Libya to give up all WMDs

Great Debates
101

I’m sure he prefers wine, women and song to having F-111’s dropping bombs on his house, too, which you may recall happened in 1986, and which elicited an assurance Libya was out of the terrorism business. Two years later, Pan Am 103 blew up.

Quaddafi is a nutbar and a weasel of the fiftieth magnitude of weaseltude. One the winds change - and they will, because they always do - he’ll be back in the league with the latest terrorist causes. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but to believe this is going to work you have to ask me to trust Moammar Quaddafi. Anyone who trusts that guy is as crazy as he is.

102

Hmm, so Qadaffi will be back into terrorism in two tor three years, because that’s just the way he is.

How do you reconcile that with the last decade or more, during which there have been no links between Qadaffi and international terrorism?

Oh yeah, almost forgot. Bush sucks. Wouldn’t want to disappoint poor old Sam on that point.

103

The issue isn’t George Bush. I haven’t said a thing about him (or Blair.) One can only commend both administrations for trying to do something.

The issue is Moammar Quaddafi and the fact that his promises mean absolutely diddly. Maybe he’ll blow up another airliner and maybe he won’t. His wrath could be turned against any number of targets. What he’s saying NOW has no bearing on what he might do in the future - we have years and years of experience to tell us that.

104

I’m unclear on Lockerbie; if Gaddafi funded or organised that act, wouldn’t he also be on trial - is Gaddafi actually linked to Lockerbie in any way ?

105

I have to agree that this is a big deal, if for no reason other than it can somewhat legitimately be publicized as a big deal.

For all of the folk arguing that Libya was not actually a real threat in recent years, you may well be right. However, Libya certainly was portrayed as one of a precious few outsider rogue nations for the past few decades. Against that history, any apparent improvement in their standing in the world community has to be viewed as an improvement.

Libya has been popularly portrayed as a destabilizing force. And as we readily see in the current wars against Iraq and terror, to a considerable extent appearance IS reality. The popular image of Qaddafi the madman, Lockerbie, etc. is far more powerful than your niggling little facts.

Tho it has been 20 years since I researched the topic, at one point Qaddafi certainly was a destabilizing force with respect to his neighbors - at least Chad and the Sudan (which both actually touch Libya!). There is the possibility that improved relations between Libya and the rest of the world might improve stability in that unfortunate region.

I view this as a positive step the same way I would view normalized relations with Cuba as a positive step. Absent a real reason to the contrary, invite them into the club, where you can have more effective influence over them through economic and cultural exchange.

And, whether you like it or not, the team in charge gets to claim credit for any arguable good that occurs on their watch. Of course, they also try to avoid blame for any unpleasant developments…

106

Bush did, even before 9/11.

And, as soon as ObL is captured, you will dismiss this as a relatively minor event, too.

I can’t figure you liberals out. Whenever there is a success in the war on terror that is not related to 9/11, you try to change the subject back to ObL. Then you complain that Bush is being misleading about who was involved in 9/11.

This is another success in the war against terror, brought about in part (it is reasonable to conclude) by the knowledge that Bush is entirely serious about what he says. Iraq refuses to fully cooperate with an inspection regime designed to ensure that she won’t develop nukes. And is subsequently overthrown in a few days.

Apparently this lesson was not wasted on Ghaddafi, as it seems to have been on the usual suspects on the SDMB.

Regards,
Shodan

107

Well, Shodan, this liberal freely admits that this is a positive development, and that Bush is free to claim credit for it, but questions the certainty of it resulting from the war against terror - exactly whatever that might be.

Why is it not sufficient for the administration to say "This is a good thing and it happened on our watch!"

If, in fact, this particular development was in response to the current administration (which I do not doubt), my suspicion is that it was actually in response to a number of diverse factors of varying significance, including the world community as well as previous US admins. Attributing it solely to this admin’s “war against terror” strikes me as overly simplistic and jingoistic. Not to suggest that such tendencies are unique to conservatives or Republicans.

