruction has only created a great problem for Western capitalist forces in Africa.
JAY: I don’t quite understand why the West simply wanted to destroy Libyan society. Gaddafi’s regime was playing footsie with the IMF, with the World Bank. His sons were knocking the gavel at the stock exchange. In fact, one of his sons was visiting American military manufacturers, negotiating arms deals just before the invasion. They were doing oil and gas deals. There’s reports from the World Bank praising his reforms and privatization of the Libyan banking system. I mean, he cooperated with Bush–Cheney in many ways. He had made a big reconciliation with the Americans. I don’t understand, on the face of it, why they wanted to overthrow him. Obviously they did, but I don’t think that explains it.
CAMPBELL: That is all very true. But you’re missing one factor: that every political leader seeks political legitimacy. And in the case of Libya, the legitimacy of the leader had come from his presenting himself as someone who was part of the African Union and wanted to build an African Monetary Fund, an African Central Bank, and a African common currency. And that was a danger to not only the euro, because Sarkozy said, we’re going to fight to save the euro, but it would present a threat to the dollar. Moreover, the Libyan leadership had moved to take over the Arab banking corporation in Bahrain, and the Libyan leadership had over $200 billion in foreign reserves.
So, yes, you’re correct. They were playing footsie with the West. But that same leadership was also capable of nationalist pressures inside of Libya and inside of Africa so they could have nationalized oil companies in the midst of this global capitalist crisis. And the West did not want any surprises, where Libya would want to call on Africans to turn away from the dollar as the reserve currency and to use African resources, such as gold, as a new currency for all of Africa.
JAY: But, Horace, what evidence is there that they were really concerned about this? I know Gaddafi talked about it, but, I mean, he himself was up to the eyeballs in the World Bank. ****(see what I mean they are always mis-informed) And, you know, rhetoric is one thing, but the reality of the Libyan economy was becoming totally assimilated into global capitalism. ****(that is what the West told the rebels and they believed it. These rebels where living abroad and had no connection with the reality of Libya) It seems to me more that there was a problem is that he was also playing footsie with the Russians—
CAMPBELL: No, no, no, no, no.
JAY: —and there was more that he was caught in these inter-imperialist contradictions. I mean, you can’t tell me Libya had the power to change the currency of Africa.
CAMPBELL: They did, because Libya have $200 billion in reserves, and if Libya got five or six other African countries with massive reserves to create a common currency for Africa, which is one of the mandates of the African Union, that’s a threat to Western Europe and North America.
Moreover, the Chinese had become the dominant force in infrastructure development within Libya. There were over 36,000 Chinese involved in railway, road, water, agriculture, and other forms.
So there’s no question that Libya had the financial wherewithal to determine their own independence.
And I think one of the things that the media is missing, even those who call themselves the left, is the role thatGoldman Sachs andtheir dalliance trying to use the resources of Libya toshore up thederivatives market and thefact that they wereso involved in Libya prior to intervention.
JAY: Yeah. Well, talk a bit about that. Why was Gaddafi so involved with Goldman Sachs?
CAMPBELL: Well, that is the point. The point was that Gaddafi wanted to please the Western forces. Gaddafi’s son had studied in the London School of Economics. Gaddafi had been open to talking to this group from Boston that was going there. And all of these forces were trying to ingratiate themselves with Gaddafi, so that Gaddafi would completely be in the pockets of the West.
But he was unpredictable, and that was the problem between them and Gaddafi.
JAY: Yeah, I agree with that part. He was unpredictable. But he was very much playing ball. He was very close to the new rising Rothschild. He was playing ball with the commodity brokers. I mean, he was using the Libyan sovereign wealth fund like a private investment thing, ***(that’s absolute BS they don’t mention that with Golden Sachs we had taken them to court for misusing the funds and loosing billions which of course GS would have to return back to Libya as they court was on the side of Libya) just to—really playing with every speculator in Europe and America.
