Gaddafi’s Plan to Introduce Gold Dinar

No offense taken and I don't think you're being mean. I just don't share your opinion that what's being proposed is false information. RT is the only news network in the world that covers half of what really goes on with Wall Street and I find most of what they do pretty refreshing. There's kool-aid on both sides of the fence here. Propaganda maybe, most all news is in some form, but I just can't agree with defamation or bias as a reason to dismiss something. Those things automatically set off my spidey sense because they're not addressing the subject, and seem like a distraction. If there's no mert at all to the claim that's another thing, but that should be as far as it needs to go.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Good points. In most cases, sellers probably don't have what buyers want, so money becomes the medium of exchange even if it is gold. The most likely reason why Qaddafi/Gadaffi wanted gold instead of money is that he had no intention of sharing the wealth or using the gold dinar to improve Africa. Just the opposite. He knew that he had oil and many other countries in Africa have gold resources, and he wanted the gold. The man was completely mad, if you ever listen to him talk for any length of time, and it is fairly certain that he just wanted a mountain of shiny metal in the palace to look at. Paper money or its electronic equivalent has no such value and only becomes useful in commerce. And that's not what the mad one wanted.

 

I wouldn't short change them like this. They are the only country on the planet that maintains the only manned space flight system, have a military that even the USA won't touch and have the ability to design and build industry that is comparable to anything in the west. This isn't a country of people riding around on camels. More importantly they don't have an economy that survives by exporting nothing but debt to other nations.

So no doubt their perspective is different and people ignore what they have to say at their own risk. They certainly aren't getting what they need to hear from CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, and NBC (and all it's derivatives).

---------------------

I do watch RT and I do find them a credible source of news especially when they point out exactly what is wrong with the western media. We are fortunate in this area as it is broadcast on local TV so I usually catch 15-20 minutes of it a day. With that said, they do sometimes go over the top and I don't think that Gaddafai's plans for the Dinar was the primary reason he was attacked. I think the USA, Europe and Nato were again hypocritical in their excuses for it, and Obama's actions along with the lack of congressional oversight on this matter have very troubling constitutional questions, but I don't think it had anything to do with gold coin. Gaddafi, IMO had no desire to screw up his oil sales.

 

Now those are fair points I agree with.

I know it sounds like I was all for being involved in overthrowing Qaddafi, but I wasn't. I am also a Gulf War vet who protested against going into Iraq, since we had no right to go in later when we did. I am completely against the US being a world policeman. I never liked Qaddafi due to what he did, but we had no right to intervene this time. My only points regarding him here has been to counter the argument that we went in because of another silly US substitute currency plan. We stupidly went in because our NATO allies France and Germany demanded it, and stupidly we paid for almost all of the mission. Again, what the heck, we can waste taxpayers money.

THe US dollar will be supplanted eventually, just like the British pound was, just like the Roman Solidi was, etc etc. It will be organic in nature though, with most of the world preferring another currency, rather than something dictated by a madman.

Chris

Edit: Btw it is a very good suggestion to listen to opposing media. I listen to NPR in the car, BBC at home sometimes, and Al Jazeera on the web. All have different takes on world events, and its healthy to hear their arguments, if only to understand why you believe they are wrong. I hope here I do not sound like I drink US media Koolaid, its just in this instance I think this story's basis is kind of silly.

 

BTW, there is a modern gold & silver coin, the Dinar and Dirham, that does follow the Islamic coin proposal that Gaddafi's had planned to follow, that is issued by a state in Malaysia. I'm a bit confused on the legal status on these coins but it does sound as if they were minted in part to be an alternative currency. About a year ago, I considered collecting one, but I never got around to it. My understanding is that in this system, which is based possibly on the ancient coins of the same name, that gold coins are called dinars and silver coins dirham.

This is the other reason I tend not to believe this story about why Libya was attacked. The coins were already being produced elsewhere and Gaddafi was just using it as an opportunity to get some attention rather than be serious about it. IMO, the real reason for the attack was over control over the oil but it had nothing to do with this coin. What does surprise me is why Russia, China & the other Arab states went along with it. There is most likely more to this than what we know, but I don't think they are at the point of going to war over gold.

 

Russia and China I believe were simply out of position to do anything about it, and all of the Arab states were worried about their own revolutions in my eyes.

