I can't believe nobody has posted this yet :)

Go here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106303,00.html)

It is great to see diplomacy work. Of course it makes you wonder what made Gadhafi (sic) change his mind after 17 years. Cough Cough Iraq Cough Cough. :)

Before I see any complaints about posting a link from Fox the article was written by the AP.

However, this was the thing that truly horrified me this morning. Go here if you dare (http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/showdetl.cfm?&DID=6&Product_ID=1565&af_id=623)

[ December 22, 2003, 23:01: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]

Ahm, what's surprising about that ? Libya (Strange place for the y) is since the ninties trying to get closer to Europe and get rid of the embargos (and we want their oil, so bad). Not to say, that his an importan ally in operation "fortress Europe". The more intersting news I've found that Ghadafis (Sp?) son had a career as professional footballer in Italy (that is, he paid for being member of the team on the bank). Well, now is banned from playing because of doping (wanting to get away from the bank on the field). That of course, does not interfere with Libyan and Italian (European) agreements on trade and police-co-operation, which was noted then.

@Snook...I guess that no one has posted this because there is nothing in it to criticize the US or Bush Administration over! ;)

Surely this is just a coincidence that just a few days after seeing Sadman drug from his snake hole, that Go-daffy reveals and his WMD capacity and expresses a desire to "go straight."

Anyone else notice that Ill Kim has put away his saber (erm, katana), and that Iran is seeking to Democratize? We may even see an end to the fighting between India and Pakistan in Kashimir, both nuclear powers with readily accesible "buttons."

I think as the months pass it will become even more obvious that America's actions have made the world safer for everyone...except perhaps for Americans!

It is wonderful news. The world is a better place.
Diplomacy can work. Bush is capable of using diplomacy.

and that Iran is seeking to Democratize ... I think as the months pass it will become even more obvious that America's actions have made the world safer for everyone...except perhaps for Americans! Ahm, no. Iran also started its democration proceses in the nineties. I personally wondered what the time frame would be until grey magistrate on the other pond-side would hear about that. :hmm:

Creating myths ? First introduce a nation completly wrongly (grammar ?) into a weird thing called "axis-of-we-do-not-like-you-that-much" and then, wondrous thing, saying bombs have changed that country ?

No myths here, Iago...there is a huge difference between talking about changes and making changes. Prior to this time, Libya has never formally admitted the possesion of WMD's, despite the suspicions of the world community. This is a huge turnabout from a nation which previously supported the bombing of passenger jets in flight over Scotland! If Mr. Go-Daffy has softened his stance over the last few years, I would daresay it was more likely due to the bombing of nuclear facility that he previously thought was hidden, than his secret desire to have his own soccer team. (Although he does like to appear in public in shorts)

And you can say what you want about Iran and Democratization, they made no moves toward such a stand during the nineties...only spoke of it while they attempted to promote their own nuclear program.

And I think I can speak for Grey Magistrate and say that the news arrives on this side of the pond in a very timely fashion...remember, we invented CNN, FoxNews and the National Enquirer :D

I must agree with Hacken Slash here that it is probably due to fear that these nations have expressed desires to change, if not the sole reason (and it probably is not) then it is likely what has nudged them over the edge [This of course means that diplomacy on the US's behalf had little to do with it].

Still, a change of heart for the better good is still a good thing, I only hope that it stays that way. At least we have avoided another war.

I was going to suggest that the rest of us follow suite, but the thought of all those 'stale-mate' responses gave me a headache ;)

Edit: My question is this; since the US has put all of its skill points into Intimidate rather than Diplomacy -and so cannot be a Paladin- is it a Rogue or Barbarian? Sorcerers only apply if Bluffing, too many hot-heads in charge for that anymore ;)

Edit2: Hehe, too bad Bush never bothered with Knowledge: Geography and Skill Focus: Pronounciation.

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself :D

[ December 22, 2003, 18:28: Message edited by: Manus ]

This of course means that diplomacy on the US's behalf had little to do with it At least you admit we tried diplomacy. Thanks, I think. :rolleyes:

It is wonderful news. The world is a better place.
FOR WHO??? As we move to Code Orange security alert. Visions of 9/11 may be out of YOUR head, but they still stick with me.

This is a huge turnabout from a nation which previously supported the bombing of passenger jets in flight over Scotland! Supported??? How about directly responsible. I don't trust that regime as far as I can spit.

@Spellbound - does that mean that it's all or nothing? Incremental improvements don't count? No wonder no ones ever satisfied. :rolleyes:

One less crackpot with WMD's does make the world a better place.

And don't presume to know what is going on inside my head. I do not minimize 9/11, I have never minimized 9/11, and as someone whose life has been touched by murder, I live in fear all the time. So please, spare me the condescension.

@Spellbound
I think that the way I put it originally says it best:
I think as the months pass it will become even more obvious that America's actions have made the world safer for everyone...except perhaps for Americans! I will never forget the images of 9/11 either, but I also aknowlege the possibility that our use of "Code Orange" has prevented similar events.

Eventually, if all of the nations of the world see that they will be held accountable for allowing terrorist groups to meet, train and organize within their boundaries, there will be no place left for them to go. They will always exist, but the ability of the terror groups to orchestrate a strike similar to 9/11 will be almost non-existent.
Supported??? How about directly responsible. I don't trust that regime as far as I can spit. I agree completely with you, but as some will still debate whether the Libyan admission of guilt was genuine, I sought to minimize the avenues under which my opinion could have been attacked! ;)

What this points towards is that it is possible to use diplomacy, that guns blazin' is not the only way. True that what befell Iraq might have made Khadaffi speed things up a bit but things would have moved in that direction anyway.

Who did the negotiating with Khadaffi? I wouldnt be surprised if it was someone from Powell's department.

Jack -- it was sarcasm, not condescension -- no insult intended. The world, in my opinion, is NOT a safer place....not for Americans that is. And as far Moammar Gadhafi's sudden turn of heart? Well, pardon me if I'm a little skeptical and untrusting....he hasn't got much of a track record to go on.

No myths here, Iago...there is a huge difference between talking about changes and making changes. Prior to this time, Libya has never formally admitted the possesion of WMD's, despite the suspicions of the world community. This is a huge turnabout from a nation which previously supported the bombing of passenger jets in flight over Scotland! If Mr. Go-Daffy has softened his stance over the last few years, I would daresay it was more likely due to the bombing of nuclear facility that he previously thought was hidden, than his secret desire to have his own soccer team. (Although he does like to appear in public in shorts)
Hm, so we agree to disagree, at least. The myth was aimed at Iran and axis-of-whatever. Iran, I personally am still convinced about it, will become the first working democracy in that region, and that's mainly because of internal pressure, i.e. a lot of people wanting to make something of themselves and therefore improve the state they live in.

As for Lybia and Gadaffi. I personally think is absolutely trustworthy in this matters. Why ? He doesn't want to die and leave his country in ruins for is heirs to takeover. He wants $$$$$ (internatinal understable sign for everything that matters in large amounts ;) ) and we in the north of him want his oil and his co-operation in immigration-matters.

And CNN did inform you, that the re-approachment ("let's leave the past behind") between Libya and Italy has been signed and sealed some time ago ? That's why the one with his son did spawn big articles where I live, would this incident somehow scratch the relationship between those two ? Both affirmed, no, no, no.

So, this might also be seen as great breakthrough for Gadaffi, as his got rid of the crippling embargos, some countries still upheld against him.

After the victory in Iraq, USA is on the lookout for a new target, so considering Gadhafi only had two choices, either a) keep developing WMD he has no immediate use for and risk becoming the next target of the US "War for Peace", or b) drop developing WMD, get sanctions lifted, get a much bigger influx of money and applauds and pats on the head from Bush & Blair.

Gee. Now THERE's a hard decision to make for anyone with half a brain! And Gadhafi's certainly not stupid. If you demonstrate to someone that you really have no reservations about wiping them out if they don't start dancing to the music you're playing, like the "guy over there", they'll certainly start dancing right away if they have any common sense. That, however, is not diplomacy at work, as some people are deluding themselves here. It's acting on a survival instinct.

[ December 23, 2003, 00:10: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

@ Tal - unless you define diplomacy as being one nation convincing another to do what it wants by showing that nation that it's in its best interests to do so. :rolleyes:

Sort of baseball bat diplomacy.

It certainly isn't diplomacy in its alternative definition, which is, essentially, tact.

Edit: Found this on the online Webster:

Main Entry: gunboat diplomacy
Function: noun
Date: 1927
: diplomacy backed by the use or threat of military force

Now that's US diplomacy at work here. :D

BTW - here's what that dictionary has for plain old vanilla diplomacy:

Main Entry: di·plo·ma·cy
Pronunciation: d&-'plO-m&-sE
Function: noun
Date: 1796
1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : TACT


Well, I guess with a loose enough definition, Libya WMD disarmament qualifies, but it's a stretch. Reminds me of what a teacher I had used to say back in the days of corporal punishment (this is somewhat loose because I was, after all, about 8). "Look son, you're going to behave no matter what. It's whether you need the paddle or not to set you on your way. That's up to you." Shudder.