But I agree with you: he was unpredictable, and he was playing ball too much with the Chinese and with the Russians, ****(well we may played ball with China and Russia but these two countries never sanctioned us plus being deprived of any goods(from medicine, food, to everything plus a no fly zone which meant that every Libyan person had to drive to the borders of Tunis or Egypt so that they could go to Europe or anywhere else. Imagine if you need immediate attention health wise and you had to drive 700 km to reach the border wait there for over six to seven hours and then to drive to the nearest airport to conclude if someone wanted to travel to England for example he needed to be on the road for 48 hours that was one of the things we had to endure through out the embargo that the US did to Libya) from America and Europe for over ten years what did the west expect that we would lay down and die? It was the west who lost on contracts with Libya while Russia and China where wiser. For the West’s stupid decision in putting sanctions to us we made new friends and for that FUKUS destroyed everything we built.)  and that he wasn’t becoming a reliable ally in Northern Africa. That—I think that much is for sure.
But there was a lot of differences in the West about what should be done and what the objectives were.
CAMPBELL: The differences in the West stems from the fact that there is a rivalry between the European Union and the United States over the reserve currency. The entire Western world is in the midst of a global capitalist crisis since 2007, 2008, and it’s imperative that they use the military to keep forces in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe in line behind the dollar as the currency of world trade.
So in the case of Libya, Libya had the wherewithal to be playing around with the Europeans, playing around with the Chinese, and playing around with the United States of America.
JAY: But, Horace, the Chinese have—first of all, they own several trillion U.S. dollars, and I think they’ve made it very clear for at least for this historical period they are not going to challenge the U.S. dollar ****(you think, they will use it at one point or other.) as a reserve currency. Far from it. They rely on the Americans to manage this whole global system.
CAMPBELL: They rely on the United States to manage the global system, but no country in the world is happy with the United States devaluing the dollar by printing dollars, what they call quantitative easing.
JAY: Yeah, this is true.
CAMPBELL: [incompr.] $65 billion dollars every month. If the United States of America is putting $65 billion every month on the world market, nobody wants to keep their reserves in dollars. So the Chinese, the Brazilians, everybody’s looking for the exit from the dollar, because the capitalist prices means that the dollar is worthless, because if anyone can have a printing press to print dollars, then other currencies are worthless.
JAY: Okay. Then why is everybody buying American dollars? I mean, they’re getting people to buy T-bills with practically zero percent interest.
CAMPBELL: Because the American military makes it, the American dollar, a force in world politics. What backs up the American dollar today is not gold, but the U.S. military.
JAY: Yeah, but I agree with that. But all these other governments and elites rely on that.
CAMPBELL: The elites in Latin America and Africa are seeking ways to exit this, in Latin America, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, and all these countries are seeking an exit from the dollar. They’re trying to create a common currency in Latin America. In the Asian countries, they’ve created alternatives. In Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand they have created alternatives. The reality for the world is we’re living in a dangerous moment because of this capitalist crisis where the United States military is shoring up the printing of dollars and this condition in the world where the United States have unlimited access to the resources of the world.
JAY: And you think is what triggered the Libyan intervention.
CAMPBELL: This is one of the factors in the Libyan intervention. Initially the United States government was hesitant because this was a plot by the French to go into Libya. And at the outset, the secretary of defense Robert Gates and Mullen said before the Congress, do you have evidence that Libya was about to destroy their people. And the military in the United States, the United States Africa Command was originally opposed to going into Libya. But the pressures of Goldman Sachs, along with those people called the humanitarian hawks—Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton—[incompr.] the American public and the media to go along with France and Britain for the destruction of Libya in 2011. And the people of Africa are still living with this destruction, where over 50,000 people in Africa have been killed, 40,000 people, black-skinned from Tawergha, have been thrown out of where they live. And so we have to see that initially the United States military was opposed, but later on, the media, along with Clinton, Rice, and Powers, were able to build up the psychological warfare and propaganda within this society against the United States people to portray Gaddafi as this terrible leader, when, as you said, he was in league with the Western banking and financial institutions.
JAY: Alright. Thanks very much for joining us, Horace.
CAMPBELL: Thank you very much.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
End

