# Libya to give up all WMDs **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 20, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082 "2003-12-20T00:44:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/81 "2003-12-21T08:46:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ravenman \* > \*\*One thing I’m dying to see unfold in the next several weeks: to what extent will the US renew ties with Libya? > > If we use the Administration’s current rationale for war in Iraq, it wasn’t really about WMD, it was about freeing an oppressed people. > > \*\* No, no, keep up. It was about capturing Saddam Hussein! ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/82 "2003-12-21T15:37:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > \*\*How about the US? Is it really fair of us to impose the equivalent of a thousand september elevenths on the North Korean people, just because we don’t want to sign a mutual nonagression pact with an evil dictator? \*\* So instead we should undertake to feed his people so can divert even more resources into his miltary and nuclear programs? At what point does “being fair” become “enabling a dictator to be worse than he could be by himself”. Knowing that your being played for a sucker doesn’t make you less of a sucker. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/83 "2003-12-21T16:17:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hansel \* > So instead we should undertake to feed his people so can divert even more resources into his miltary and nuclear programs? At what point does “being fair” become “enabling a dictator to be worse than he could be by himself”. Knowing that your being played for a sucker doesn’t make you less of a sucker. Sure, but looking for a middle ground that doesn’t involve having 3 million people to starve to death is worth a _little_ effort, wouldn’t you say? At the very least, such an outcome would take a bit of the gleam off that moral High Horse the administration is riding. Hell, it might be more humane just to nuke the peasants, and eliminate their pain and suffering quickly.:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/84 "2003-12-21T16:32:59Z")
If we view the suffering of a dictator’s people as incurring a moral obligation on us to act, we effectively disarm ourselves in all dealings with that dictator, enabling him by forcing us to prop him up at our expense and obligation. If 3,000,000 NKs are going to starve to death because of Kim Jong Il’s policies, then we can use food aid as a bargaining chip, or alternately execute a regime change (my, what a pleasant and sterile term that’s become). What we can’t do is feed them without acting against the person who put them in that predicament. Kim Jong Il is holding them hostage. You don’t appease a hostage-taker unless it’s part of a larger plan to remove that person; otherwise, you’re simply a co-conspirator. It’s a really sucky moral choice where the whole act of figuring the moral calculus leads to a lot of suffering for someone, and your only comfort is consequentialist: in the long run, the greater good is served. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/85 "2003-12-21T20:38:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\* You may recall the thread some weeks ago about how evil the French were because they required Ghadaffi pay higher indemnities to their victims and thus was blocking a settlement to lift sanctions on Libya. There it was France who had higher demands for Libia than the USA and the usual suspects bashed France for it. \*\* This is an exactly backwards interpretation of the events surrounding the compensation for the UTA bombing. In fact, France had a deal previously and became unhappy with it when the United States successfully held out for higher compensation for the Pan Am 103 bombing. I don’t characterize France’s position as right or wrong here, but to say that France had “higher demands” is factually incorrect. They increased their previously lower demands in the face of the deal the U.S. got. As to the larger issue here, both sides are right. There’s no question that Libya has been moderating for years and seeking to rejoin the international community. There came a time in the past when Qaddafi, previously a pan-Arabist who saw himself as the unifying force which would make it possible, saw the future of pan-Arabism, saw that he’d probably be executed by it, and decided that maybe the west wasn’t so bad after all. That’s all well and good and true. But on the other hand, the scope of this deal is very large and there is no denying that it was a huge foreign policy victory for the U.S. and the U.K. Among other things, it gives them a model for other countries to follow. The deal also further makes a mockery of the IAEA, which tallied up years of lies from Iran, added it to the thought that a country literally swimming in oil and gas might need expensive nuclear power for civilian use and still couldn’t find their way to the UN. On the third hand, it’s all worth exactly nothing if the U.S. and the U.K. don’t subsequently use the new leverage this agreement has given them to work on Libya’s human rights record. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/86 "2003-12-21T21:27:48Z")
This is horrible news. First Saddam, now Lybia. Who will the revolutionary nutballs have as cult heros any more? Oh yeah, Usama and Kim Jong Il. What was Clinton’s aggressive policy to draw down North Korea’s military ambitions on South Korea again? Give them nuclear reactors. Funny that China is now on its way to the moon, when their missiles sucked just a decade ago. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/87 "2003-12-21T22:04:32Z")