If you start getting more specific than saying “It’s a good ting, and I’ll take credit”, and start offering specific actions/programs as the cause for a specific development, then you are the one who opens up the whole subject to questioning the legitimacy, motivation, and efficacy of those actions/programs.

108

Okay, I know it is late, but, have any of you thought that maybe Bush just bought off Libya with a promise of X amount of US dollars in return for saying, even if they don’t have any, “we want to dismantle our WMD”? Libya is could certainly use the money, and Bush could certainly us the boost in popularity in the WoT.

After all, Bush was the one to announce it. If Ghaddafi wanted to take initiative with and start dialog with UN, he would have done it himself, but if he did, he would get little from the US.

Tinfoil hats and all, but I wonder just what Libya will get for their cooperation with the US.

109

That’s because you keep sleeping through the news reports, Shodan.

Osama bin Laden (and, by extension, al Qaeda) is a known terrorist threat. North Korea is a known terrorist threat. Hell, Pakistan* is a known terrorist threat. Iraq and Libya are not. And as any fool can plainly see, diverting troops to Iraq while leaving the known threats undisturbed is not a strategy that will bring safety and security. If there’s a murderer in your neighborhood, you don’t waste time by sending the police to capture pickpockets.

Well, if he’d stop dragging in 9/11 and Osama bin Laden any time he talks about Saddam Hussein, then maybe I’d believe he’s not deliberately trying to snowball the public.

Then again, given how many times he’s already tried to snowball the public over the Iraq war (Nigerian yellowcake, mobile chemical weapons labs, Saddam’s ocean-spanning remote-controlled anthrax-spraying drones, and the hundreds of thousands of tons of illicit WMDs), he probably figures you’re gullible enough to swallow his bullstuff one more time.

110

Certainly Iraq is not - now. The threat of Libyan terrorism has now been reduced.

I wonder if those who lived in Lockerbie, or the guests in Roman nightclubs, would agree that Libya is not a known terrorist threat. I am sure they are now comforted by the knowledge that you have Officially Declared that Ghaddafi was actually a really nice guy, and no threat to anyone. This despite his possession of chemical WMD, and his desire to attain nuclear weapons.

Obviously not any. :wink:

I am not sure - are you recommending an invasion of North Korea and Pakistan? Or are you saying that it will never be necessary to use our troops, except to threaten with them?

At any rate, the ship of your line of reasoning seems to have foundered on the hard rocks of reality. The Libyans, far from being “undisturbed” by the conquest of Iraq, have agreed to disarm, and to submit to inspections. So, what Bush expected seems to have happened, and it happened close on the heels of another incredibly swift and effective use of the US military.

In other words, he was right, and you are wrong. Which, I suspect, is why you are trying to minimize the accomplishment.

My point seems to have sailed over your head.

You are the one dragging 9/11 and Osama bin Laden into the discussion.

Libyan disarmament was brought about (at least in significant part) by the conquest of Saddam, not as a result of the capture of ObL, who remains at large for the moment.

Therefore, it would seem that Bush is not the one trying to snowball the public.

Regards,
Shodan

111

So much bullshit, so little time!

**

No doubt we are also more secure from the threat of Belgian terrorism

**

A splendid rebuttal! It would have been even better if it was rebutting something that friend rjung had actually said. Perhaps you should cut and save it, in case you ever have an occassion when it is relevent, rather than pointless. That would be nice.

**
He can recommend whatever he likes, we are entirely incapable of doing so. All our available troops strength is committed, we should have to send the Eagle Scouts to storm Tripoli. But no, I very much doubt that rjung was recommending such a thing. I’m also pretty sure that you knew that as well.

**

Post Iraq ergo propter Iraq The logical fallacy that presumes that because any given event occured after the fall of Saddam, it must necessarily be a result thereof. You might just as well suggest that the incidence of Mad Cow Disease is a direct result at well.