source: therealnews.com

Billions Stolen From Libya By Rothschilds


Libya Foreign reserves plundered stolen

via Billions Stolen From Libya By Rothschilds.

The Libyan Coup And the Truth Behind the So Called «Revolutions»


The Libyan Coup And the Truth Behind the So Called «Revolutions»

By Alexander Light

As you’ve probably noticed, I was pretty «vocal» regarding the coup taking place in Libya. Since I started expressing my opinion, I’ve received a lot of positive feedback from you. Most of my readers know what is really happening behind the closed curtains, but I was surprised to see that there are still people who don’t understand what a coup is and what’s the purpose behind it. 

Today I will tell you about my first hand experience with a Western-coup. And like all coups, it also received the name of «people’s revolution.»

I didn’t live in Libya under  Muammar Gaddafi, but I lived in Romania under Nicolae Ceausescu.

I. Wars Vs. Coups

Before going any further, please allow me to tell you what the purpose of a coup is.

The human species, unfortunately, has a very bloody history. There was always a war taking place somewhere on our planet. From our distant history, to the modern times, mankind never knew peace. The main purpose of a war is to gain wealth. Long time ago, it was an easy scheme, and Julius Caesar said it best: «veni, vidi, vici» — «I came, I saw, I conquered». Once the war was over, the winner took over the lands and wealth of the defeated.

But things are more complicated in modern times. Wars are not so simple anymore. Weapons are very expensive, the human loss is not easily tolerated by modern society, the motives for an invasion/war must be good (see Pearl Harbor or 9/11), keeping an army abroad is very expensive (for example, the budget for keeping the US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010 only, reached $663.8 billions — Wikipedia), not to mention the destruction caused to an invaded country and the social distress.

A more simple and effective solution is for the «conqueror» to place in power a corrupted leader controlled by him. This way, the conqueror controls the entire country and all its wealth, without expenses, destruction or distress.

But things get complicated when the leader of a country is a dictator or an incorruptible patriot. And here is where coups work their black magic.

II. Examples of Coups

A good example is Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, who in 1999 won the elections for the first time. His opponent was Carlos Perez, a former Venezuelan president, a pro-American and corrupted leader who gave the wealth of his country for personal materialistic gains. He lived and died as a wealthy man in Miami, USA.

Hugo Chavez is an incorruptible patriot, therefore inconvenient to the Western powers who are desperately trying to remove him from power. Chavez speaks of numerous failed assassination attempts (Washington Post). The Bush administration also planned for a coup to take place in 2002, but fortunately it failed because Chavez is very loved by his people.

1. Democracy Now: «CIA Documents Show Bush Knew of 2002 Coup in Venezuela»
2. The Guardian (UK): «Venezuela coup linked to Bush team»
3. Project Censored: «Bush Administration Behind Failed Military Coup in Venezuela»
4. Venezuela: Chavez accuses US of assassination plot

Steve Kangas wrote:

«CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: “We’ll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us.”

The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator.

The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be “communists,” but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.»

Examples include:

 – the coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran;
– the ouster of democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in Guatemala;
one coup per year (between 1957-1973) in Laos;
– the installation of the murderous “Papa Doc” Duvalier in Haiti;
– the assassination of Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic;
– the overthrow of Jose Velasco in Ecuador;
– the assassination of the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba in the Congo (later Zaire);
– the overthrow of the democratically elected Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic;
– the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart in Brazil;
– the overthrow of the democratically elected Sukarno government in Indonesia;
– a military coup in Greece designed to install the “reign of the colonels” (when the Greek ambassador complained about CIA plans for Cyprus, Johnson told him: “F**k your parliament and your constitution”);
– the overthrow of the popular Prince Sahounek in Cambodia;
– the overthrow of Juan Torres in Bolivia;
– the overthrow and assassination of Salvador Allende in Chile;
– the assassination of archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador, and dozens of other incidents rarely if ever taught in American school history lessons.

As John Perkins (author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man), as a former respected member of the international banking community and National Security Agency economist, told Amy Goodman: “Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring—to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government….