Btw, Dinars and dirhems would be a medieval coin denomination, not ancient. They were the Islamic versions of Sassanid issues, but since they are the Islamic versions, they are medieval. Even Sassanid issues are typically treated as medieval, but could be argued either way. Middle Eastern timeframes do not match up with European ones, and traditionally we use European dates for cutoffs.

 

"We stupidly went in because our NATO allies France and Germany demanded it, and stupidly we paid for almost all of the mission. Again, what the heck, we can waste taxpayers money."

What a strange comment.

Firstly the US did not go in.

France is not a member of Nato.

The main leaders of this Nato led assistance to the Libyan rebels was from Great Britain and its ally France, the US took a back seat (As per Obama) but provided some assistance.

Great Britain provided men, weapons and war planes to the area and completed hundreds of sortes and bombing missions from Nato basis in southern Italy.
As did France.

The Tornado and Typhoon squadrons are now just returning to their bases close to me in the UK

I do hope Hollywood is not going to make a movie on how the US defeated Libya and Gaddafi single handed
:devil:

Don`t be fooled by believing the US had nothing to do with Gaddafi and Libya inbetween hostilities.
My cousin was until the uprising a British accountant working in Malta paying the wages to US oil workers in Libya, the money was moved around different countries and banks so it had no direct link between Libya and the US.

 

Not to disagree sir, but the US flied over 90% of the sorties and provided almost all of the support missions. This is fairly well documented. Basically the British and French demanded we get involved, but the US get stuck paying most of the bill, just like most of NATO, (another modern day waste of US money).

You are right I mistyped, and I meant France and UK, not Germany. Sorry for that error.

Chris

 

I guess you have been listening to the propoganda from the up and coming movie makers or some US BS news media.

NY Times

" While U.S. planes flew a quarter of all sorties over Libya, France and Britain flew one third of all missions — most of them strikes — and the remaining participants flew roughly 40 percent. The non-U.S. NATO and coalition partners flew 75 percent of the sorties overall. "

Source
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/opinion/31iht-eddaalder31.html

 

I meant they voted for the military action in the UN resolution. Either of them could have vetoed the who thing if they desired. They don't normally support this type of action unless there is some underlying reason for them to do so. It's that reason that would be interesting to know. i.e. what were they promised for their support? Knowing that would also expose the the real reason for the war.

 

Maybe you didn't realize that propaganda is in the eyes of the beholder. I don't consider the NYTimes to be any steller source for news. They have a huge incentive to support the status quo in this matter. It's why I don't post links to argue my points.

 

I wasn't there, so I have no firsthand information, but Wikipedia reports...

USA: The United States has deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney.[142][143][144] Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, B-2 stealth bombers, AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18 electronic warfare aircraft, and both F-15 and F-16 fighters have been involved in action over Libya.[145] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft are stationed on Cyprus.[146] On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft.[citation needed] On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicates an increase of ground attacks.[citation needed] An undisclosed number of CIA operatives are said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels.[147] The US also began using MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya on 23 April.[148]

 

The most compelling reason I have heard is because Libya didn't have a central bank in the manner that most nations do. There was zero interest charged on loans, no usury which is a much stronger tradition in that part of the world than it is here. Somehow the scrappy rebels had a central bank ready to go within a couple weeks that went along more traditional lines in western governments.

I would agree that oil is big, but the other big one is gold. A lot of Gaddafi's gold went unaccounted for. He was also a good friend of Chavez who supposedly has his gold on the way. Suffice it to say, there are no shortage of reasons for the power elite not to like him.

 

IMO, the missing gold is either in Northern Sudan or possibly out in the desert. While Gaddafi and Chavaz were political allies, I don't they would send the gold there. It would have been too difficult to move it to South America on short notice, and I don't think it would have been sent to a Roman Catholic country. (historic enemies of Islam) It sounds as if a great deal of it had been moved out of Tripoli in case Gaddafi had to flee the city. The plan had been to take refuge in the part of the Sudan that was allied with his government.

I also think that some of Libya's gold is being held in western banks. That gold will be available to the new government, unless it's been hidden in them. The Swiss denied for decades the missing Nazi gold was stored there. The Nazi did not want the Russians, Americans & British to have the gold so it was sent to Switzerland for safe keeping.

