The Truth Behind NATO's Intervention in Libya And Gaddafi's Assassination

Some investigative reporters have reported that Gaddafi my have been ousted in 2011 by NATO forces not because there was a local uprising against his tyrannical rule, but because he was making progress on his ideas for a gold backed dinar that would be used to trade Libyan oil.  It would also be the single currency of a United States of Africa that Gaddafi had proposed starting in 2000, and brought up again in 2007 and 2009 at regional conferences.  Here are some of the articles that suggest there is a lot more behind the USA and NATO involvement.

The United States of Africa 

The United States of Africa is a proposed name for the concept of a federation of some or all of the 55 sovereign states of Africa.  Former Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, who was the 2009 Chairperson of the African Union (AU), advanced the idea of a United States of Africa at two regional African summits: in June 2007 in Conakry, Guinea,[4] and again in February 2009 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.[5] Gaddafi had previously pushed for the creation of the African Union at a summit in Lomé, Togo, in 2000.[6] Having described the AU as a failure on a number of occasions, Gaddafi asserted that only a true pan-African state can provide stability and wealth to Africa.

The Gold Dinar

Muammar Gadhafi's decision to pursue gold standard and reject dollars for oil payments may have sealed his fate (June 7, 2011)
Attacking Col. Gadhafi can be understood in the context of America and Europe fighting for their survival, which an independent Africa jeopardizes.  The war raging in Libya since February is getting progressively worse as NATO forces engage in regime change and worse, an objective to kill Muammar Gadhafi to eradicate his vision of a United Africa with a single currency backed by gold.  Observers say implementing that vision would change the world power equation and threaten Western hegemony. In response, the United States and its NATO partners have determined “Gadhafi must go,” and assumed the role of judge, jury and executioner.
“That man has invested in Africa more than any other leader in the recent history of Africa's coming into political independence,” he continued. The Muslim leader said America needs access to the mineral resources in Africa to be a viable power in the 21st century.

Pre-existing Condition

During the Libyan escalation, General Wesley Clark wrote an article for the Washington Post suggesting to the world that Libya did not meet the US criteria for intervention (which is quite unusual considering that we have invaded sovereign nations over 200 times since 1800).  However what is certainly more concerning is that in 2007 on an interview on DemocracyNow, General Wesley Clark revealed plans exposed to him in the Pentagon right after 911 that suggested the US was planning to invade Libya as far back as 1998.

There are extensive reports supporting these claims.  including this RT report on YouTube. The articles and video all made the following startling and disturbing claims:

1. Just prior to the air strikes, Gaddafi had planned to introduce a new currency, the “Gold Dinar”.
2. The currency was to be supported by Libya’s massive gold reserves of 144 tonnes.
3. The gold coin was to be accepted throughout Africa and the Middle East and would have been the only currency accepted for purchases of oil.
4. This strategy would likely crush both the Dollar and the Euro, making the Dinar the dominant international currency.
5. The NATO military action is the result of a US-led plan to crush Gaddafi’s currency plans and to protect Western financial interests. The military action is supported by US oil interests, who are seeking to obtain access to Libya’s massive oil reserves.

Grounds for Impeachment

President Obama argued that the War Powers Act did not apply to the Libyan intervention because the United Nations and NATO provided him with sufficient authority to be involved.  Understand that what Obama is saying is that the President of the United States, Chief of the US Military can direct US military intervention in another sovereign nation because the UN and NATO authorize such actions.  That is very likely unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment as many have suggested.  Unfortunately for those in favor of restricting the Presidential powers, the Democratic Party and Republican Party are too "motivated" to see money being spent on a US projection of power that distracts the public from the turmoil at home.