The Financial Times had an editorial today by Amity Shlaes, quoting Richard Perle who described the current American diplomacy as "You're next." As in, America doesn't have to bomb a rogue country - it just points its finger at the next baddie in line and says, "You're next."

I guess this just goes to show that, for all the talk of Bush's militarism, his administration really is ruthlessly pragmatic. One strategy for Afghanistan, another for Iraq, another still for Iran, yet another for North Korea, a different take for Liberia, and now this for Libya. A case where the end justifies the means - whether those means be military, money, diplomacy, delay, isolation, interaction, whatever.

P.S. to Iago - Other side of the pond, indeed! That's what I get for getting my news from a European paper!

Great! Now Libya can start buying its WMD from the US corporations, the weapons suppliers of choice. Of course as long as they don't use them
on anyone we like they will be OK. Still, I wonder if we are engaged in bringing "democracy" to Libya too? :hmm:

Surely this is just a coincidence that just a few days after seeing Sadman drug from his snake hole, that Go-daffy reveals and his WMD capacity and expresses a desire to "go straight."
Sorry but Gadhafi has a long time ago abandoned his hard and mean look for a smoother and subtler negotiating approach. And the arsenal of WMD he is possesing was known before this statement. But this was just the perfect time to make another statement and get some more credit.
And as far Moammar Gadhafi's sudden turn of heart? Well, pardon me if I'm a little skeptical and untrusting....he hasn't got much of a track record to go on. Gadhafi has turned around his attitude and has stop the terrorist training camps working in his country from early 90's. He is know a bussinesman and head of state with great acceptance among his people. Furthermore i would like to inform you that this guy is very very clever and has managed the last 7 years to create and strengthen the bonds between Libya and EU.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a huge turnabout from a nation which previously supported the bombing of passenger jets in flight over Scotland!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supported??? How about directly responsible. I don't trust that regime as far as I can spit. One act of diplomacy and reedement was and the fact that he accepted his country to be trialed for the training of the terrorists responsible for that act (that happened in summer). Because that was the one accusation the world was having against Gadhafi, the existence (and tolerance if you wish) of terrorist training camps in Libyas soil. Any other support has never been proved and if we are to talk here about unproven accusation then lets rename the topic.
I guess this just goes to show that, for all the talk of Bush's militarism, his administration really is ruthlessly pragmatic. One strategy for Afghanistan, another for Iraq, another still for Iran, yet another for North Korea, a different take for Liberia, and now this for Libya. A case where the end justifies the means - whether those means be military, money, diplomacy, delay, isolation, interaction, whatever.
Well Grey having the half of the world follow your whims by fear of arms is a true Democracy and the greatest goal of a trully free, God fearing and peace loving nation. I wonder how all this will end. In the first sign of weakness by the US, all the nations that play the good boys because of fear of invasion, will turn their heads and bite a slice of the hand that hold the reins. I would have guess that Historys examples would have made it clear. But it seems we are doomed to run around the same patterns and walking over the same old pains and fears.
I will never forget the images of 9/11 either, but I also aknowlege the possibility that our use of "Code Orange" has prevented similar events.
I won't either but i also don't forget that every month or so we have something like this in the US and also have these statements (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20031222/ts_nm/security_usa_threat_dc_20) to diminish the panic. I want to point out that we have this every time and it looks to me that even the officials don't believe these alerts. They just use them for other purposes. More if i am asked to. It is impossible for a terrorist group to have the ability to organize so frequent attacks and not to mention that attacks like 9/11 were first planned a couple of years before they actually happened. And with the security frenzy not existing at that time.
The world, in my opinion, is NOT a safer place....not for Americans that is. Well sorry if i sound sarcastic or whatever but it was USA administrations choice of how the bed should be made and now the citizens must sleep on this bed.
But can you tell me why should i live now next to two time bombs and fear not a terrorist attack but two possible wars? Or why should i instead of enjoying the Olympic games that will be held i August in Athens i am seriously thinking to find a way to be away from Athens and any Olympic games city, because of this security frenzy? I know there was another path that was not followed. And sadly i fear it is too late

The Financial Times had an editorial today by Amity Shlaes, quoting Richard Perle who described the current American diplomacy as "You're next." As in, America doesn't have to bomb a rogue country - it just points its finger at the next baddie in line and says, "You're next."
European, yet Austrian from head to toe, but still European, I must confess. Caught me here. On the other hand, (surprise, surprise !) I'd not go for deep thought based on quotes from black and white B-movies with Johnny Wayne. You're next, you'e next, you're next, then you, then you. How many bullets are in that revolver (how overstretched are those forces) ? Ruthless pragmatism may fire back in one's face. It's the policiy you chose, but I hope my neighbouring countries keep a smart, sound distance, I don't want to reap what I haven't sown.

On the issue again, still, it seems to me like this fits nicely into the pattern of Gadaffis re-approchment to his next-door neighbours north of him. Quite lucrative for both sides.

By the way, I thought another element of gun-boat diplomacy would be, that one side gets a rather bad deal, like the 1850's treaty between Japan and the USA ?

There also were signs that Libya could reap substantial rewards for abandoning its drive to develop nuclear and chemical weapons and the long-range missiles to deliver them.

The decision "marks a further step toward establishing the right conditions for the restoration of full diplomatic relations between Libya and the European Union," said the president of the 15-nation bloc's executive, Romano Prodi.

Edit: Spelled correctly, I bet.

[ December 23, 2003, 11:52: Message edited by: Iago ]

Jack Funk wrote Bush is capable of using diplomacyWell, that doesn't really convince me. As a matter of fact Ghaddafi has been working for years, focused and consequent, on entering the international mainstream again, and coming closer to Europe especially.

His coming out of the cold is neither a result of him being scared ****less after the example Bush stated with Iraq (and bound there he's unlikely to start another adventure anytime soon), nor is it the result of Bush's grandiose diplomacy.

Let me also point out a little inconistency - arms comtrol in Lybia uses a solution that includes the IAEA (the very organisation US hawks bashed so much as inadequate for Iran and Iraq) and UN inspections (a solution the US hawks especially bashed as inadequate for Iraq) .... Whoa! Should it be that inspections in fact DO work?.

The Lybia deal is primarily British and also European work. The US wouldn't even have anything to offer to Lybia short of not bombing them whereas the EU is just across the mediterranean, and Lybia only waiting to enter that market. Lybia want to become associated with the EU to gain the tarrif privileges its neighbours got. There you have the carrot. You can also expect Lybia's former colonial power, Italy, to have played a major role.

There was an interesting comment on it in The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?pid=1145). Bush is wearing someone elses feathers.

I wholeheartedly agree with the part I left out in your quote because I would say it stronger: Diplomacy DOES work.

Wait a minute...this converstion seems to be going awry in the face of the facts.

Prior to last Friday Libya had never formally admitted having a WMD program. This change in stance is certainly not due to a long term cuddling up to the EU. Besides, the big lure for Libyan wealth is not some economic alliance with Italy, it is to lure back the US Oil Companies (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-energy-libya-usa.html?ex=1072846800&en=66fba09a50955f81&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER) that once did business there before 1986. Five U.S. oil firms were active in Libya before sanctions on investment in 1986, including Marathon Oil Co. (MRO.N), Amerada Hess (AHC.N) and ConocoPhillips (COP.N) -- which made up the Oasis Group -- Occidental Petroleum (OXY.N) and Grace Petroleum.

``We've made no secret that we would be very interested in returning to Libya if permitted,'' said Larry Meriage, spokesman for Occidental.

``It was our Libyan discoveries that launched Occidental as a major player in the international arena. It also put Libya on the map as a major world oil producer.''

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (search) said Libya's decision, announced Friday after secret negotiations with the United States and Britain, was the result of years of "painstaking diplomacy" to bring Tripoli in from the diplomatic cold.

Do you claim that this then is a lie? Or how about from Gadhafi's own mouth?
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi said he had nothing to hide. “Come and see what it is, we don’t want to hide anything,” he told CNN.

Speaking of other nations with nuclear weapons, Gadhafi said they should also open themselves to inspections.

“In my opinion they should follow the steps, or take the example of Libya, so that they prevent any tragedy from (being) inflicted on their people,” he said.

Any move toward the EU that Libya has made was an obvious attempt to have their cake and eat it too...enjoy the fiscal benefits, without answering to lawlessness.

And it appears that some European nations are far from satisfied with Libya's dealing with the airline bombing trial
France mixed its praise of British and American diplomacy with an appeal for Tripoli to rapidly conclude negotiations on compensation for the 1989 bombing of a French UTA airliner over Niger that killed 170 people.

A Paris court convicted six Libyans — including the son-in-law of Gadhafi — in absentia for the attack. Victims' families want compensation on top of $33 million Libya already paid in 1999.