This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men.”

Perkins’ job was “deal-making”:

«It was giving loans to other countries, huge loans, much bigger than they could possibly repay. One of the conditions of the loan — let’s say a $1 billion to a country like Indonesia or Ecuador — and this country would then have to give ninety percent of that loan back to a U.S. company, or U.S. companies, to build the infrastructure — a Halliburton or a Bechtel. These were big ones. Those companies would then go in and build an electrical system or ports or highways, and these would basically serve just a few of the very wealthiest families in those countries.

The poor people in those countries would be stuck ultimately with this amazing debt that they couldn’t possibly repay. A country today like Ecuador owes over fifty percent of its national budget just to pay down its debt. And it really can’t do it. So, we literally have them over a barrel. So, when we want more oil, we go to Ecuador and say, ‘Look, you’re not able to repay your debts, therefore give our oil companies your Amazon rain forest, which are filled with oil.’

And today we’re going in and destroying Amazonian rain forests, forcing Ecuador to give them to us because they’ve accumulated all this debt. So we make this big loan, most of it comes back to the United States, the country is left with the debt plus lots of interest, and they basically become our servants, our slaves. It’s an empire. There’s no two ways about it. It’s a huge empire. It’s been extremely successful.»

III. If coups are so repaying, then why are wars still taking place?

Most of the money for these loans, according to Perkins, is provided by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (Rothischild-owned private bank), the two premier neolib loan sharking operations (it is important to note that the Straussian neocon, Paul Wolfowitz, is now president of the World Bank, thus demonstrating how closely related the neocons and traditional neolibs are).

If the loan sharks are unable to steal natural resources (oil, minerals, rainforests, water) as a condition of repaying this immense debt, “the next step is what we call the jackals.”

«Jackals are CIA-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn’t work, they perform assassinations—or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren’t able to get through to Saddam Hussein… His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.»

IV. My personal experience: The 1989 Romanian Coup

I was in Romania during the 1989 so called «people’s revolution» under dictator Ceausescu. In fact, it was a 100% Western coup, with the sole purpose of looting the country of its wealth!

There were hundreds of reasons for the Romanian coup to take place. First of all, Ceausescu was a communist & pro-USSR.

- Romania had no external debt + US $2.7 billions in the National Bank + around US $10 billion to receive from other countries from exports (in 1989!). The exports were rapidly increasing.

- Romania was mass-exporting cereals, wine, weapons (especially the PKM), ammunition, etc. — while keeping the imports low.

- Romania also had oil fields and all the petrol used was internaly produced.

- Romania’s gold exploitation gave a $5 billions/year profit and the country’s gold reserve was fairly big (tens of tons). The gold mines were expanding.

- All Romanians had jobs, the unemployment was 0%, all had cars, homes and savings in the National bank. Even though the communist state had major expenses (it was building roads, apartment buildings, factories, etc.), the country was getting wealthier each year.

When the coup started, Ceausescu was abroad, negotiating with some Arab countries the establishment of the first European Bank. Imagine that! Romania was about to become a world player. Fairly rich & with a solid economy.

Were the people unhappy?

Yes, but not because they were poor. The social distress had to do with the people’s liberties being restrained by Ceausescu’s Police (Militia) and Secret Services.

Also, the people had money, but there were not too many products to spend them on. Everything was limited and rationalized.

The country was prospering at high speed, but the people were paying the price. Ceausescu was a dictator and oppressor. His intentions might have been good, but the price was too high. And that’s why the coup was successful.

Even so, the Romanians never imagined that removing Ceausescu from power could mean what it actually meant. Most of them thought that his son, Nicu (who was very loved, especially in Sibiu) will step in his father’s place and offer more liberties to the people. That’s all the people ever hoped for, back then.

But the Western powers had other plans. They’ve infiltrated highly trained agents to start a war from the inside. At the same time, their «diplomats» planned a «people’s revolution.» All state’s influence was working against Ceausescu.