Oh, right as if Lybia has been an issue for the last decade. The only reason this is happening now rather than a year or two ago is because Bush wasn’t **willing** to talk to Lybia a year ago. Post boc ergo propter hoc people. Bush’s war didn’t make the Lybians want to trade inspections for sanction. They wanted to before the war. Bush just delayed things until it was politically convenient for him to allow it. Similary, Bush could have had a useful accomodation with Korea two years ago, But needed them to be a scary enemy more. So he just refused to talk to them. This is Reagan redux. A simpleton who would rather strut for the home audience than solve problems. (Reagan didn’t end the cold war, the superiority of the capitalist system ended the cold war. Reagan in fact _delayed_ the ending of the cold war, but his sycophants give him credit for it’s ending anyway.) Now Bush following the winning formula: Pump up the fear of a weak enemy or a non-enemy so that you your followers can think you are a many man for standing up to them. Take credit for decades-long successes by making sure that they happen after you’ve had a chance to strut a bit. It would be sickening if it didn’t work so well, instead it’s appalling and a bit scary. Proof positive that P.T. Barnum was correct. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/88 "2003-12-22T10:56:56Z")
According to news reports, Libya didn’t approach Britain until March 2003. And he didn’t make the final decision until Hussein was captured. Perhaps it didn’t have an effect on him. But I find the significance of those two dates hard to miss. ---
**Author:** ![Sine\_Nomen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d26b3c/32.png) [@Sine\_Nomen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sine_Nomen)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/89 "2003-12-22T22:45:48Z")
I saw an interview with Qaddafi on CNN earlier today, and he implied this decision came **as a result of the war in Iraq.** I’ll try to find a cite. ---
**Author:** ![GoHeels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@GoHeels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoHeels)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/90 "2003-12-22T23:05:14Z")
**Sine Nomen** , I didn’t see the CNN interview that you spoke of, but a buddy of mine did forward me this article from April 9, 2003 (the day the Saddam statue fell in Baghdad) from the [Telegraph](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/04/wun04.xml). Salient quote, FWIW: > [@](#): > > A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/91 "2003-12-22T23:21:45Z")
Hell, even the [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/opinion/20SAT1.html) is willing to give credit to the Bush administration on this one. > [@](#): > > 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. > … > Over the past five years, by turning over two suspects for trial, acknowledging its complicity in the Lockerbie bombing and paying compensation to victims’ families, Libya finally managed to persuade the United Nations Security Council to lift the international sanctions that had shadowed its economy and its international reputation for more than a decade. Those sanctions were lifted in September. This page recommended lifting American sanctions as well, but President Bush left them in place pending further steps, most notably Libya’s decision to end its unconventional weapons programs. It is now clear that he was right to do so. The added American pressure worked just as intended. But of course, the Bush-hating usual suspects here will continue picking and choosing between the following: A) Nothing to see here. Move along. B) Yay, UN. This is a repudiation of Bush, and shows that dialogue and diplomacy can work. All evidence to the contrary will be ignored or summarily dismissed by handwaving and assertions without factual backup. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/92 "2003-12-22T23:32:59Z")
Libya’s been on this course for, at least, five years - as the beginning of Sam Stone’s second quoted para says. To what extent the fall of Saddam influenced the _pace_ of subsequent events, we don’t know. We do know the WMD thing was inevitable if Libya was going to continue on this long-established path as there was no other way to get US sanctions lifted. As far as I’m concerned, most credit lies with the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office for nurturing this thing along, and for gaining Gadaffi’s trust during the length of the Lockerbie trial and compensation battle (slowly, slowly catchy monkey) – maybe that was acknowledged in Blair getting to the podium in London with the announcement before Bush in DC. Maybe not. Bush will claim the credit for his policy, of course. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/93 "2003-12-22T23:49:30Z")
Odd, about the CNN thing…I listened this afternoon, after the Jimmy Carville show. The lead in to the interview had a teaser: in this interview Qaddaffi does not deny that the war on Iraq clinched his decision. Then comes the interview, wherein it isn’t even mentioned. So, I guess, in truth, he did not deny it. However, I am advised that my memory isn’t what it used to be, and never was. But think about it…Would Quadaffi ever publicly admit to cringing before American military strength, even were it so? Would he reveal the darkest fears of his heart in confidence to a member of the Berlesconi regime, whose analingus attitude towards GeeDubya is well and widely known? As eager as you may be to don The Leader’s brow with garlands of laurel, surely these questions must give you pause? ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/94 "2003-12-22T23:58:50Z")