A key word in the above statement was that the defendants were tried in absentia...Libya has made no move to turn over the convicted murderers.

Of course Libya wants IAEA inspectors...they are far gentler than the US Marines. ;)

This all reminds me of the kid who has done something wrong, so hurries off to tell his mom becuause he knows that if he waits till daddy gets home, he's gonna get his butt whipped!

after the example Bush stated with Iraq (and bound there he's unlikely to start another adventure anytime soon)Don't count on it.

Well, whatever Ghaddafis reasons were, Bush has made sure that Ghaddafi was at least not directly after US oil - as the US companies atm are atill barred from contracting in Libya.

Check this article to see what I mean, (http://www.thisdayonline.com/archive/2002/02/26/20020226bus17.html). This also is interesting (http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/ogus/af/lb/p0005.htm), about Libya's licensing history.

First of all, Lybia wants the UN sanctions lifted and to earn oil revenues again to boost its economy, and it gives a **** about wether the US helps or not. Total Fina Elf or Texaco - they don't care.
And as oil isn't everything an association with the EU, to gain the tarrif benefits that will make libyan imports from there cheaper, as well as their exports more profitable - this arrangement will significantly contribute to Libya's economic recovery.

Europe will go in there first anyway, as fast as possible, to capitalise from the US sanctions which remain in place. And for the US time's running, considering Libya's oil ultimatum (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1523167.stm).

So it will be interesting to see wether the US acts quick on its sanctions or not. With Cheney US oil sure has an open ear in the administration and Cheney will understand the concerns of the US companies of losing their fields in Libya.

EDIT: Sojourner - not 'till the elections 2004 at least ...

[ December 23, 2003, 15:51: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

You can't please all of the people all of the time. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's a game of carrots and frogs, not sticks. Both Libya and the Europeans have carrots to sell, Libya the oil and fighting islamists and europe it's market, oil companies and prestige for Ghaddafi.

The frogs to swallow are for Libya the Lockerbie payments, loss of his WMD (probably old and useless anyway, the stuff decays in storage) and some nominal democratisation and for the Europeans to live with Ghaddafi.

It's not that everyone is happy, but it's a good arrangement to live with.

Prior to last Friday Libya had never formally admitted having a WMD program. This change in stance is certainly not due to a long term cuddling up to the EU. Besides, the big lure for Libyan wealth is not some economic alliance with Italy, it is to lure back the US Oil Companies that once did business there before 1986. ????

You know that Italy is one of the 7 biggest economies of the world, bordering some kilometers north of Libya? It is usually so, that two neighbouring countries have a rather big trade with eachother. Not to say, that Libya wouldn't like some trade with the US, but seemingly, the Americans don't want. Also, Libyia should be member of the mediterranian-trade agreements.

Italy and other European countries have re-estalblished economical normal relations with Libya some years ago, while, it seems, Washington still was listing it as rogue-state. And it obviously was one of the first priorities of Libyan foreign policy to get good relations with its neighbours for years, while, he, he, sometimes making some nationalistic gestures, singing to the choir of the folks at home. So, I do not see a sudden change in politics, rather it looks like logical consequence to some degree of the course he was heading since some years anyway. On the other hand, of course, no nation is happy to let foreign people looking into it's hidden cellars, except of course its Italian soldiers, helping Libya where they can.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's role in the release of Western hostages in the Philippines has won him the gratitude of several European governments.

...

For European companies the prospect is enticing, especially as American firms are still prohibited by US sanctions from making large investments.

...

Much of the business is provided by Germany and Italy - Libya's two biggest trading partners.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/907811.stm

While it would seem silly to believe that the EU had nothing to do with the recent developments in Libya it seems equally silly to discount as inconsequential the recent US actions next door. However, I'm certainly not surprised to see that credit is not being given. Is anyone else?

Because one was against the war with Iraq does not commit one to denying any good consequences of that action. Personally, I was against the war in Iraq because I didn't think it was in the long term best interests of the US but not only am I willing to be proven wrong I am hopeful that a great deal of good can come from the situation.

Slightly :yot: but...am I the only one who looks at Gaddhafi and thinks "Good lord...that's the worst wig I've ever seen!" :eek:

Because one was against the war with Iraq does not commit one to denying any good consequences of that action. Personally, I was against the war in Iraq because I didn't think it was in the long term best interests of the US but not only am I willing to be proven wrong I am hopeful that a great deal of good can come from the situation. Well, that is true. I think, after some pondering (arrgh, ponder, ponder) there is some causality between happenings around Iraq and this new agreement between the Brits and the Americans. Yet, is not like a sudden walk to Canossa from the Libyan side, as mentioned, he's going in direction Canossa for some time. And weapons seems to be rather American beef, as those obviously weren't high on the list of the European countries in case. And one should in no way forget, that the relationship between Italy and Libya is not unlike the one between USA and Mexico. Immigration and economical relations are huge domestic issue.

Ah, but Libya has not admitted to actually having WMD. They have admitted to having facilities for the production of WMD and everything, but no concrete WMD. A hat without the proverbial bunny. Still, I guess it makes all the difference to Bush & Co. One out of two in Libya is still one more than what the imaginary Iraqi WMD amounted to...

@DR Slightly but...am I the only one who looks at Gaddhafi and thinks "Good lord...that's the worst wig I've ever seen!" At least with the current sanctions in place, we can be certain that that rug didn't come from the US!

Maybe it's Italian!

I am not belittling the strength of the EU, nor that European corporations will take advantage of the head start they will have to "cash in" on a compliant Libya. I do not dispute Gaddhafi's ability to sieze every opportunity to self promote. I can't help but feel that this is a situation where the US/Bush detractors will refuse till the end to entertain even a tenuous link between the actions that they despise and some "good" outcome. Oh well, such is the nature of political debate.

I bet if the Lackerbie trial had been held in a US court, the convicted terrorists would already be in custody...what need does Libya have to fear France? That glaring omission in those legal procedings is suportive of the arguement I have made from the begining.

EDIT: Just saw Tal's post...actually Libya does have a "weapon" of mass destruction...it has been confirmed that they have stockpiles of a mustard gas derivative and Scud C missiles with @ 500 mile range. If that does't qualify, I'm not sure what does.

How silly. If anyone thought that there was a "great deal of good" to come out of the war, he/she would not be opposed to it in the first place. Of course, some may try to have it both ways - supporting the war, and not supporting the war; supporting the Bush policies, but not supporting "Bush." I suppose that what is being argued here. But I think most have been pretty clear on which side of this they are on. At least almost everyone. Nevertheless, the war itself is not the topic here, and some of us think the war is not the main force at work in Libya.

The guy who runs Libya is no better than the guy who ran Iraq. But Libya did not even get an honorable mention on the "Axis of Evil" hit list. It must have been the fault of English Intelligence. :rolleyes:

No Chandos, this was silly:

How silly. If anyone thought that there was a "great deal of good" to come out of the war, he/she would not be opposed to it in the first place. Of course, some may try to have it both ways - supporting the war, and not supporting the war; supporting the Bush policies, but not supporting "Bush." Reading comprehension my friend, reading comprehension. Go back and look at my post. I didn't say that I thought a great deal of good would come from the war, I said that now that the war is done I'm hopeful that good will come of it. I was, "willing to be proven wrong." I certainly don't understand why anyone would say, "I was against the war and so now I'll never hope for some good to come from it and I'll never admit any good that may come from it." That seems entirely too...commited to partisanship for my tastes.

This isn't a game where you lose points if something that has been done that you disagreed with benefits people so I don't see anything wrong with my being against the war but now hoping that some good comes from it. I was against the war not because I thought it was unjustifiable but because I thought the US would botch up the job in the long term. Now that it has happened - I can be hopeful that it isn't botched and that in the long run things work out well for the folks in the US, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

It is entirely permissible in my view for everyone to take off political blinders and hope for the best every once in a while.

Maybe that doesn't make me a good fan though.

Nay, I understood the tenor of your post all too well:

However, I'm certainly not surprised to see that credit is not being given. Is anyone else? You will have to do better than that. This is a typical "backhanded," or perhaps "underhanded" approach of attacking those who just "won't go along." The rules of this board prevent me from commenting on these kinds of tactics further. Sometimes people disagree on the issues and have real convictions on the morality (you would say American interests instead) of this war. Get over it.

Chandos,

Acknowledging that some good came out of a bad situation does not equate to being a turncoat. You know that I'm as much against the war as anyone here, even you. But I'm glad Saddam is out of power, even if the way we went about his removal was sloppy and dishonest. I'm glad Gaddhafi is backing down, whether or not it has anything to do with Iraq, and I hope Iran, North Korea and Syria will at least throw us a bone if not play ball all together.

I agree with what Laches said. As far as I'm concerned, if truth in advertising were applied to this war it would've been called "Operation Sh*t Storm." But now that it's here and we have to live with it, there's nothing wrong with hoping for the best. Praying for a good outcome doesn't mean sporting a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker. I still feel the war was wrong, misrepresented and unnecessary. Don't go after the wrong people.

