Remembering US-NATO Intervention in Libya in the Name of Peace and Security
Timothy Alexander Guzman, Silent Crow News – The tragedy unfolding in Russia’s war on Ukraine because of the threat of NATO’s expansion to it’s borders was orchestrated by the US war party; therefore, it is of no surprise that calls for Ukraine to join NATO would be of great concern to Russia. Although FOX news is a Pro-war channel that backed the war on Iraq in 2003 and almost every other war conducted by the US, Tucker Carlson interviewed former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard who is basically anti war and asked her “but let’s stipulate – agree to agree – that it seems likely we could see some conflict between Russia and Ukraine soon. How should we view that?” Gabbard said “First of all, President Biden could end this crisis and prevent a war with Russia by doing something very simple,” she continued “Guaranteeing that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO – because if Ukraine became a member of NATO, that would put U.S. and NATO troops right on the doorstep of Russia, which, as Putin has laid out, would undermine their national security interests.” Gabbard said that “it gives the Biden administration a clear excuse to go and levy draconian sanctions, which are a modern-day siege against Russia and the Russian people,” she went on to say that the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) controls the Biden administration but, in all fairness, they have controlled every administration since President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his farewell address in 1954 warning about the rise of “misplaced powers.” She said that the MIC will win in this situation because they will benefit from a new cold war, “Warmongers on both sides of Washington have drumming up those tensions. If they get Russia to invade Ukraine, then, again, it locks in this new Cold War.”
Launching a war is never the answer, that should be the very last option even if all else fails. However, Russia had its back against the wall no matter how you look at it because if the same situation presented itself at the doorstep of the US borders with Mexico, it is guaranteed that in a blink of an eye, the US military would respond. Imagine if Washington’s perceived enemies such as China or Iran were shipping lethal arms to Mexico’s military forces under the leadership of President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador who happened to be hostile towards Washington. Of course, it’s a hypothetical scenario, but what do you think would happen? The US government would probably strike targets in Mexico within 48 hours or less. Russia has legitimate concerns against the West. If you don’t believe they do, here are some recent statements from US officials on the use of nuclear weapons against Russia. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) who told Neil Cavuto of FOX news “I would not rule out military action. I think we start making a mistake when we take options off the table. So, I would hope the president keeps that option on the table” Cavuto asked “What does military action mean, senator?” Wicker’s comment was based on the use of nuclear weapons against Russia if all else fails should ring alarm bells around the globe especially when a country like Russia who also has nuclear weapons:
“Well, military action could mean that we standoff with our ships in the Black Sea and we rain destruction on Russian military capability,” the senator said. “It could mean that. It could mean that we participate – and I would not rule that out. I would not rule out American troops on the ground.”
Continued “we don’t rule out first-use nuclear action. We don’t think it will happen. But there’s certain things in negotiations – if you’re going to be tough – that you don’t take off the table. And so I think the president should say that everything is on the table”
For years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been warning the West that eventually, they will have no choice but to respond to the NATO’s advances. Putin has said that NATO is a threat to Russia’s security. NATO is indeed a security threat to many independent nations. According to Reuters, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi spoke to Putin in a phone call on February 24th and said that NATO’s expansion eastward was a “serious threat” to the region’s security and stability, the semi-official Nour News reported.” The report said Raisi expressed his concerns to Putin that “NATO’s expansion eastward creates tension and is a serious threat to the stability and security of independent states in various areas.”
US-NATO Target Libya
Let’s go back to the invasion of Libya by US-backed NATO forces. It basically started in 2010 when the Arab Spring revolts spread across the Middle East. “Pro-democracy” uprisings in Muslim countries including Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Morocco, Syria and Libya were supported by the US establishment. Several Non-Government Organizations (NGO’s) including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which was granted $118 million in 2010 by the Department of State (DOS) for a program called Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010’ which covered North Africa and the Middle East. On April 14th, 2011, Ron Nixon of The New York Times published ‘U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings’ said that “a small core of American government-financed organizations were promoting democracy in authoritarian Arab states.” Nixon’s description of U.S. democracy-building campaigns is nothing new, but it shows you how far they will go to promote “American-style democracy” around the world:
The money spent on these programs was minute compared with efforts led by the Pentagon. But as American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections
The article is admitting to the public without any remorse that it was a morale duty for Democracy:
A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.
The work of these groups often provoked tensions between the United States and many Middle Eastern leaders, who frequently complained that their leadership was being undermined, according to the cables. The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department
The New York Times who has covered up US-backed regime change operations worldwide for years claims that Washington promotes “Democratic values” for the good of the people as Nixon wrote “No one doubts that the Arab uprisings are home grown, rather than resulting from “foreign influence,” as alleged by some Middle Eastern leaders.” Those operating in Washington’s halls of power are involved in promoting “democracy” in foreign countries deny their role in creating the chaos that followed:
“We didn’t fund them to start protests, but we did help support their development of skills and networking,” said Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy, a Washington-based advocacy and research group. “That training did play a role in what ultimately happened, but it was their revolution. We didn’t start it”
The Destruction of Libya was Planned in Advance
Following the Arab Spring, Libyan rebels whom many are associated with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups began a revolution against Muammar Gaddafi’s government. The war on Libya began on February 15th, 2011, protesters demanded legit democratic reforms which led to a confrontation between Gaddafi’s security forces and the Libyan rebels in the city of Benghazi which led to civilian deaths. Western media networks failed to mention that the Libyan rebels hijacked the peaceful protests and began attacking police stations, army bases and acquired weapons to attack military barricades and checkpoints nationwide. Hundreds of thousands of rebels were firing AK-47s in the air during nationwide protests. Pro-Gaddafi forces had responded to rebel strongholds in Western Libya with an attack along the coastline towards the city of Benghazi which was the main center of the uprising. The town of Zawiya was then attacked by the Libyan air force, then recaptured by government troops. Weeks later, the US sent more than 8,000 personal and NATO forces with a combination of various warships and aircraft had initiated more than 3,000 targeted areas across Libya.