The process of rehabilitating Libya has been ongoing for years. Reports of the timeline and seperate developments related to it is freely available, should you decide to trouble yourself with facts.

**
Stunning. Postively stunning. Sure don’t want to play Twister against you.

**

Boy, you got us there! There ain’t no way we can get away with claiming the capture of ObL is connected to Quadaffi’s decision. I hereby humbly retract any suggestion like that I have made, and am quite sure rjung will as well. Hey, rjung, didn’t you know that ObL hadn’t been captured? Dummy! He got you good that time, didn’t he?

Easy to tell. White, crisp, cold…rjung Brown, bovine and odiferous…GeeDubya.

112

MrTuffPaws:

I wouldn’t put it quite in those terms, but I don’t doubt there was an economic component to the accord.

When Libya settled the Lockerbie bombing, it stood to rid itself of UN sanctions. I don’t doubt that various European, Russian, and Chinese oil firms, free of those troublesome UN sanctions, were rushing in to fill the void. Meanwhile, US oil firms were still subject to the US embargo (which wasn’t lifted), and if they didn’t get in on the Libya deal, they’d probably be shut out of the Libya market for quite a while.

I wouldn’t doubt that now, Libya will be quite friendly to US oil interests. Don’t have the cite handy, but apparently, much of the existing Libyan oil infrastructure is American-made and American-installed. Libyan production has been in the crapper since US sanctions were imposed in 1986, and the quickest way to get the infrastructure online would be to favor American firms that have all the technical data to streamline the production ramp-up process.

113

Addendum to my last post:

Not to say that US oil interests forced Bush’s hand, or was the sole motivator for the deal, IMHO.

Although patient diplomacy must be given some credit for the breakthrough, the internationalists on this thread can’t ignore the basic fact that Libya approached the UK on this WMD deal nine months ago.

It didn’t approach the EU. Nor France, Germany, or Russia. Nor China. And certainly not the UN.

IMHO, Libya approached the UK because only the UK had the trust of the US and was the only world player sufficiently positioned to have the ear of the US and potentially influence it. Not to mention that the US had what Libya wanted (see my post above).

Blair seems here to be the real winner here, since he has the internationalist credentials to approach and perhaps negotiate with those countries that are on the US shit list, yet also has the trust of the big bad US. I know few here will agree with me, but I think Blair is emerging as quite an effective statesman.

I’ll leave it up to others to determine if this concept of US/UK “bilateralism” - i.e. outside the auspices of the EU and UN - is the one that should be the new model of delicate diplomacy in the coming years.

What’s the old saying? Diplomacy without the threat of force is like an orchestra without the instruments.

114

Ghadaffi has admitted to sponsoring the Lockerbie bombing. Put another way, he wrote a check. The events don’t have to occur within his borders for him to succeed. There’s nothing stopping him from doing it again (except an F-16 up his ass if he’s caught).

You asked why there are no links between Ghadaffi and international terrorism? That sentiment has a Neville Chamberlain quality to it that defines you as someone who always sees the best in people. Reality gets expensive when you ignore human nature. Ghadaffi is a wounded animal, he lost a family member in a retaliatory attack against him. With the “Lion of Iraq” out of the picture, Ghadaffi may again see himself as the next challenger.

Oh, and Bush rules. ** Monica Lewinsky **sucks. This message brought to you by the committee for Bush in 2008 .

115

minty asked about links “in the last decade or more”. Lockerbie - Pan Am 103 - was in 1988. UTA 772 was in 1989.

Your sentiment has a Geedubya quality to it. That is, it smacks of ignorance, lies, incompetence and misrepresentation.

116

Belgium? What the f*ck does Belgium have to do with it?

rjung claimed that Libya is not a terrorist state. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

And yet, as has been pointed out, Libya has been brought to disarmament. IOW, Bush has demonstrated that we are serious about the war on terror. His judgements about the best course of action have been validated. The idea that the terror nations of the world will feel free to run riot, since all US troops are fully committed, is wrong. Libya knows this, Iraq knows this, North Korea knows this, Iran knows this. The Usual Suspects on the SDMB do not know this. Big surprise there.