I wouldn’t read too much into whatever Gaddafi says, the man’s not a rocket scientist, least of all in matters international where his judgement “ain’t all that”, as they say 'round my manor. If he said one thing on the spur of the moment in an interviw, it doesn’t mean it’s policy, or he’ll believe that tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/95 "2003-12-23T00:12:27Z")
[hijack being constructed here, drive carefully…] Struck humorous by phrase “slowly, slowly catchee monkey”. Google on it. Shits and giggles. [/End hijack construction zone. Resume vigilance…] ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/96 "2003-12-23T00:55:37Z")
Based on Quaddafi’s track record, I give the agreement two years. Maybe three. He’s made promises to fly the straight and narrow before. They lasted, oh, two, maybe three years. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/97 "2003-12-23T01:22:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > > But of course, the Bush-hating usual suspects here will continue picking and choosing between the following: > > A) Nothing to see here. Move along. > > B) Yay, UN. This is a repudiation of Bush, and shows that dialogue and diplomacy can work. > > All evidence to the contrary will be ignored or summarily dismissed by handwaving and assertions without factual backup. It seems to me you are only interested in bashing the so-called Bush-haters. Some of us have given credit to Bush and Blair though not to the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam which was what your OP was about. You haven’t bothered to debate. You come back, post a NYT article which seems to agree with you (in an “unmeasured” sense) as it if were infallible… and take a shot at the Bush haters. What’s the point? BTW, Where’s the evidence that you claim exists which has automatically invalidated our assertions? I am curious. ---
**Author:** ![GoHeels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@GoHeels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoHeels)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/98 "2003-12-23T01:35:12Z")
**London\_Calling** , I’m inclined to agree with you that the lion’s share of the credit should go to the British (and Blair, specifically). IMHO (and I am CERTAINLY not an expert on UK politics), Blair can sell the Libya accord as a fundamental fruit of the UK’s choice to align with the Americans. On the world stage, the British can now act as an entity that has the trust of the US, who can use that trust to influence US policies. **elucidator** > [@](#): > > But think about it…Would Quadaffi ever publicly admit to cringing before American military strength, even were it so? Would he reveal the darkest fears of his heart in confidence to a member of the Berlesconi regime, whose analingus attitude towards GeeDubya is well and widely known? **elucidator** , honestly, no, I really wouldn’t think so. But the political significance of the timing of the announcement **couldn’t** be lost on Gadhafi. I grant you that Gadhafi’s lost some street cred in recent years, and seemed to be working toward rapproachment with the West, but the accord struck me as a complete capitulation on Gadhafi’s part. He had to know how this announcement would be received (considering how close it came to the capture of Saddam, and the fact that his negotiating was done outside of EU, UN auspices and with the British). The fact is, Gadhafi didn’t consult the UN or the EU - if he wanted to play up to the multilateralists, it seems he would approach these institutions. Considering the timing of the announcement, and the parties with whom he negotiated, to ignore the impact of the war in Iraq seems to strain credulity. ---
**Author:** ![GoHeels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@GoHeels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoHeels)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/99 "2003-12-23T01:51:41Z")
**Rickjay:** > [@](#): > > Based on Quaddafi’s track record, I give the agreement two years. Maybe three. Come on. After this public a surrender, do you really think Gadhafi is gonna fuck with the US/UK? He knows where his bread is gonna be buttered for the remainder of his life. Muammar prefers wine, women, and song to spider-holes, methinks. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082/100 "2003-12-23T05:08:07Z")
Josh Marshall, of the much esteemed _Talking Points Memo_, offers these two articles as regards the time line for Quadaffi’s evolution in terms of Libya’s isolation. [http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010501faessay4768/ray-takeyh/the-rogue-who-came-in-from-the-cold.html](http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010501faessay4768/ray-takeyh/the-rogue-who-came-in-from-the-cold.html) and [http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030902faupdate82569/ray-takeyh/warming-up-to-libya.html](http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030902faupdate82569/ray-takeyh/warming-up-to-libya.html) the second to be considered an update. Now, admittedly, this all comes from the rabidly Bush-hating _Foreign Affairs_, but worthy of attention, nonetheless. Basic point to bring to the discussion: this process has been ongoing for _years_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libya-to-give-up-all-wmds/220082.md?page=6)