[ December 23, 2003, 18:05: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

@Chandos

Yeah, we're all trying to make you go along. :rolleyes:

I agree with Laches, there will be no credit given to the U.S. here, regardless.

Sometimes people disagree on the issues and have real convictions on the morality (you would say American interests instead) of this war. Get over it. The way I see it, I (and those of us who support the war) have nothing to get over. I approve of the war in Iraq and the positive effects that have resulted.
It seems that you are the one who needs to get over it.

The way I see it, I (and those of us who support the war) have nothing to get over. I approve of the war in Iraq and the positive effects that have resulted.
It seems that you are the one who needs to get over it. And that's great. I'm sure you, Laches and others who support the war and Bush "feel" that this war is justifiable for various reasons. All of us have argued the moral consquences of this war at length on this board. But I really disagree that this issue with Libya has much to do with the war. And that it is NOT a positive effect of this war or anything that Bush has done. Some of us think Libya was headed in this direction already. I guess this makes me one of those who "won't give Bush credit" but I'm sure you are "not surprised by that."

Edit: But if I am wrong, it's the fault of English intelligence.

[ December 23, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

@Chandos

All of us have argued the moral consquences of this war at length on this board This is true. What you seem to be avoiding is discussing the moral consequences of NOT fighting this war.

Take it for what it is worth, from April of this past year:

A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi (Italian Prime Minister) said the prime minister had been telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/04/wun04.xml

Sorry, Laches. I'm not trying to be difficult. But in April (as now) there was (is) so much boloney going on from those in power who are advocates of the war that I'm skeptical. I wish it was a neutral source rather than an advocate, but I can't trust it the way I would like - not that your source should be completely discounted.

We've had everything from forged documents to phony intelligence, and it just has not been Shrub, but Blair as well who many believe has been less than honest. It is one of the major reasons I am so emotional about the whole war thing. The blantant lack of honesty (and sheer arrogance) of those in power is distrubing to say the least.

From the Washington Post:

Libya will "immediately and unconditionally" allow international inspectors to enter the country to track unconventional weapons and oversee their destruction, said Bush, describing nine months of secret negotiations among U.S., British and Libyan officials.

A team of U.S. and British intelligence agents and weapons specialists made two trips to Libya, officials said, where they were allowed to visit 10 secret weapons sites, were shown chemical-warfare agents and discussed details with Libyan scientists. The Libyans said they had been working to develop a nuclear fuel cycle intended to provide fissile material for atomic weapons....

"For anyone who is a hawk on weapons of mass destruction, this is a welcome event," said Ashton Carter, assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration and an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. "We should hope that our resolve over Iraq's WMD had something to do with convincing the Libyan leadership to take this course."

White House officials said they felt certain that the brewing military confrontation with Iraq influenced Gaddafi's decision to reach out. Their British counterparts acknowledged the value of strong action, but also maintained that Britain's decision to reestablish diplomatic relations with Libya in 1999 was a factor.

Another significant factor, U.S. officials said, was that Libya had become aware that U.S. and British intelligence had developed direct, verifiable knowledge of weapons materials possessed by Gaddafi.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16589-2003Dec19.html

Edit - not in that quote but elsewhere (I think in that article or one of the others, Libya reached out around the start of the Iraq hostilities 9 months ago or thereabouts).

From the NY Times:

Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are entitled to claim a large share of the credit for Libya's surprising announcement. To an extent that cannot be precisely measured, the fate of Saddam Hussein, who was ousted from power by the American military with British backing after endless prevaricating about Iraqi weapons programs, must have been an important consideration in Libya's decision.

There were other factors as well. For much of the past decade, Colonel Qaddafi has been trying to shed the reputation for reckless international behavior that he spent the two previous decades earning. Libya seems to have gotten itself out of the business of directly sponsoring international terrorism. It has been especially active in making amends for its most notorious act of terrorism, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people.

Mr. Blair has been an essential broker in that process, and Mr. Bush has played an important role as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/opinion/20SAT1.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fEditorials

The above is pretty much my feeling on the subject. Libya did what it did for a variety of factors. One of those factors is a big stick right next door. Nobody deserves THE credit. A number of folks deserve SOME credit. The US is part of that group.

From the Guardian:

Britain is pressing to use the combined weight of the European Union's "big three" countries to put pressure on Syria over weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and Iraq, the Guardian has learned.

The move follows Libya's dramatic agreement to dismantle its WMD arsenal and is designed to show that Europe, galvanised by Britain, has the clout to help the US deal peacefully with security issues in the Middle East.

The plan is for a joint initiative by Britain, France and Germany and is modelled on a similar tripartite effort which persuaded Iran to accept nuclear inspections. London and Berlin have already demanded that Damascus make stronger commitments to abide by international laws on illegal weapons as the price for a closer relationship with the EU.

The most obvious goal would be to persuade Syria, facing the threat of US sanctions, to sign up to the chemical weapons convention.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13031,1112091,00.html

I hope that the US stick can help with regards to this as well.

See, I thought that action in Iraq was justifiable from a humanitarian point of view. However, I also thought that in the long haul it would do more damage than good because I didn't think the US would have the willpower to commit itself for the long trek involved with rebuilding Iraq. I'm talking many years - Japan and Germany weren't rebuilt over night. Lots of folks, both in the US and outside, are demanding a quick withdrawal which I fear could cause problems and why I was concerned. I'm sure these calls are well intentioned but I don't think Iraq is ready to stand on its own. If those calling for a quick withdrawal get their way, I fear the worst but I hope that I'm proven wrong.

In the mean time, I hope some good comes from a stick being offered along with some carrots; like getting some of the nations in the region to back off their development of WMD's. Good for Libya. I hope it works out with Syria. It's bearing fruit in Iran. This is all for the good imo and has some relationship to the recent actions in Iraq. If Bush deserves blame for what goes wrong due to the actions in Iraq, he deserves credit for good that comes and is related to it. Your mileage may vary.

Oh, and Iran was moving toward some democratic reform before the whole Iraq brouhaha. One of my fears regarding the war was that the war would strengthen fundamentalists in Iran and thereby impede progress. The US' next door presence may help push Iran toward certain concessions, but I'm not sure that moving toward democracy is one of those. At least in the short term. That would only happen if Iraq turns out to be a success and that will only be known in a few decades.

I have very little doubt that a whole bunch of stuff went over to Syria. And that the entire middle east is connected through a network of terrorist organizations. They have better interconnectivity than Europe does.

Kill the Jews, effendi.

Iran is the only one that's got to bury what they have. And they've probably been taking note of North Korea's methods, and the methods used in Iraq. Class has been in session for a while, and they've been taking real good notes. Stick it underground, covered with concrete and sand, and spread the entrances out over an entire suburb.

If you know the sniper's got you covered, why not walk up to the door and see who's home? You might score some delicious porridge and a thimbleful of dew. If you know Syria is ready to go, why not get sanctions lifted so you can get the GNP necessary to fund all your extremists and milita groups?

These people aren't dumb. And they are focused on a common and tangible goal. It's not even remotely idealistic.

Like I've said before. It really is going to take a nasty incident before anyone is prepared to do something. In reality, people just don't feel threatened by this. Life is entirely too good right now. Christ, people are debating over where to build a fusion reactor, and which bi-pedal robot can run the fastest.

The problem is technology. Every year makes it easier to rack up the kills. Someone builds a better microbe. Or a more efficient gas centrifuge. Or a more lethal toxin. Or a better way of shielding radioactive material from satellite and ground-based detection.

Two towers and 2k is nothing, man. Call me when it hits a square mile and 20k the first day...

Negotiations with Libya... fine
Negotiations with Khadaffi... never

The man has to step down first, and present himself to an international court of law, then perhaps there's a chance of getting things started.

Laches, that quote was from the sensational, forged document retrieving, Conrad Black owned and Perle boarded Telegraph ... you get my point.

And the person who supposedly received this message was mr Silvio Berlusconi, a man who makes Bush look like a champion for truth, democracy and justice. Berlusconi is and have been for some time what many of Bush the seconds most vehement critics claim he is turning into.

Well it seems the the old Col. himself admits that the Iraq war had something to do with his decision to dismantel his WMD programs.

Here is a link to the CNN article/interview

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/22/gadhafi.interview/

I am amazed by this on many different levels. I am surprised an interview would be given to CNN and I am stunned that he would admit that.

Here is hoping that Syria will fall in line next.

Is this post now done?

Hilariously, yes.

Well, lately, some background information on the Libya deal: Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, asked whether the war in Iraq was seen by the British Government as responsible for Libya's apparent change of policy on its weapons, pointed out that the rapprochement with Libya had begun in the late Nineties.

