Libya to give up all WMDs

Great Debates
21

For that matter, who won’t? When nuclear weaponry is available so far down the line as Gabon and Upper Volta? The issue is as it was: not so much a matter of who can, but who dares?

The patient containment of Libya’s threat, combined with the clear advantages from “normalization”, led to a highly desireable result. But it is a demonstration of precisely those principles of restraint and diplomacy that us wooly-thinking peaceniks find so agreeable.

If there is a crowning absurdity to all of this, it must be these: that Libya very likely had the WMD’s we so feared, and Saddam did not.

We know, for a certainty, that Libya was directly connected to a terrorist plot that cost the lives of Americans. Cold, hard fact.

As to Saddam’s involvement with anything of the sort, we have only the most gossamer conjectures, that fall apart at the touch.

So, of course, we invade Iraq and arrest Saddam for trial. Libya, Quadaffy Duck: we cut a deal. Unless, of course, someone is going to suggest that Qaddaffy intends to turn himself over to us? No, I thought not.

So what lesson should our potential friends and allies take from all of this? What guiding principle do we demonstrate our allegiance to, when we conjure up a war out of whole cloth in one instance, and make deals with a man we know has committed the very crimes we accuse Saddam of, in the other.

22

Why would you want to sing like John Travolta?

23

Exactly!

24

This is pathetic.
Get back to me when North Korea, a real threat - they actually fired missiles over a Japanese island - run by a total wackjob that probably actually has nuclear weapons, is cowed into giving up its WMDs.
I’m sure you missed it in your rush to post this, but the other real threat, the ones who actually killed people and destroyed stuff here in the US, in Bali, in Tanzania and Kenya, and off the shores of Yemen, managed to kill a little rally in the stock markets and in the dollar today because of a mere rumor of a bomber in NYC. That’s the real threat.
The propaganda BS just never ends…

Oh, and Scott Ritter was right. Just in case you forgot.

25

I think you better see if that white leisure suit still fits.

26

Great post sailor!
The only think I’d add to it is the Lockerbie case that’s been like a millstone around Libya’s neck for years. With that nearly dealt with, a few piddling concessions on weapons were all that stood between Libya and reintegration with the world. I’d bet that wild horses couldn’t have prevented khadafi from cutting this deal.

27

So he stated his intentions, purchased a nuclear power plant, sent 200 students into the field to learn how, has the oil revenue to fund it, and exhibited terrorist actions by shooting down an airliner. ** That’s what**. It proves nothing but motive, means, intent, and prior actions.

Add to that a politically willing neighbor (Pakistan) and you have a conduit for all of Quadhafi’s needs. The Pakistani Government need not be a willing participant. There is plenty of dissent from within to collude with Libya.

28

Pakistan’s a neighbor of Libya???!!!???!!!
So let’s see, that would make Iran France, more or less, and Saudi Arabia gets to be Spain. I suppose Yemen can qualify as Portugal if you kind of look at it sideways or something.

29

By that reasoning, it’s time to invade Germany again. Look out, Krauts!

30

Yes, Pakistan has a populace that would simpathise with Libya. What the hell are you talking about, geography?

31

That would be “sympathize”.

32

Gotta wonder about the English involvement in all of this.

Seems likely to me that most of the groundwork was laid between Libya and England, since there wasn’t any history of acitive military belligerance between the two. And I would bet Blair laid out the terms before he even called Washington: inspections, destruction, pay the money, the whole nine yards.

And its likely he used GeeDubya’s “cowboy” mentality as a bargaining chip, like the “Crazy Nixon” ploy of Kissinger.

“Look, it’s all right with me, mate, but GeeDubya, well, he’s a wee bit trigger happy of late. You may have to cave on the inspectors being American and British and not UN. They’re not real keen on UN inspectors, you know…”

So, perhaps, a benefit. But consider this: if it wavers between peace and war, between us and another potential enemy…

You are, say, the Maximum Leader of Oceania, and America is pissed at you. You have weapons that would sharply injure America, but cannot hope to defeat America in any strategic sense: weapons of terror, perhaps, or 2nd rate nukes.

And keeping in mind the lesson: that Iraq made highly placed signals in the 11th hour, promising everything that Libya promised. And that feeler was rebuked, because war is the preferred course.

Would you be more inclined towards a kamikaze type attack of futile defiance? Or less?

33

Germany shot down an airline? Fox news is REALLY dropping the ball.

Sarcasm aside, Libya launched a terrorist attack in the past. To the extent Quadaffi has reformed is the point of the debate. You are saying he never intended or was incapable of making them and Quadaffi is saying he will get out of the WMD business. Who’s right?

I hope Syria and Iran don’t start making overtures to the US. The internet bickering might trigger another power outage.

34

Isn’t that what the word “neighbor” means?

35

Yeah, Magiver. You said Pakistan was a neighbor of Libya; that’s a straightforward statement of geography, and it’s easily refuted by looking at a map.
Their population may sympathize with Libya’s in a fight against the US, but the transport of weapons from Pakistan to Libya would involve somewhat more of a logistical headache than that which is implied by the word “neighbor”.

36

By all means, explain it to me.

37

Sometimes this gets to be surreal. You don’t have a dictionary? You can’t type in your browser’s address line www.dictionary.com ? Ok, here is what Webster’s says:

38

Yes, that’s the correct meaning of the word. If it only meant “adjacent to” then a neighborhood would consist of only 3 houses.

Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan are all Muslim neighbors.

NEXT

39

I found the Bible uses “Neighbor” with the meaning of “kindred human being” rather than “guy who lives next door” but this seems to be a usage restricted to the Bible (and maybe some archaic or formal writing). I have never seen it used this way in common writing or conversation.
v. neigh·bored, neigh·bor·ing, neigh·bors
v. tr.
To lie close to or border directly on.

v. intr.
To live or be situated close by.

adj.
Situated or living near another: a neighbor state

40

By that rule of three any two people living in the same city are neighbors and any two countries on the same landmass are neighbors. I think this is an abuse of the word.

For instance, I have always seen “neighboring countries” to mean “countries sharing a common border”. Can you find a few cites of the usage you propose?