Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 15, 2011

U.S. Lunacy On Libya Continues

Besides being idiotic, this is a great advertisement for Swiss banking: US, other Western nations declare Gadhafi regime no longer legitimate

The recognition of the Libyan opposition as the legitimate government gives foes of Gadhafi a major financial and credibility boost. Diplomatic recognition of the council means that the U.S. will be able to fund the opposition with some of the more than $30 billion in Gadhafi-regime assets that are frozen in American banks.

Anyone in power somewhere around the world is now advised to not keep any money in a U.S. based banking account. As soon as some idiots come up and proclaim a revolution, the U.S. will likely size that money and give a few crumbs of it to the revolution leader. (The rest will be taken by the usual banking crooks.)

This will be one of the many blowbacks from this lunatic attack on Libya. Others will include downed "western" passenger planes that will be hit by the Strela man portable air defense missiles the rebels took away from the Libyan military depots, a renewed recession due to high oil prices as Libyan capacity will be off the markets for years and lots of more unwanted emigrants to "western" countries.

Posted by b on July 15, 2011 at 04:04 PM | Permalink

Comments

Indeed the whole thing is a joke. If these "revolutionaries" (ie. Business Interests/Monarchists/few Jihadists) really had popular support then why could they not take even half of the country with NATO backup? Also if they have popular support why did they not reply to Gaddaffi's offer to hold elections with UN supervision?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/16/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110616

Personally I blame the French more than anything for this mess. Sarkozy is a rat that the French need to throw out and he started this whole thing to give himself a diplomatic victory going into elections. The US ain't much better in continuing this farce but it looks like they were at least dragged into it.

Gaddaffi is a thug but at least he is a thug that is rightfully defending his country from Western aggression and from a plot by assorted corrupt figures to stage a coup. Also because he is the only one who has offered to stage elections (40 years to late granted) he is the only one advocating the best solution.

Just let the people of Libya vote ! They chose Gaddaffi or his son... so be it. They chose the lousy rebels... I'll won't complain it. They chose an Islamist government... it's there right. They chose a young democratic group... best of luck. But allowing them to vote in fair UN monitored elections is the only way to solve this and if Gaddaffi wants to run then let him hit the campaign trail with the rest of them and may the best man win.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jul 15, 2011 7:43:35 PM | 1

That illustrates perfectly one of the reasons for this Libya affair: making sure all funds available in the world flow through the US-dominated banking system to keep the whole ponzi scheme running.

See also ‘euro crisis’ or ‘debt crisis’ aka plundering the (financial) resources of European countries to make sure banks stay up – maybe the North-Eastern Japan wave and shake is a blessing in disguise, and prevents the financial plutocracy from launching renewed attacks on the Yen etc, for now…

I think I’ve mentioned this before, in the initial fase of the ‘Arab Spring’, Hillary Clintons face betrayed such a sense of panic: fear that a consequence of those changes would be that the oil rich countries would not be soo quick to reinvest their oil money in the Western banks. Remember that back in 2008–2009 a couple of British banks were saved from collapse by massive investments from (ME) sovereign wealth funds (Barclay for instance).

Posted by: philippe | Jul 15, 2011 10:17:56 PM | 2

I am not sure they will be able to legally do it, they probably need the UN for that as the UN froze the funds.

They will have to finance the rebel part of the country or let them surrender, so this basically is insurance they get their money back.

The rebels still have to win. If not the coalition will have no more business with Libya.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 16, 2011 2:18:01 AM | 3

oh and 30 billion sounds much but they will have to finance the lives of 1 million people ...

Posted by: somebody | Jul 16, 2011 2:38:39 AM | 4

Less Westphalia, more Balfour. Denying the Palestinians a state worked so well, let's do it again in Libya!

Posted by: Biklett | Jul 16, 2011 4:06:09 AM | 5

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/world/Unfreezing+Libya+assets+complicated+matter+Baird/5109750/story.html

Reports had suggested that would pave the way for the release of funds, something the National Transitional Council had been seeking, but Baird said it's a little more complicated than that - even though he saw firsthand how much civilians needed the support during a recent visit to Benghazi.

The Contact Group urged countries that have uncovered Libyan assets to consider opening credit lines for the National Transitional Council to the tune of 10 to 20 per cent of the assets themselves and accepting those assets as collateral. Baird said that's something Canada would have to investigate further.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Unfreezing+Libya+assets+complicated+matter+Baird/5109750/story.html#ixzz1SFyONDRv

Posted by: somebody | Jul 16, 2011 4:53:57 AM | 6

b wrote: this is a great advertisement for Swiss banking

Not. CH has always very rapidly blocked or confiscated the funds of any country’s leaders (plus family, connections, etc.) when they became suspect, persona non grata, etc. To give them their due, they always state the money is to be returned to the ‘people’, and they do follow up on that. (e.g. African dictators who fall.) On the other hand, these are ad hoc measures, just spontaneously carried out!