The "breakthrough" had come with the visit of the Foreign Office minister, Mike O'Brien, to Tripoli 18 months ago, "a good while before military action was contemplated in respect of Iraq". Not quite the "scared sh*tless variant" some eagerly wanted to see to find another justification for the war ( :1eye: the war was a good idea - at least it scared Ghaddafi :1eye: ) Libya decided more than 10 years ago not to develop any weapons of mass destruction, Abdul Rahman Shalgam, its Foreign Minister said yesterday.

His appeared to contradict the co-ordinated announcements in London, Washington and Tripoli last December that Libya was renouncing its WMDs and would comply with international inspection regimes. Despite the reports that Libya would destroy its illegal weapons and programmes, it was not clear then how advanced Libya's programmes were and whether it had actual weapons to destroy.

The first doubts were cast by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, who said after visiting Tripoli that Libya was several years from developing a nuclear capability.
In the end it seems as if Libya didn't really have anything to abandon, and then it should be seen as a fine trick by them to sell it as "opening to inspections" - when they actually never had anything to hide. But, he [Mike O'Brien] insisted, he would not "claim any crude connection ... between military action in Iraq and what has happened in Iraq and in Libya".There might well have been an effect of the war on Iraq on the talks with Libya: That WMD became a issue because they were an issue with Iraq too and the US needed a WMD related success. So why not disarm an undeclared unarmed?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=490047

*chuckles* I like how you go from ...it was not clear then how advanced Libya's programmes were and whether it had actual weapons to destroy.and ...Libya was several years from developing a nuclear capability.to In the end it seems as if Libya didn't really have anything to abandon...Not being clear on what Libya had, or how advanced programs were does not equate with Libya having nothing to abandon.

The statement that they were some estimatable time away from a nuclear capability says to me that they at least had a nuclear program to abandon.

Not being clear on what Libya had, or how advanced programs were does not equate with Libya having nothing to abandon.

The statement that they were some estimatable time away from a nuclear capability says to me that they at least had a nuclear program to abandon.Well, I don't know about you BTA, but to me this sounds ominously similar to what people said last spring and summer about Saddam's WMD programs ... :heh:

Not quite. It was the Libyans who said they were dismantling their programs.

I was just pointing out that I'm amused that you would leap to a definite conclusion based on unclear information when you're normally saying that that is such a bad thing to do.

I guess you're implying it's OK when you're saying someone doesn't have something vs. saying they do

What is more interesting is that top Pakistani nuclear scientist Ahmed Qadeer Khan had admitted selling nuclear weapon technology to Lybia....I guess they bought that information for a non existant program that they were not interested in.

Well, Saddam did say he didn't have WMD before the US invaded, the Bush crew insisted otherwise and yet Iraq seemingly was right when they saisd they had no WMD - just that admitted David Kay, US chief weapon inspector some three weeks ago (The same Kay who didn't hesitate to call people who said just that all along liars when he started his job (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37043)). Libya decided more than 10 years ago not to develop any weapons of mass destruction, Abdul Rahman Shalgam, its Foreign Minister said yesterday.So Libya sais it will drop his WMD program, saying in the same breath that they abandoned their WMD programs ten years ago. So what WMD did Libya give up? The ones they didn't plan to make and never made - never even developed?

And besides, the brits have eventually split with Bush over Libya (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=165532004), feeling Washington's ideological*, that is, hawkish or paranoid course - name it however you like, obstructs a sensible diplomacy.

An Op-Ed on secret obsessions at the top (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/opinion/07KRIS.html?ex=1077460905&ei=1&en=f2a71cfb4f907537), like those with WMD prevalent in hawkish Washington circles in the last time ...

* "We don't speak with'em cuz they're evil, and because they are evil they lie anyway and who negotiates with liars?"

A whole bunch of people and countries bought secrets from that dude. Many countries have or want to have the knowledge to produce nukes, without ever having produced them. Sweden amongst many countries could probably have a nuke finished in a few months if we ever got the desire. The same is the case with most western European countries. If someone offered to sell secrets to arab countries I am sure they would like to find out as much as they could without nescessarily starting to build something.

Yeah, in the end it could lead the US to preemptively nuke every university with a decent physics department in the middle east ... :rolleyes:

Having a centrifuge, special equipment and knowing how to build a nuke is one thing, and having a weapons program quite another.

Sweeden doesn't worry me....but countries like Iran and Lybia do. Now would a country like Lybia or Iran be bold, or crazy, enough to use nuke against the US? Maybe, I'm not sure, but would they use one against say Israel? Probably. I think that's an issue that some people don't think about. If a country like Iran came close to actually producing a nuclear weapon, it's a good bet that Israel would launch a pre-emptive strike to prevent such weapon from being produced. The US cannot just sit back and let Israel and do that....mainly because it could start yet another regional conflict between Arab states and Israel, and such a conflict would further destabilise the region. So, it's a good bet that the US would be forced to chose between the lesser of two evils and force that country to abandon such a program, by force if necessary.

I wonder why there is this obsession with Arabs, in Iraq, Libya, Iran and Pakistan being 'crazy' and willing to nuke Israel - not only that they are well aware it would lead to the annihilation of their major cities and an incredible bloodbath ... even autocrats need a people to rule - that is why they didn't do it and don't plan to.

You have this underlying accusation these people are crazy and that deterrence doesn't work on them.
I really wonder where that comes from - if it's a form of underling racism that these silly ragheads are just primitive fanatics with doom on their mind. Hello?

"The Arab is a patriot, not a whore," said hardline zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinski in the 1920s "He can't be brought off by the promise of economic benefits. And he's just as intelligent as you are."

And that means that deterrence works on Arabs too. Despots need a population and a country in order to be ... well, despotic. You cannot and mustn't project your paranoid post 911 phantasies on the Arabs as a whole. Arabs can be reasoned with. Just maybe not at gunpoint.
The nihilist killers of Al Quaeda are a tiny minority of muslimkind, and even they ain't crazy - they exactly know what they do and why they do it.

Try this: Washington's racism and the Islamist trap (http://www.atimes.com/front/CI22Aa02.html). Very much recommended.

Wow...I feel the need to defend myself!
I hate to dissapoint you, but I am not an Arab racist. Hell, one of my good friends in boarding school was King Hussein(the late that is) of Jordan's daughter. Who, btw, gave me some great insties on Israel and the middle east in general.

I don't think that Arabs and Muslams are crazy, but I do believe that they would LOVE to nuke Israel. I also think that THEY don't believe that their cities would be anniliated in the process. Hell, I think that most of the countries in the middle east, including Iraq, didn't believe that the US would invade Iraq until it actually happened. One of the positive things that has come out of the invasion, and I know I'm gonna catch hell for this one, is that The countries mentioned above are starting to realise that the US may indeed have the willpower and resolve to Invade their countries as well.

You have this underlying accusation these people are crazy and that deterrence doesn't work on them.
I really wonder where that comes from - if it's a form of underling racism that these silly ragheads are just primitive fanatics with doom on their mind. Hello? Wow. Thanks for supplying a perfect example of why I find it hard to take you seriously Ragusa.

@Llandon

One of the positive things that has come out of the invasion, and I know I'm gonna catch hell for this one, is that The countries mentioned above are starting to realise that the US may indeed have the willpower and resolve to Invade their countries as well. Not from me you won't. Iraq was a smackdown. The Arab world stopped taking the U.S. military seriously after 8 years of Clintons "responses" to attacks on America. As the events in Libya, and Gadhafis own words, indicate, some have changed their minds about our willingness to be attacked without responding.

Jack Funk, Iraq was a smackdown.Great, with that menthality you shouldn't have any problem with 911. For Al Quaeda it was just that as well - a smackdown, collective punishment for the filthy infidels and their meddling in arab business.

When you're serious in your line, you and Bin Laden are brothers in heart, on different sides but with the same menthality. "Innocents dead? Who cares. I showed my strength and that justifies the means. Besides, my cause is just. Let God sort'em out!" You could now close arbitray, with "Allahu akbar!" or "God bless America!" or "Boo-Yah!" - same thing basically.
After that, you should find it easier to understand why I loathe people like you at sight and find their utterances sickening.

Llandon,
No pun intended. I was being so harsh because of your line: ... countries like Iran and Lybia do [worry me]. Now would a country like Lybia or Iran be bold, or crazy, enough to use nuke against the US? Maybe, I'm not sure, but would they use one against say Israel? Probably.It is that you then go on to suggest that because an israeli war would destabilise the region, it is better the US do the job when they see fit. That is weird thinking IMO. War is destabilising in itself, it's pretty much irrelevant wether the US or Israel start it. Iraq, once a stable country is a step away from civil war - thanks to US intervention. The palestinians Israel expelled to Lebanon and Jordan brought Jordan to the edge of civil war (the black September) and plunged Lebanon into it.

What I wanted to say is that: Arab people, their governments are just as intelligent as westerners. They are not fanatised hordes of doombringers. And they don't plot the end of the US, despite the occasional flagburning. This is no clash of the cultures, it is not about appeasement or holocaust (as the neocons like Perle seem to think). Arab leaders do care about their people, be in only as in the case of Saddam because of utilitarian motives. Iran for example eventually succumbed to Iraq killing it's civilians - they do care about their people and wouldn't risk an israeli nuclear counterstrike killing millions.

