Gadaffi Was Pushing for a Gold Standard

#7
#7
MontereyVol said:
Seems like he has been pushing the Gold Standard for a really long time.
Click to expand...

You're saying he really has been pushing gold a long time?

Or are you being sarcastic and saying gold had something to do with him not wanting American troops to cross the line of death in 1973, and somehow those events have something to do with Libyan intervention today?
 
#8
#8
What does any of this have to do with the Libyan insurrection that led to NATO involvement? Were the denizens of Benghazi upset that Libya was moving to the Gold Standard?
 
#10
#10
therealUT said:
What does any of this have to do with the Libyan insurrection that led to NATO involvement? Were the denizens of Benghazi upset that Libya was moving to the Gold Standard?
Click to expand...

They don't have anything to do with each other. If this theory holds water and our interest is the dollar we used the insurrection to get involved.

There is chaos in all corners of the world? Why Libyan insurrection? Especially when we can't even identify an ally or American interest.
 
#11
#11
nbakerld said:
You're saying he really has been pushing gold a long time?

Or are you being sarcastic and saying gold had something to do with him not wanting American troops to cross the line of death in 1973, and somehow those events have something to do with Libyan intervention today?
Click to expand...

Why take out the one guy who would be a benefit for the opposing group?
 
#12
#12
JTrainDavis said:
From what I gather BHO piggybacked on Sarkozy and Cameron on this one. Seems to be general knowledge.
Click to expand...

That's how I understand it. There was also Arab League involvement but I'm not sure what their angle was other than Col. Quackers must have pissed them off at some time. For Sark and Cam it was about oil flow - they depend on it heavily. The only way France in particular and the UK to some extent could exercise no fly was through NATO and in turn NATO through the US.

NATO was simply the mechanism - it wasn't the motivator.
 
#13
#13
so you're saying that the US engaged in a kinetic military activity as part of an overseas contingency operation in order to prevent Libya from attempting to move the continent of Africa to a gold standard?

you and gs must be perusing the same Alex Jones-type conspiracy websites
 
#14
#14
MG1968 said:
so you're saying that the US engaged in a kinetic military activity as part of an overseas contingency operation in order to prevent Libya from attempting to move the continent of Africa to a gold standard?

you and gs must be perusing the same Alex Jones-type conspiracy websites
Click to expand...

It doesn't take a conspiracy. The president is one man. He sees the dollar under threat and pulls the trigger. This is a guy contradicting his own constitutional opinion, his platform he campaigned on, and he can't identify an objective or an ally. WTF is he interested in Libya? If you can't answer that question, it's hard to dismiss any viable motive.
 
#15
#15
nbakerld said:
It doesn't take a conspiracy. The president is one man. He sees the dollar under threat and pulls the trigger. This is a guy contradicting his own constitutional opinion, his platform he campaigned on, and he can't identify an objective or an ally. WTF is he interested in Libya? If you can't answer that question, it's hard to dismiss any viable motive.
Click to expand...

Obama was hammered for his lack of any action and/or stance regarding Egypt. I imagine that he thought this would refute those claims. Now, he probably feels stuck. If he pulls out, it is a tacit admission that he was wrong; if he stays, he needs a compelling reason.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#16
#16
therealUT said:
Obama was hammered for his lack of any action and/or stance regarding Egypt. I imagine that he thought this would refute those claims. Now, he probably feels stuck. If he pulls out, it is a tacit admission that he was wrong; if he stays, he needs a compelling reason.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

He could always use the help the popular rebellion excuse.
 
#17
#17
therealUT said:
Obama was hammered for his lack of any action and/or stance regarding Egypt. I imagine that he thought this would refute those claims. Now, he probably feels stuck. If he pulls out, it is a tacit admission that he was wrong; if he stays, he needs a compelling reason.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Really? I wasn't aware of that (at least on a large scale). What kind of idiot thinks Egypt warranted our intervention? It definitely wasn't the people who elected him.
 
#18
#18
nbakerld said:
Really? I wasn't aware of that (at least on a large scale). What kind of idiot thinks Egypt warranted our intervention? It definitely wasn't the people who elected him.
Click to expand...

The National Review and many prominent members of the Tea Party were calling for American military intervention in Egypt if Mubarek refused to step down.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#19
#19
therealUT said:
The National Review and many prominent members of the Tea Party were calling for American military intervention in Egypt if Mubarek refused to step down.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Do you know who? I'd love to nail them. The T-Party's warhawkish element is why I can't get behind them, even if some prominent T-Partyers like Rand Paul are non-interventionists.

Either way, why the hell does Obama care what they think (rhetorical)? They didn't elect him and they aren't going to re-elect him.
 
#20
#20
nbakerld said:
Do you know who? I'd love to nail them. The T-Party's warhawkish element is why I can't get behind them, even if some prominent T-Partyers like Rand Paul are non-interventionists.

Either way, why the hell does Obama care what they think (rhetorical)? They didn't elect him and they aren't going to re-elect him.
Click to expand...

He's an insecure president?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top