The secret agents working for the coup to take place were active everywhere, from those shooting civilians in the streets, to those more subtle spreading disinformation on TV and making the Army fight against the Police and the people. It was a nightmare! It is probable that not even the Army’s Chief of Staff had any clue of what was really going on.

During the coup, there was only one thing shouted everywhere: «the terrorists»! (Please, notice the pattern).

Nobody ever heard of terrorists or terrorism in Romania before, and most people had no idea what the word even meant. Who invented this word and for what purpose?

The civilians received weapons from the Army and asked to call themselves «revolutionaries.» They had been informed that the terrorists are randomly shooting down civilians and that they should respond with fire without questions. Also, they had been warned that the Police was working for Ceausescu and they will shoot them at sight.

Imagine the chaos! The people were shooting each other, while the highly trained foreign agents were conducting guerrilla strikes against the army, police and the people.

A sniper shot at my father-in-law and it was a near miss. He was going home, caring groceries. There was nothing offensive about him, just a random man, arriving home from work. I went and saw the bullet holes and marks in that building. I can only imagine what he went through, knowing that his wife and daughter were in the same building. Then, the sniper begun randomly shooting through the windows of all the apartments. The people were lying on the floor, while the windows were being shuttered apart by flying bullets.

There are thousands of buildings in Romania still baring the marks of those sad days. Thousands of innocent people had been killed or wounded during the coup.

Highly trained special troops operated in Romania. They knew exactly how the Romanian armored vehicles can be taken out with ease. They clogged the exhaust pipes in some light tank models, making the exhaust smoke flood the interior and choke the soldiers inside. Those trying to escape, had been executed outside.

They’ve also infiltrated demonstrators, offering them free alcoholic beverages. It was December and most people drank to get warm. Afterwards, the angry mob was easily controllable. They’ve led them towards governmental buildings and police stations. The drunk mob brutally murdered innocent people, without even knowing why.

Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife, were caught and executed by firing squad after a brief and shameful «trial».

Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu during their «trial»

Executed by firing squad

 

 

The judge killed himself few years later, when he finally understood that he was manipulated. Nicu Ceausescu, the dictator’s son, was arrested and convicted to prison. He died only few years later, in 1996.

Then, the Economic Hitmen have been sent to do their dirty jobs: rob Romania of its wealth.

Click to watch «The Confessions of an Economic Hitman».

22+ years later, Romania is almost economically dead. All its industry died, thousands of huge factories had been closed, millions of workers had been fired. Many of them never found work again.

All the gold mines had been closed and the gold from the treasury moved abroad. Romania received some papers in exchange, called certificates. Fare trade, isn’t it?

American and Canadian companies are taking over Romania’s gold deposits as we speak. «Rosia Montana» is one of the oldest and largest European gold mines.

Romania was banned from exporting cereals in the EU. Other European countries received this task. As a result, agriculture also died in time — except from a handful of mammoth companies which buy their GM corn from Monsanto. I’m expecting Monsanto to knock at the door from time to time and take over the operations entirely, if they haven’t already done it — covertly.

Romania has now enormous external debt (especially towards Rothschild’s International Monetary Fund) and falling deeper in debt with each passing year. The people are against taking any more loans from the IMF, they are protesting each year — but nobody minds them!

The energetic and oil national companies had been sold to Western corporations, who raise the price of energy and gas twice a year. The price for 1 gallon of gas is $8+ in Romania, while the minimum wage is $200+/month (yes, the equivalent of 25 gallons of gas).

The salaries drop periodically, instead of raising, not even keeping up with inflation.

And this is exactly what it will happen in Libya in the years to come. The country will be looted of its fortune and the people will be left to die.

The purpose of this article is to offer a closer-to-the-truth perspective to what is happening behind the scenes and to let everyone know that there is no such thing as the «people’s revolution», only well-planned coups.

NATO is a huge step towards the one world government, and it’s entirely controlled by the elites.

The Occupy Movement could be the first REAL, People’s Revolution. I only hope for it not to be hijacked from the inside, and turned against us. This is a big part of the secret services’ job — and they are really good at it!

source: za-kaddafi.ru