In the case of arab countries, risk assessment seems to cross the line of rational tinking. "They are evil and therfor will harm us with whatever means they have," seems to have been the guiding principle of Bush's ideologues. That is a paranoid and manichean point of view. Think about Bush's: "We are good people who love things, while they are evil people who hate our freedom!"

It is, that for a policy in the middle east the US have to take the arabs seriously. To think that they just need the occasional beating like a dog means not only humiliating them, but underestimating them. It is no way to find a way for a peaceful coexistence, what must ultimately be the goal when you're not in the "perpetual war for Siegfrieden" camp.
When you talk with arabs, respecting them, you can achieve much more than with running around like a foaming baboon, fingerpointing while crying "Evil, evil!" (as Bush/ Cheney/ Bolton/ Perle etc seem to enjoy), and refusing to to talk with evil, hysterically uttering ultimatums. Whenever listening to Cheney, Bolton and Perle I feel that Bush's diplomacy failed not so much because of the Arabs but because the US administration could not be talked with rationally.

http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2004/02/14/

Three articles on Arab nationalism and Iraq and Al Quaeda, excellent as ever, from the Asia Times:
US among the 'ruins' of Arab nationalism (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FB12Ak02.html)
Iraq and Al Quaeda - The usual suspects (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FB13Ak02.html)
Iraq and Al Quaeda - Why al-Qaeda votes Bush (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FB14Aa03.html)

[ February 16, 2004, 15:20: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

@RagUSA

When you're serious in your line, you and Bin Laden are brothers in heart, on different sides but with the same menthality. "Innocents dead? Who cares. I showed my strength and that justifies the means. Besides, my cause is just. Let God sort'em out!" You could now close arbitray, with "Allahu akbar!" or "God bless America!" or "Boo-Yah!" - same thing basically.
You are beyond low. It is amazing how I get crap around here for "getting personal". Yet you can say stuff like this about me and not one admin says crap.

You put so many words in my mouth in that one statement that I did not bother to read the rest of your diatribe. This is why it is pointless to "debate" with you. You are an agitator. Nothing more.

I will not respond to any more posts by you. I assume this is what you want, and so shall you have it.

It wasn't me who spoke about the smackdown. You said that. And I even added the caveat "When you're serious" in my rebuttal. If you weren't serious - the better, then I have underestimated you and I apologize - but then, why do you write stuff like that?

When you've been serious, well, then there's not much left to say except this:

From your reply I felt you found "smacking down" on Iraq in response to 911 somehow ok - but I'm unsure if you're aware what "smackdown" on Iraq means. Because that then includes accepting the consequences of a "smackdown". When saying The Arab world stopped taking the U.S. military seriously after 8 years of Clintons "responses" to attacks on America.you suggest the "Beat your children every day, if you don't know what they did, sure they do!" approach to foreign policy.

"Smackdown" basically means killing somone or destroying something just to show strength, here to intimidate the Arab world. And for a smackdown you can just take someone, anyone to make your point. Iraq, Syria, any arab country.

IMO that is quite an outrageous proposal.

Iraq in the end had little to do with Al Quaeda and 911, if anything at all. So, bombing Iraq to smithereens in response to 911 meant: Killing innocents - every Iraqi soldier - even Saddam was innocent in regard of 911.
Considering a conservative estimate that means some 35.000 +++ Iraqis killed - in a "smackdown". Sorry, that is the point where my stomach is turning.

And that is why I referred to 911 - the people who died there had nothing to do with the grudge Al Quada had against the US, they killed them anyway, to state an example, so make a "smackdown" on the US.

There cannot be a doubt that 911 was an outrageous atrocity. "Smackdown" on Iraq would be an atrocity at least tenfold in scale.

So, either you find "smackdown" is a good idea, or you've been taunting. But after writing it, don't wonder about me taking offense of it.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I just showed you what a "smackdown" means. When you don't like it, then you're perhaps not as I thought you to be, which is good news.

Well here is yet another revelation on the whole Lybia WMD topic...this time from the IAEA


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/02/20/libya.nuclear.ap/index.html

It seems that Lybia DID have a covert nuclear weapons program. In fact it completely contradicts the statement that Lybia abandoned its WMD program over 10 years ago.

Libya is an astounding case, full of contradictions.

News reports told a tale that the Spanish Navy made a brilliant coup in the Indian Ocean in 2002 - they stopped and took over a vessel shipping North-Korean Scuds plus chemicals like nitric acid. The official was referring to declarations by sources from NATO to the Madrid daily 'El Mundo' that claim 15 complete Scud missiles, a set of conventional warheads and 85 containers of chemical products -- some 20 holding nitric acid -- were ultimately delivered to Libya under a Washington decision. (taken here (http://ins.communitylimits.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2162))Now that is quite a peculiar twist.

The neocons, who usually can't help but howling "No negotiations with evil!" when it comes to countries like North-Korea or Iran hand Libya a shipment of scuds, courtesy of Vice President Dick Cheney: After giving a few of the to the US for research, the Libyans will be allowed to keep the rest (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/09/1078594362839.html).

Somehow that conflicts with the "Oh they were so afraid because of Iraq" theory. They wouldn't really have a cause to fear a US that is actually arming them.

Or it is that it was all more about strategic access? Libya has just established diplomatic relations with Israel. And with Libya the US just re-openend an alternative oil supplier (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040226/libya_oil_1.html).

And I can't help wondering: Maybe Libya wasn't that much a threat to be feared after all - when the US themselves give them the renowned Scuds they use to justify their own missile shields. Perhaps the Libyans even disarm what the US just handed them. Wouldn't that be funny?

Wow...I thought that this topic had been finished a long time ago!

I'm not really sure what kind of point you are trying to make here Rags...I've read your links and opinions...but they don't seem to match up.

You say "Spanish Navy made a brilliant coup in the Indian Ocean in 2002" but how is it either brilliant or a coup when Washington told Spain about the ship and asked them to stop and board it?

But the real questions that need to be asked is what is the truth? You site one report that "claims" that the ship ended up in Libya


"The official was referring to declarations by sources from NATO to the Madrid daily 'El Mundo' that claim 15 complete Scud missiles, a set of conventional warheads and 85 containers of chemical products -- some 20 holding nitric acid -- were ultimately delivered to Libya under a Washington decision"

I'd love to read some more articles that support the "claim" that the ship ended up in Libya. For some reason this article reads like propaganda from a Spanish political publication rather than a news story. Please send some more links on that ship.

Speaking of ships, the second article talks about another ship with scuds on it....one that has left Libya, and is headed for the US. with 8 SCUD C missiles that Libya cannot keep. Now you make it sound like they are the same ships, but they are not.

You go on to make the statement that "The neocons, who usually can't help but howling "No negotiations with evil!" when it comes to countries like North-Korea or Iran hand Libya a shipment of scuds, courtesy of Vice President Dick Cheney: After giving a few of the to the US for research, the Libyans will be allowed to keep the rest."

another false and misleading statement. The missiles that are being shipped to the US are missiles that they are not allowed to have. Namely Scud C missiles. The remainder of the SCUDS are older type B missiles that the Libyans already had in their possession http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040309-libya-scuds.htm

Even if the first rather dubious article is correct, it surely doesn't make much sense. What possible benefit could Libya have in receiving new scuds from North Korea, and agreering to turn all of their new scud missiles over to the US?


"Somehow that conflicts with the 'Oh they were so afraid because of Iraq" theory. They wouldn't really have a cause to fear a US that is actually arming them"
I am also curious. Can you tell me when the US gave missiles to Libya? Maybe you are arguing that by not stopping a ship may or may not have delivered missiles to Libya through Yemen the US was giving them to Libya. Of course if the US had stopped the ship, it would have been a clear violation of International Law. Something that you seem to hold in rather high regard.

In any case it doesn't really matter that much. Libya does appear to be disarming, and like I said much, much earlier:
"The old Col. himself admits that the Iraq war had something to do with his decision to dismantle his WMD programs.

Here is a link to the CNN article/interview

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/22/gadhafi.interview/

You know, there is no business like showbusiness. Politicians, even on CNN don't necessarily tell the truth. Remember Powell at the security council giving the show of his life? How many of the menaces he conjured up have yet been found? According to David Kay they have never been there.

And with brilliant coup I mean that: Even when they got a tip it ain't that easy to intercept a ship. The US got a tip on one of the 911 hijackers and alas, they didn't get him. Getting a tip and making something out of it is something.

And then: The spanish parliament dealt with the matter. They had a formal debate on that. It is hardly a non-issue. And indeed, the Asia Times wrote about it: US, Spain caught in Libya missile mixup (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/EL12Dg01.html). That 'dubious' article, as you can see, originally is from Washington's Interpress Services, a pretty well reputed news agency.

