Libya to give up all WMDs

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
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.

Then you should have no difficulty providing it. As well, you might also provide some evidence that Libya is unique or somehow outstanding in that regard. In your haste to press laurels on the brow of Our Leader, you neglected to include any of that.

**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.

**

Who isn’t? And as to Saddam’s “aggressive intentions” you provide nothing but your own clairovoyance.

**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.

**

I see. Yes. Of course. Qadaffi was petrified with fear that Saddam’s hordes would crush thier way through Jordan, Isreal and Egypt to get at him. Sure thing. Gotcha.

**

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.**

Post Iraq ergo propter Iraq You insist that it is so. But beyond your insistence, what have you?

**

And has anyone noticed how quiet the Palestinians have been of late? They lost their sugar daddy in Saddam…**

CNN is on now, if you like to have a quick glance at how “pacified” the Palistinians have become.

**Now, lots of things can still go wrong…

**
And have, and will continue to do so. As, for instance, our entire cassus belli being revealed to be an entire fabrication.

**…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.

**

It is splendid news that several of these predictable disasters have not occured. Yet. Attributing that to the prescience and wisdom of Wolfowitz/Perle cabal is a leap of faith I am not prepared to make.

**

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… **

I must have missed something. There is no Iraqi resistance? They gather in crowds to throw roses at our soldiers and offer them thier daughters? Must be that liberal media, witholding the news. Yes. That must be it. I have no clear idea about the “radicalization” of the Arab street, beyond some pretty clear evidence that they don’t hate our guts any more than they did. You must take great comfort in that.

[Magiver]

So how does everybody feel about the news that Gaddafi was trying to import centerfuges in October, 6 months after he started behind-the-scene disarrmament talks? A trustworthy person?

When I was in the 8th grade, I remember looking at countries where every corner had an image of their leader. I thought these rulers were meglomaniacs. I’ve come to see it as a litmus test.

Saddam’s phoenix?

[London_Calling]

Nothing news. He already had centrifuges. Given the IAEA knew of the nuclear facilities and had been denied access before, it’s hardly earth shattering news.

It would, however, be a serious issue if he ordered and took delivery of same after the agreement was made.

"LIBYA’S leader, Muammar Qaddafi, has quickly begun delivering on his promises to stop trying to make weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to open up Libya’s nuclear programme to United Nations inspectors. On Monday December 29th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ended a snap visit to Libya, announcing that his inspectors had been allowed to visit four previously unseen nuclear facilities around the capital, Tripoli. The inspectors were shown centrifuges used for enriching uranium, a key process in the building of an atomic bomb, and were given a detailed briefing on the nuclear experiments Libya has been conducting. "

[Kimstu]

SS: *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.*

I think this scenario is rather out of date. Remember, although Iraq was indeed a military force to be reckoned with in the ME ten and twenty years ago, the cleanup (and the sanctions) in the decade after the Gulf War seriously reduced its effectiveness—as coalition soldiers found during the invasion. Iraq’s neighbors in the region made it very clear to us during the buildup to our attack that they didn’t regard Saddam as a serious threat to the region’s stability any more, certainly not enough to justify our invasion.

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.

Again, I think you’re playing a little fast and loose with the timing to make your desired cause-and-effect deductions here. It was as far back as August of 2002 that the UK raised the issue of WMD cleanup in negotiations with Libya and found them unexpectedly cooperative. And the IAEA has been turning up the heat on Iran about its nuclear program since its inspectors found evidence of enriched uranium at an Iranian site this past August, during the course of regular inspections established well before the Iraq invasion.

So I don’t quite buy the post Iraq ergo propter Iraq argument as an explanation of these hopeful developments, either. I agree it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that the invasion of Iraq could have had some influence in prompting fuller cooperation. And I for one am glad to think that this war may be having some positive side effects (although I’m far from convinced that they can justify the attack or that the good results will ultimately outweigh the bad). But to suggest that greater openness from Iran and Libya is due only or crucially to an invasion of Iraq pour encourager les autres—nah, I think that’s a wild overstatement.

Speaking of people admitting things they were wrong about: I remember a lot of pro-war advocates several months ago denouncing the UN as irrelevant and useless and all kinds of mean things, while the UN’s IAEA continued steadfastly working on all these issues of monitoring and verifying and negotiating to reduce the danger of nuclear weapons. (The IAEA, btw, was one of the strongest sources for the claim that there was no evidence of significant Iraqi WMD.)

Now that some of the IAEA’s efforts are hitting the front pages with positive news about greater transparency in Iran and Libya, I hope we’ll hear some of those people conceding that the UN is good for something after all.

[Magiver]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
Nothing news. He already had centrifuges. Given the IAEA knew of the nuclear facilities and had been denied access before, it’s hardly earth shattering news.
Actually it is news. It takes thousands of centrifuges in a cascade to be useful in a manufacturing sense. He flat out lied about his intentions. And that lie involved the making of a nuclear weapon. His right hand signs peace treaties while his left hand makes weapons.

**
"LIBYA’S leader, Muammar Qaddafi, has quickly begun delivering on his promises to stop trying to make weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to open up Libya’s nuclear programme to United Nations inspectors. On Monday December 29th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ended a snap visit to Libya, announcing that his inspectors had been allowed to visit four previously unseen nuclear facilities around the capital, Tripoli. The inspectors were shown centrifuges used for enriching uranium, a key process in the building of an atomic bomb, and were given a detailed briefing on the nuclear experiments Libya has been conducting. "****

Unless theres an unwritten WMD rule for dictators, Qaddafi doesn’t have to make the weapons in his country, he can subcontract it out to other dictators in other countries, like North Korea. He can personally drive the UN inspectors around in a Ferrari and show them everything that would make them happy. This is what liars do.

Would it be nice to have inspectors in Libya. Yes, but only as a base to spy from. Dog-and-ponie shows can be played by both sides.

[Magiver]

Anyone catch the news that Pakistani Nuclear Scientists were selling information to countries like Libya and Iran?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FA06Df05.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8249970%5E1702,00.html
Subcontracting WMD technology is the shortest distance between 2 points. It also moves the research away from the regime that makes the investment.

Can Qaddafi ever be trusted?