For ex. they froze Lybian (K. and family, cos. in CH, etc.) funds, before the uprising, because of the bad history between the two countries, and even appropriated some to pay back unpaid debts.

For the Mubarak family, they scrambled to find the accounts, and were the first to ‘freeze’ them. That makes them look good... Financially, the sums involved are small, in single digits in millions of dollars, or possibly very low double digits, peanuts, spending money...

The days when despots and the like had piles of money in CH are long gone (afaik..) - all of them have financial advisors, and know that seizure is a real hazard in here. There are many other reasons for blocking of accounts, which can send them into 10, 20 year limbos. For ex. suspicion of whitewashing, illegal drug money, etc.

I’m not saying this to defend CH banking practices, but to show that they throw up the required political sops as a means to appease the international community and be ‘clean’, and that Big Money of that kind does not flow to CH, but to the Anglo satellites. Including the US itself.

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 16, 2011 10:32:40 AM | 7

Well, as someone living through the dysfunctional idiocies of the Republican controlled House, the power to disrupt the Tea Party members seem to have acquired, the Republican actions of a Democratic president -- hell, the US seems like a failed state to me.

So, how can we go about telling Obama that he is no longer "legitimate" and it's time for him to go?

Posted by: jawbone | Jul 16, 2011 10:47:55 PM | 8

this is illegal and is usualy called grand theft. if the international legal system was still functioning the US govt could be taken to court. But the International legal system is dead proven to be nothing more than a front for imperial interests.
And yes itrs time the US was taken dowen by the simplest of means: govts esp china, should withdraw monies from the US.

Posted by: brian | Jul 17, 2011 5:45:18 PM | 9

Denying the Palestinians a state worked so well, let's do it again in Libya! biklett wrote.

Probably many thought of the comparison, no matter in what spirit biklett’s comment was intended.

The Isr.-Palestine conflict has been shaped by Int’l law, post ww2, in the sense that it is seemingly based on a territorial dispute, and territories were in say 1950, and are today, subject to all kinds of rules, concerning e.g. occupied territories, sub-states, annexed lands, frontiers, residency rights, movement of ppl / law enforcement/ sanitary, etc., civil rights, etc. It is a case of ethnic hate, for lack of a better general term on the moment, expressed thru territorial expansion. Oppression, expulsion, discrimination, unfair treatment, etc. as well as both overt and covert extermination has been neatly fitted into a land disputes scheme, thereby by-passing or masquerading the underlying true issues, as these are taboo, after, for ex. Auschwitz and South African apartheid.

Lybia is in a state of civil war ..distinct from, in my eyes, the events in Egypt or Tunisia. Situations differ, and there are shades of interpretation..many arguments could be made..ok...

The civil war scene in Lybia was sparked by the other Arab Spring events, and the reaction it provoked from the ‘west’ was thus quite different. In the case of Egypt and Tunisia, a gingerly and perhaps fake support for ‘democracy’ was basically all that was done, for many reasons.

In Lybia, under the umbrella of a struggle for democracy, the ‘west’ took sides very rapidly and intervened directly with military force on the side of the ‘rebels’, those trying to overthrow the instituted power.

Several EU countries recognized the TNC, CH, for ex. did so long ago, but that raises questions legitimacy and formality, and their scope. E.g. treating the TNC as a valid partner on the ground and directly attacking Khadafi or agreeing to it - an on the ground affair - to making a formal Gvmt declaration to one’s citizens. For the latter, under what statutes, rules, agreements? See Int’l law, treaties..

Anecdotal factlet: About a year ago, the UN forced Isr. to give an int. post-code to Palestine - today one can write a letter to West-Bank/Gaza, with a post code no. and the designation Palestine. (Previously, it was to ‘Israel’, and the Israelis delivered the mail, or not.) A small step forward in the recognition, not of a Gvmt. but of a territory that is somehow distinct.

Just switching ‘the Gvmtal authority’ one ‘recognizes ’ at the drop of a hat is to a rather rare occurrence (post ww2.) Germany recognized Croatia as an independent ‘entity’ - as did others subsequently - and we know what the result was. But again, this was a matter of territorial control, or was made to masquerade as such. Nobody said Croats should rule Yugoslavia, it was a question, supposedly, of break-away...

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 18, 2011 10:24:11 AM | 10

Juan Cole doesn't give up: http://www.juancole.com/2011/07/qaddafi-was-linchpin-of-corrupt-dictatorships-in-tunisia-egypt.html

Posted by: georgeg | Jul 18, 2011 11:23:32 AM | 11

ive written to Juan Cole: he is impervious to evidence. The fellow just lies and lies and like so many liberals or leftists , has been shown up by their support for a democratic war crime.

Posted by: brian | Jul 18, 2011 5:38:26 PM | 12

At least today's column shows a bit of humanity on Juan's part: http://www.juancole.com/2011/07/can-bookstores-be-saved.html

Posted by: georgeg | Jul 19, 2011 10:31:09 AM | 13

The comments to this entry are closed.