I am not being a war monger, really…its just if I am to understand the Bush Doctrine, Gaddaffi’s open admission of involvemnt in Pan Am 103 should be the signal for us to be in Tripoli by the end of the year.
With Saddam we had indirect evidence and suspicion, but here is a flat out case of someone commiting flagrant acts of terror over a period of thirty years, invading a neighbor (Chad), and financing every terrorist group you can imagine. And he owns up to it! Maybe Bush Sr. and Clinton let things slide, but surely Bush Jr. can’t let this stand. To date, there has been no military response to the Lockerbie bombing.
Or is there more to gain from diplomacy here, maybe the potential for trade outweighs this. I know Gaddaffi has been ‘behaving’ for the last ten years, disassociating himself from his earlier idealogy, and focusing on ties with Robert Mugabe and other statesmen - but what if the guy gets a hankering for the good old days? What if this is all a set up? I suppose we’ll just forgive Osama once he gets a little old too.
Libya may or may not have ‘oil’. But lets set that aside.
(Each post to this thread should also have a different spelling of the Libyan leader’s surname too).
Precedent? Well, let’s see, one of the justifications for taking out Saddam Hussein was that he gave money to the familes of dead terrorists who attacked Israel. So you have an act several steps removed from having any direct consequence on the US used an (admittedly bad) excuse to take out Saddam Hussein. Whereas Ghadaffi directly ordered and sponsored terrorist acts which were directly against the USA. I would say there is much more justification for taking out Ghadoofi than Saddam Hussein. But, then again, I never believed the justifications proclaimed by the US government other than “because I can and because I will and what you gonna do about it?”.
Why? Pan Am 103. The German disco bombings. Hundreds of dead Americans. A few other things I’m no doubt forgetting. All of which he did do. Toss in brutal repression of domestic dissent. And Libya does have oil, lots of it.
If Bush & Co. have the principles they claim to re Iraq, then yes, there’s a strong and real case to take out the Colonel, and do it first. But Libya isn’t even on the Axis of Evil.
He seems to be considered “reformed”, and basically de-fanged. It would be harder to make a case that he’s a current threat than it was with Iraq, especially after the political damage Bush is taking by not finding WMDs.
Let’s see here, despite having a bad track record in the past, Gadhafi has “calmed down” in recent years, and has kept a relatively low profile. The US can gain some good PR from reaching a settlement with Gadhafi. Bush, et. al, can point to Libyia and say, “See? We’re willing to work with Middle Eastern governments, even if we don’t like 'em.”
Also, IIRC, several countries have taken Libyia off their sanctions list, and are developing the oil fields. The US can’t spare military forces to invade (and can’t come up with even the remotest justification for invading at this time), so if we’re going to get in on the gravy train, we’re going to have to find a peaceful way of doing it. If Gadhafi is willing to cough up some dough for the Lockerbie victims, then we can overlook everything else (until the CIA operatives move in to try and destabilize the country internally).
Erm, do you have a cite that Gaddafi/Libya definately was responsible for the Belle Discotechque bombing? I know that this was the initial conclusion reached, but back then Gaddafi was the standard bad guy to blame for everything a la Saddam. I was under the impression that there was later some doubt about the accuracy of the intelligence assessments (no way!) and I certainly don’t think the Libyan’s have admitted that one. Of course, the US bombed Tripoli and personally targeted Gaddafi’s family in revenge, leading to the Lockerbie revenge attack.