Blah blah blah. Nothing good can be attributed to Bush - we have heard your rap before.

Right. And idiotic, almost completely content-free, determinedly blind to any development that would reflect credit on George Bush, and stunningly obtuse - the drivel of elucidator and his ilk.

Regards,
Shodan

117

ha ha ha ha. Oh man.

Did you read your own comments. Ignorance",“lies”,“incompetence”,misrepresentation" ???
Did your dictionary of personal attack adjectives explode?

And for that matter, did you read Minty’s?

in the last decade or more.

Lockerbie happened more than a decade ago but that is irrelevant to the argument. It is the defining event when talking about Ghadaffi and that is what is relevant. He is a ruthless dictator, which is the point of my post. Chamberlain trusted the words of Hitler against popular reason. Ruthless people should not be trusted blindly. Former President Reagan ran his campaign on it: “trust but verify”. It’s a simple concept that requires the will of force against people who prove to be dangerous. Ghadaffi has demonstrated he is dangerous and he will only concede to inspection if he fears for his own life. It is reasonable to assume that President Bush’s policies have a direct bearing on Ghadaffi’s change of heart.

Flight 772 has nothing to do with my comment. If you want to be taken seriously then lose the adjectives and politely make your point.

118

Got ilk?

Which drivel you are apparently unable to rebut, beyond stamping your widdle foot and screaming “liar!”

119

There is plenty of evidence that Libya, while not directly engaging in terrorism for some time, has provided funding to Palestinian terror organizations and perhaps other aid and comfort to various terrorists, including aiding plots to assassinate other middle eastern leaders.

But that aside, there is something much bigger going on here. One of the neo-con arguments for taking out Iraq is that Iraq was the ‘key’ to disarming and stabilizing the middle east. Why? Because Saddam had a large military, aggressive intentions, and was actively working to destabilize the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

But the presence of Saddam in the Middle East forced other regimes to match his military, and those who couldn’t to build other deterrents like WMD. Thus, you have a nuclear program in Iran and Libya (and Israel itself), other WMD programs, etc.

But now look what’s happening now that Saddam is gone. Iran is allowing inspectors into its nuclear program. Libya dumps all of its WMD. These things are not a coincidence - they are brought about by two things: first, the apparent willingness of the U.S. to forcibly remove leaders who don’t play along, but more importantly the removal of the need for those weapons in the first place.

And has anyone noticed how quiet the Palestinians have been of late? They lost their sugar daddy in Saddam, Libya is out of the game, and Iran is playing nice and probably not as likely to ship in a hold full of weapons a la the Karine-A. One little unnoticed fact in all of this hoopla over Iraq is that the Palestinian militants have lost huge chunks of their support.

Now, lots of things can still go wrong, but as of this date you’ve gotta admit that events in the middle east are proceeding pretty much as the neo-cons predicted, and not at all like the anti-war folks claimed would happen. What happened to the ‘Arab Street’ rising up? Where’s the Islamic radicalism swelling up in all the neighboring countries? I don’t see it. In fact, I see accelerating market reforms in Jordan, a very quiet Arab press that is actually doing some soul-searching about their looking the other way for decades while Saddam tortured fellow Arabs, pro-democracy protests in Syria of all places, and a bunch of bad guys like Muammar who are suddenly being much more complacent.

So, since the Bush supporters have had to issue numerous and repeated mea culpas over the lack so far of WMDs, are any of you anti-war types willing to step up and admit all the things you were wong about? Like, say, the humanitarian disaster that was supposed to happen in Iraq, or the nonexistant siege of Baghdad, or the Iraqi citizens rising up to expel the ‘invaders’, or the radicalization of the Arab street, or the massive increases in terrorism, or…

120

Just wanted to point out that this is yet another incarnation of the Domino theory. On the left, they call it the dialectic of history. It doesn’t have a good track record no matter who advances it.