US-backed Libyan rebels then established the National Transitional Council (NTC) during the chaos. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared to the world that Gaddafi initiated a “campaign of violence against his own people” and that he had “defied the world” but what she really meant was that Gaddafi had defied the New World Order. The Obama regime had called for a US-backed NATO intervention in Libya, but it initially began under the Bush Regime after the September 11th, attacks when Washington had planned to overthrow Libya and several other Muslim countries. Washington’s history of overthrowing governments or to conduct “regime change” have used Non-Government Organizations (NGO’s) such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is a front for CIA-based operations. The NED recruited several human rights organizations including the ‘International Federation of Human Rights’ (Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme, FIDH), ‘Libyan League for Human Rights’ (LLHR) and other so-called “democracy promotion groups” which had conducted operations in Libya to manage various labor organizations, student movements and even conspired to control news organizations to propagandize the Libyan people to turn on Gaddafi. In other words, NGO’s operating in Libya had changed the political landscape to benefit the Western powers including the US, France, the UK and the rest of the NATO alliance. The operation to remove Gaddafi from power was just part of the destabilization process. Although Gaddafi had originally crushed radical jihadi’s who were spiraling out of control in the 1990s, he had engineered peace deals among these radical groups and that calmed the situation, yet, the West wanted him removed from power. Adding to the chaos, infighting between the Libyan rebels with many radical elements occurred with the death of General Abdel Fattah Younes who decided to join the protests was a top official in the Libyan government had resigned on February 22nd and urged members of the Libyan army to voice legitimate concerns but was killed by a radical Islamic faction called ‘Abu Obeida Ibn al-Jarah brigade.’ On February 27th, 2011, the National Transitional Council (NTC) was established in rebel-held areas of Libya. France was the first country to recognize the NTC on March 10th, followed by several members of the NATO alliance, the puppet states of Senegal, Gambia, Qatar and Kuwait and of course, the architect of Libya’s chaos, the U.S. all had recognized the NTC and its representative, Mahmoud Jibril who eventually became the prime minister of Libya while they declared Gaddafi’s government, illegitimate.
By March 19th, the NATO-led coalition intervened in Libya to impose the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 with a 10-0 vote with abstentions including China, India, Russia, Brazil and Germany (who is a member of NATO) with the intentions that a ceasefire would take place while imposing a no-fly zone with sanctions placed on Gaddafi’s government in order to protect civilians. However, the U.S. and British forces fired over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya while British and Canadian air power launched sorties killing countless civilians which was followed up by a naval blockade.
Libya’s Golden Dinar
Libya was a nation that was once categorized as a success due to its profits from its oil exports. On February 21st, 2011 the BBC reported that “During Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year rule, Libya has made great strides socially and economically thanks to its vast oil income, but tribes and clans continue to be part of the demographic landscape.” Libya invested in Africa and even attempted to create a pan-African currency called the Libyan golden Dinar that would have allowed Africa to ditch the US dollar and the Cfa franc which was a currency imposed by France on its former colonies in Africa as legal tender, but that was clearly a threat to the Western powers. Wikileaks had released Hillary Clinton’s email which exposed what was the concern of the Western establishment that included the US and France:
On April 2, 2011, sources with access to advisors to Saif al-Islam Qaddafi stated in strictest confidence that while the freezing of Libya’s foreign bank accounts presents Muammar Qaddafi with serious challenges, his ability to equip and maintain his armed forces and intelligence services remains intact. According to sensitive information available to this these individuals, Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (southwest in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli. This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide, the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05785522 Date: 01/07/2016
The Making of a Failed State
Gaddafi had used the country’s oil wealth to build public schools, hospitals, clinics and infrastructure and offered free healthcare, housing and education for its citizens. The Libyan government even offered profit-sharing opportunities for every citizen from its major corporations and its oil industry. Libyan women benefited in obtaining high-level jobs and equal pay. Students were able to study either at home or anywhere around the world, even Low-income students were offered scholarships all paid for by the Libyan government and the list goes on. Although Libya was not perfect, it had its share of serious problems, but the point is that Gaddafi tried to do the right thing for his people whether you agree with him or not.
Libya is now considered one of the most dangerous countries on earth where various warring tribes and heavily armed militias who have carved up their own mini states with their own rules. Now the Libyan rebels and western multinational corporations keep profits from Libya’s oil exports while the standard of living for Libyans has become one of the worst in Africa. Libya has become a launch pad for terrorists who made their way to war-torn countries in the Middle East and Africa including Syria. Migrants from all over the world who were caught in the civil war were turned into slaves while young women were raped and forced into prostitution, many were literally sold at auctions to the highest bidder.
So, does NATO pose a threat to countries around the world? Does Vladimir Putin and the Russian people have a point about the dangers of NATO on its borders? Those who are not sure should look at the example of Libya, once a prosperous nation who has been reduced to a third world hellhole. With that said, how leaders around the world should respond to NATO’s advances on their borders?