 

What a superb way of telling the enemy where your submarines and other stuff is, just post it on Wiki, LOL
The US already has a battle fleet in the Med and weapons and planes at bases it rents throughout Europe so to say they were deployed to Libya at US taxpayers expense is not really true.
Just because its the biggest doesn`t necessarily mean its the best and it did not do 90% of the sorties and bombing or stand most of the expense of the operation.

 

Jason Hamlin's Seeking Alpha profile basically says that at some point he was eligible to be a financial advisor. It says nothing of any credentials for his views on precious metals or the US govt as a whole.

 

I hate to break it to you, but countries don't the position of opposing military forces by reading Wikipedia. And putting ships to sea and flying combat missions is more costly than normal peacetime operations. We are well aware of the cost of the military -- and it is not free.

 

My 90% figure was from the start of the operation, the time, you know, that there was any chance of anyone ever getting shot down or there being any danger. After it was 100% safe, then our partners took over most air operations, I agree, lowering our total sorties for the entire timeframe.

My main point was/is why is US taxpayer funds again being wasted for another overseas adventure the US has no interest in. I have a lot of respect for the UK, they are one of our few true friends in the world, I simply do not know why we had to be so involved in this.

 

Yes indeed. How many USA Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1.5M a shot were fired into Libya? Answer, on the first day, 161. It's the US taxpayer who is paid for each one of these in a time when there was a huge argument over raising the national debt yet again. Raytheon made a huge amount of money that day. And this is just one example. The fact of the matter is that without the USA, none of these other nations had the ability to conduct this attack on Libya.

 

Yeah Yeah it was all done by the USA no other nation had the equipment or ability to carry out this operation, What a load of BS

The USA took part in the operation with its NATO allies and others, it did not finance the whole thing and because Gadaffi was killed and his army disbanded the USA did not win.

If the US had not taken part the end result would have been the same, as Great Britain and France were about to go it alone.

For a country which takes excessive pride in flags, uniforms, and marching bands and spends more than the rest of the planet combined on its military, the record of America's forces since World War II is depressing. In dozens of quickie invasions against weak opponents, Americans indeed have prevailed, but when faced with tough and determined enemies, they have remarkably often been defeated or stalemated.

The failure of America's military could be explained by the notion that failure is only what happens when you seek the wrong success. A poorly-governed people, as Americans certainly are, keeps being sent to wars in which they have no vital interest or commitment. Whatever the reason, the record is unmistakable.

It includes Korea, and Vietnam, where, despite the slaughter of millions, the US left in shame, abandoning desperate associates clinging to helicopter undercarriages.

It includes America's smaller-scale but long and vicious war on Cuba. The US was embarrassed by failure time and again, shamefully resorted to the terror tactics it now claims to despise, and wasted immense resources supporting thousands of hangers-on. Fidel Castro outlived two generations of American presidents and over six hundred assassination plots.

The record includes the poorly-considered landing of Marines in Lebanon. A base blown up by resisting guerrilla forces, the Marines left with a battleship hurling sixteen-inch shells into the hills, killing who knows how many innocent civilians and having achieved nothing.



The other lost war is, of course, Iraq. American efforts there have done little but kill civilians and destroy the economy and now threaten to destroy the country itself. Even in Washington, the reality of civil war When are we going to learn how stupidly unproductive war is? And when is the US going to learn how bad it is at war despite its monstrous expenditures preparing for it?

Then we have Afghanistan, you are pulling out of there very soon without any victory, billions spent and thousands killed.

Lets just do a count on the USA success in wars on it own.

1. War for Independence--French, Dutch, and Spanish allies.

2. War of 1812--no allies, but no clear victory either.

3. Mexican War--no allies; significant USA victory leading to massive land transfer.

4. Civil War--all American.

5. Spanish-American War--USA joins a pre-existing rebellion against Spanish rule in Cuba and in the Phillipines.

6. World War I--USA joins war relatively late; many Allied nations.

7. World War II--USA joins war relatively late in 1941; numerous Allies.

8. Korean War--USA allied with South Korea. No victory for either side.

9. Viet Nam War--USA allied with South Vietnam. Other allies were South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and a few more. South Korea provided the second largest group of non-Vietnamese soldiers. War ends with defeat of South Viet Nam--no USA victory.

So, "How many wars has America fought and how many has it won without foreign help?"

I count 1 out of the big 8 foreign wars: the Mexican war. If we count the Civil War, which was not a foreign war, 2.