And with a little goodwill I found it not at all hard to find some other aticles on the matter: Inside Baltimore titled U.S. Holds, Then Releases Yemeni Missiles (http://www.insidebaltimore.com/news/world/nkorea-scuds1211.shtml), pretty actual. Another article here, this time from the british Guardian: US and Spain at sea over Korean missiles (http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,858393,00.html). A funnier article here, from the Yemen times: They’re ours! (http://www.yementimes.com/02/iss51/front.htm). Yahoo News wrote about it (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/021211/161/2ugpk.html), and MSNBC rote about it: U.S. to release missile ship to Yemen (http://www.intellnet.org/news/2002/12/11/14110-2.html). And it goes on: Libya may be allowed to keep some Scud missiles (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040309-libya-scuds.htm), Intel: U.S. OK'd Scud shipment to Libya (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36514), the latter article confirming the major facts: In December 2002 a Spanish warship had seized the shipment as part of the military operation against Iraq and effort to stop al-Qaida's flight from Afghanistan.

The United States ordered Spain to release the North Korean ship, which delivered the Scuds to Yemen. From Yemen, the missiles were sent to Libya, the sources said.

Spain has confirmed that the North Korean Scuds arrived in Libya. A Spanish Defense Ministry official said the North Korean shipment also contained 85 containers of chemical products required to assemble chemical weapons.I find your incredulity a little surprising, as it only took me a few minutes and google to find all these articles.

What I really wonder about is why there are barely reports in the US press. But then again, they also didn't really perform at their best in the last year.

And you ask some interesting questions - indeed - why should the US give Libya missiles? I don't know the answer either, but I'm just as curious.

But how about a theory: The US, after seeing their intel fail on Iraq, recognised that they also don't know much about North Koreas capabilities. So they might have persuaded Libya to play the strawman, to buy stuff from a US wishlist in North Korea to allow the US to get a hand on it and to learn how far they have progressed.
Now that would really be a gesture of goodwill by Tripoli methinks, using its then bad rep as a rogue state to persuade North Korea to deal with them, quite something to restore trust between US and Libya. The disarmament and being afraid of Iraq part are the showbiz element. But that's just my humble opinion.

I have a crazy idea - maybe there can be more than one reason for people to do something? Ya' think?

"I find your incredulity a little surprising, as it only took me a few minutes and google to find all these articles."

Are you kidding me? There is still only 1 article! It's the same one from the Spanish Daily "El-Mundo" By Tito Drago. Just because the asia times and a few other rags copied it, dosen't make it true. I find it a little odd that this happens to be an "El-Mundo" exclusive! Even stranger that no major news web sites have even mentioned it.(check aljazeera, BBC, CNN ect.) So much for the "MAJOR FACTS".

As far as the other articles go...great! I remeber when the ship was originially intercepted. The fact Spain intercepted the ship, and then let it go when it was found to be headed to Yeman is undisputible. What is disputible is if you actually read the articles you link to in your posts.

"And with brilliant coup I mean that: Even when they got a tip it ain't that easy to intercept a ship. The US got a tip on one of the 911 hijackers and alas, they didn't get him. Getting a tip and making something out of it is something."

ummm....no. It was way more than a tip...according to the articles you linked "It later emerged that the So San had set off from the North Korean port of Nampo and had been tracked by US intelligence for weeks." and "The Spanish military stopped the ship Monday,.... The move came after intelligence officials watched the vessel for weeks as part of an interdiction operation that is part of the U.S.-led war on terrorism." Clearly the Spanish didn't jsut stumble across this ship on a vague tip, it was tracked and watched for weeks until it entered the Indian Ocean, when the US ASKED the Spanish to interdict it. However I will concede that it was brilliant on a tactical level...the actual take down of the ship.

Which kinda makes your entire premis really THIN.

I'll tell you what, lets make Lybia a really GREAT deal! We'll stop a ship that we already know is headed their way. Then we'll let it go! And for this good deed, Lybia will agree to hand the ship back over to us in a few month along with ALL of the elements of their illegal weapons program! What a great deal!

All of the articles state that the ship carried either 15 SCUD "C"/or 15 SCUD "B" missiles, or a combination of each. This isn't exactly cutting edge technology. Even so, US intelligence agents were on the ship for days before it was handed over to Yemin. If it were carring some new advanced North Korean missile system, they could have gotten all of the information they needed then and there.

Sorry Rags, but your theories just don't make much sence

The official story neither.

The US gave scuds to Libya. Why? And they got a shipload of crap from Libya - so you say. Why then do the US praise it as a major success in Libyan disarmament?

That are a few unanswered questions that make me curious. I don't know about you.

And I don't know what you have, really. Usually I get accused to do US bashing. This time I imagine the US doing something smart and not that silly dishonest after all, just a little deceptive - and what do I get? Complaints .... :rolleyes:

[ March 12, 2004, 09:24: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Well, that's rather disingenuous. By your own admission you were engaged in a made up theory:

But how about a theory: Lllandon called you on that theory - rightly or wrongly. Now you're crying that you're being persecuted. You're trying to paint LLandon's challenges as a challenge to something other than your sites and theories. Llandon didn't accuse you of being anti-US etc. You've resorted to playing your trump card of a martyrdom complex. I hope you can see the irony of that.

I still can't see why it isn't possible though that someone could do something for more than one reason.

Nope, maybe you missed it, I war rather using that arcane thing named irony. But anyway, I tried to line out that there are interesting questions unanswered that make me doubt in the official line and suggested an alternative scenario.

Besides, as for Libya caving in to the US because of Iraq, that isn't what The Financial Times from March 9, 2004 lined out in an article titled The Iraq War did not Force Gadaffi's Hand. As a whole that article gives a few hints on what was going on behind the scenes: The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration's achievement in securing Libya's nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows, Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq.

from: http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm That is, more pointed, Libya's disarmament is not a late justification for the war on Iraq as was suggested earlier.

When you for at least four years want to disarm anyway, why should you invest in a doomed program? That is - the Libyan "weapons program" was not active. In fact, considering Tripolis willingness to disarm makes the "shocking discoveries" of Libyan arms and promises of dramatic disarmament look like a PR stunt.

Oh boy.....

"The US gave scuds to Libya. Why?"

The question shouldn't be "why" but instead WHAT?
Where do come to the conclusion that the US gave scuds to Lybia? None of the articles that you posted said that! As I've said before the El-Mundo story is the only one you can come up with, and it doesn't say a damn thing about the US giving scuds to Lybia. It only says that North Korea SOLD scuds to Yemen, and they in turn sold them to Libya. As I asked before, please, please, please give me another article! And make sure that it isn't just the same one from the same dubious source. I've spent alot of time searching for one, and I have yet to find one that isn't either the exact same story, or a paraphrased story that citeds El-Mundo as the only named source.

"And they got a shipload of crap from Libya - so you say."

I don't say....the articles you linked to before say that! Here http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040309-libya-scuds.htm

"That are a few unanswered questions that make me curious. I don't know about you"

Like what? The only curious question I have is why there are not more articles out there that claim that the Missiles that were interdicted by Spain and the US ended up in Libya.

I enjoyed the article from the "Financial Times". Of course I am a little curious why Libya was interested in "secreatly" giving up it WMD program 4 years ago. Why not just go to the UN publicially? It sure would have helped their case. I also liked the last paragraph of this article:

"The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration's achievement in securing Libya's nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims."

I still find it really funny that Gadaffi can state that the Iraq war factored into his decision to disarm, and still there are people out there that claim it didn't.

Now was the Iraq war DESIGNED to force Libya to give up it's WMD programs? Absoutely not. However it is clear that the war was a factor in finially pushing Libya over the edge....at least according to Gadaffi.

You pretty much restrict your argument to that you don't believe the El Mundo article and about everything I write. Fine with me.

How about that one: Yemen bought missiles in North Korea. There are tensions between Saudi Arabia and Yemen atm - the Saudis were even building a border fence, and only stopped after US pressure. The US, with no interest in additional missile proliferation in the Arab Peninsula, likely persuaded Yemen to give them to Libya, as a reward for Libyas role as an intermediary in dealing with Iraq.
And everyone is happy: The Saudis because of less threat from the notoriously unstable south the US because there are less missiles likely to fall into wrong hands in, as said, notoriously unstable Yemen. Yemen is not so happy because it was denied its missiles but it sure bargained out something for compliance, like US military aid against their opposition, err, muslim militants (in a predominantly muslim country all militants likely are muslim militants :roll: ) Libya is happy because they got a load of Scud B, while old still a capable weapon with only minor upgrades, to replenish their old stocks the US is happy again because they get North Korean Nodong missiles aka Scud C in their hands for flight testing and signature analysis (a key for missile defense), plus they got these missiles out of the Middle East.That would be an advantageous arrangement for everyone, and that is basically just the bazaar-like way international politics are negotiated.

You didn't understand the Globalsecurity.org article (that's what you get for reading the headlines only). Libyan disarmament referred to the Missile Technology Control Regime. The criterium there was not at all age but *range*. Had the old Scud B had a *range* of more than 300km, the US would have demanded them too. That is, Libya will have to fit ballast in their Scud B noses to keep the warhead to the allowed limit.

And you didn't understand the article in the Financial Tims too: When Libya played it the US way they would be allowed out of the doghouse again. And the US conditions were: Stop bugging us at the UN. Not playing with this US line would have been self-damaging by Libya and that exactly is the reason why Libya didn't do it. ... that was why the Clinton administration opened the secret talks on one condition—that Libya cease lobbying in the UN to lift the sanctions. It did.And besides, as for WMD program, Libya had bought plans, sure, and it had centrifuges, a dozen. You know it requires cascades of hundreds of centrifuges to enrich uranium in a quantity sufficient for bombmaking? How much of a program was that? Else they had some WW-I vintage mustard gas.
I shake in my boots. And I repeat, Libya, offering for four years to disarm, would certainly not, especially considering their economical situation, invest in a doomed program. They had other spending priorities, like modernising their oilwells to get some cash one day to relieve their accounts.

And if you find comfort in the illusion that Ghaddafi was afraid of the US and US military action because of Iraq and therefor gave up his missiles and token programs - fine.
Then you don't have to bother about how the US, overstretched in Iraq already and likely unable to start another major operation, like conquering and occupying Libya, for the next 4 years, should accomplish such a feat. Ghaddafi sure knows that too, he may be odd looking but he's not stupid.

The "We mean business" and "We are oh-so street-tough" (Iraq was a smackdown) attitude sells good at home to the gung-ho fraction - all nonsense, but who cares as long as it sells and no one asks?

[ March 15, 2004, 09:36: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

"You pretty much restrict your argument to that you don't believe the El Mundo article and about everything I write. Fine with me."

Bingo! I don't believe it. As a matter of fact, I'm having a hard time understanding why YOU believe it. Like I've said before, find me another corroberating article. Hell, I would even settel for an article about the Spanish Parlement having a formal debate about the issue. Now my spanish is a little rusty, but I can't even find mention of that! Good luck!

Nice theory, but that's all it is. Maybe you should send it into ConspiracyTheory.com, they might send you a check for it.

"You didn't understand the Globalsecurity.org article (that's what you get for reading the headlines only)."

I understod the article fine. What I don't understand is WHY you posted it. I don't see anything there that even vaguely sugests that the US "gave" missiles to Lybia. Or even that Yemen gave missiles to Lybia. So Lybia MAY be able to keep some of their older missles....so? What in the hell does that have to do with your "theory"?

"And if you find comfort in the illusion that Ghaddafi was afraid of the US and US military action because of Iraq and therefor gave up his missiles and token programs - fine."

Well, I don't find comfort in it. Like I said before, Ghaddafi himself said that the invasion of iraq factored into his decision about giving up his WMD program, not me! Maybe you should try and send him an email....you can continue this arguement with him....while you're at it, please ask him how the missiles from Yeman, I mean North Korea, I mean the US are.

People who like to believe everything their gvt tells them, usually die stupid, if the don't take care in a war. That especially and traditionally applies to boys. Do you feel a draft? Srutiny in this view is self serving.

Ever considered that the US demanded Libiya to say they were afraid, as a condition of their deal? A simple single lie. It would be a small price to pay for economical recovery and international rehabilitation.

By the way, Inspectors Confirm Libya Chemical Arms Declaration (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040322/wl_nm/libya_weapons_dc): Libya's formidable, menacing chem arsenal has been confirmed to consist of 24 tons of WW-I vintage menace. Scaaaary.

Industrial toxic wastes, routinely disposed of in the US are more dangerous ... but they don't have the scare factor of :mommy: Weapons of Mass Destruction :mommy:

"People who like to believe everything their gvt tells them, usually die stupid, if the don't take care in a war. That especially and traditionally applies to boys. Do you feel a draft? Srutiny in this view is self serving."

Not sure what to make of this statement. I think you might be implying that I am a boy who is naieve enough to believe everything he reads. I am not.

However, considering some of the sources you have gotten your "facts" from lately, The above statement sounds ironic. Maybe you should take your own advice to heart. A little scrutiny on your part would be prudent.

"Ever considered that the US demanded Libiya to say they were afraid, as a condition of their deal? A simple single lie. It would be a small price to pay for economical recovery and international rehabilitation."

Again great theory. I guess when there are no facts to back up your personal beliefs, the only thing you have to fall back on is what you can make up in your own head. That especially and traditionally applies to boys....and immaturity.

I'm still waiting for another article on the Lybia/Nortk Korea/Yeman/US missile exchange. While you are working on it find me some on the US pressuring Quaddaffi to say that that the Iraq war was a consideration in his decision to disarm.

@ Llandon and Ragusa

You're both getting out of hand now. Stop it. If you can't post to the thread without directing a comment at another poster personally, don't bother posting. And if that means you can't get across your argument in this thread, so be it.

Frankly, it is likely that the missiles from Yemen story was a canard. **** happens.

So lets get back to a constructive discussion. I'll line up my arguments in a clear and compact way.

My core thesis was and is that the US</font> did hype the Libyan so-called “threat” and that the Iraq war did not have anything to do with Libya’s disarmament, suggesting that Ghaddafi’s say that he was afraid of US action was a Libyan freebie to make the US happy – as the logical conclusion.
That is for the following reasons:

a. The “Libyan Threat”
Note that there are hundrets of centrifuges actually required (http://www.google.de/search?q=cache:u7A_V_AvbGEJ:www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/uranium.htm+uranium+enrichment+To+be+able+to+produ ce+only+one+weapon+per+year,+several+thousand+cent rifuges+would+be+required&hl=de&ie=UTF-8) to enrich nuclear material in a serious weapons program using centrifuges Now that they arrieved in US hands and are on display in Tenessee experts have stated that only two of them actually had rotors, that is, actually were functional (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=505102), implying that Libya was as far as several years away from actually making a weapon and not close to having one. That sort of takes away the urgency of the claim of a Libyan nuclear program. Further, considereing that the nuke program not only was unfunctional, but that Libya offered it's disarmament for four years - it can be concluded that the program was inactive anyway. Libyas chemical arsenal consisted of 24 tons of WW-I vintage mustard gas (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040322/wl_nm/libya_weapons_dc) – three truckloads of hazardous waste.That suggests basically that the US hyped the “Libyan threat” in order to make Libya’s token disarmament of it’s token WMD assets more of a political success, taking advantage from a cooperation process underway already: That is, probably the Bush crew jumped on the train and exaggerated the Libyan WMD element as that was why they were under attack in the case of Iraq. Distraction.

b. By insisting that fear after Iraq forced Ghaddafi’s hand you imply that the US would (again) go to war against a(nother) nonexistent threat, this time against a dictator compliant already. Not only that it would have equaled the US’s final diplomatic suicide, just consider how very much it would have pissed off ally Britain to see another of its diplomatic initiatives they worked on hard, for four years in this case, screwed up by Washington. And there are facts further pointing against this: Full lifting of UN sanctions is contingent on Libyan compliance with its remaining UNSCR requirements on Pan Am 103, including acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials and payment of appropriate compensation. That is, the determining factor for when Libya would be allowed out of the doghouse was a positive settlement of the Lockerbie compensations. The end of this talks luckily coincided with a time after the US had dealt with Iraq. Libya has been in negotiations on these compensations for about four years (http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm) - well before the national security strategy was written, before Bush was in office and before 911 and well before the hapless invasion of Iraq. Right from the start Ghaddafi offered disarmament. How should have Ghaddafi been motivated in his willingness to disarm by seeing Saddam fall, when he actually started negotiating about his disarmament years before that event? As a result of occupying Iraq US armed forces would face severe difficulties to start any major military action in the next time, such as conquering and disarming Libya. US forces are overstretched. And considering the compliant Ghaddafi tough US military action simply wouldn't make sense too. For a threat to succeed it has to be credible. So, how credible a threat of a US military intervention did Ghaddafi realistically have to fear when he “surrendered”?c. After that it is pretty obvious to presume that Ghaddafi declared his “fear” of US intervention as a result of the usual US armtwisting in diplomacy.

And considering the welcome backing it gives to a very disputed strategy of a troubled president it seems that this declaration came in quite convenient, and surprise, that was how it was celebrated by the right wing pundits: Pre-emption works.

Well, I don’t think so. And in particular: Not in the case of Libya. Their conclusion isn’t backed by the facts.

In the end I have three questions for you:</font> Did Libya's WMD program pose a threat? How afraid must Ghaddafi have been from Bush? Is it credible in face of Ghaddafis record of compliance that fear forced his hand? How does Ghaddafi's "I've been so afraid" statement look in face of the facts I lined out above? How credible is it?You can answer that to yourself.

[ March 26, 2004, 14:14: Message edited by: Ragusa ]