Libya

[mummymonkey]

That was then (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1975365.stm)
This is now (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3335965.stm)
The big stick perhaps?

[demon]

Gaddafi has been weaselling his way back into the affections of the west for some time now.
It certainly didn't start with the invasion of Iraq (which is no doubt what the hawks will claim).

It's been happening ever since he helped out with the Lockerbie sham trial - check out the UN observer's report.
I suspect that this latest piece of news had little or nothing to do with recent developments, Qadhafi is just desperate to begin trading with the west again (namely OIL).

Iran is most likely to be next to come forward about its WMD Programmes after agreeing to sign the non-proliferation treaty. That leaves one question. What about Israel? Shouldn't they be coming forward with details of their nuclear/bio/chemical arsenals? Or is that counted as anti-semitism these days??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/725730.stm

[c0rbin]

Is Isreal hiding anything?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by demon
What about Israel? Shouldn't they be coming forward with details of their nuclear/bio/chemical arsenals? Or is that counted as anti-semitism these days??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/725730.stm
It's well known that Israel has nukes. It's also well known that Israels neighbors (you know, the ones who are constantly calling for the destruction of Israel) haven't started a war w/ them since those nukes were acquired. Get the picture?

[demon]

"Is Isreal hiding anything?"
Mordechai Vanunu anyone? Get the picture?

[American]

Quadafi doesn't want his next dental exam to take place port-mortem, or with him alive but on international television.

That, and he doesn't have the dirt for a good spider hole. Too much sand.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by demon
Gaddafi has been weaselling his way back into the affections of the west for some time now.
It certainly didn't start with the invasion of Iraq (which is no doubt what the hawks will claim).


It may very well be that Lybia would be taking the exact same actions even if Iraq had not been invaded.

However, I remember many people predicting how the invasion would derail world peace, stop diplomacy forever, etc. The fact that Lybia is willing to take steps shown, and to do so with the "hated Americans" shows that the predictions of the end of diplomacy were exagerated.

Originally posted by demon
Iran is most likely to be next to come forward about its WMD Programmes after agreeing to sign the non-proliferation treaty. That leaves one question. What about Israel? Shouldn't they be coming forward with details of their nuclear/bio/chemical arsenals? Or is that counted as anti-semitism these days??


One of the big differences between Iran and Israel is that Iran signed the non-poliferation treaty while Israel did not. Since Israel did not sign the treaty, they are under no obligation to provide any details. (If a country does sign the treaty, they are not to develop nuclear weapons, but are eligible for assistance for the development of some nuclear technology.)

[demon]

Segnosaur:
"However, I remember many people predicting how the invasion would derail world peace, stop diplomacy forever, etc. The fact that Lybia is willing to take steps shown, and to do so with the "hated Americans" shows that the predictions of the end of diplomacy were exagerated."

This is just the sort of "diplomacy" that was advocated by those who opposed the invasion of Iraq.
One could I suppose (if one where only partially attentive), try to argue that the UK/US had tried peacful methods for the 10+ years between the 2 Iraq invasions - only that would be another big lie, as hardly a day went by, when Iraqi people were not bombed by the "coalition".

Now, one could also argue that nothing good can come out of this new declaration from Gaddafi , except perhaps a temporary reprieve for Libya.
An objective of The War Against Terror/PNAC/FSD, was to condition the Arab governments into acquiescence and reflexive subordination. This has worked, both in the case of the Libyan government's proactive efforts to distance themselves from the slightest possibility of acquiring the means to protect their population (something that is considered good and right in the West, but apparently not fitting for the brown people), and in Iran's eventual agreement to sign up to the NPT and 'Inspections' (brazen espionage).

The impetus for 'war' (bombing-invasion-occupation-colonisation) is what needs to be addressed, this is a problem of Western governments, not the 'rogue' regime's desire to arm itself with weapons of mass destruction.

It is quite rational to assume that a lowering of the defence capabilities of resource rich, or strategic third and second world nations will simply make the imposition of empire that much less of a burden, in terms of the lives of imperial goons and citizens and in terms of the military expenditure necessary to keep the empire subdued.

What 'negotiation' achieves is the rape without protest, it does not prevent the rape, it does not shorten the ordeal nor the psychological wake that comes afterwards.

Negotiation works as a European tool simply because of the actions of America, make no mistake about it, and France, Germanyand the rest? ... they are freeloaders on America's thuggery.

Of course, the essential racism of Europeans negotiating to disarm those that they would bleed dry is sick and maybe one day as a society, Britain, America and Europe will come to understand that many of their leaders were/are nothing more than murderers and robbers, their codes of law simply tools to enshrine that which they have taken.

Maybe then the scare stories of "rogue nations with Weapons of Mass Destruction" will appear to them as the twisted ironies that they are.

[Ed]

From the NYT editorial page, today:

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.


Naturally, Bush earned the wrath of the left for yet another cruel blow against an innocent third world country back then.

I think the projection of force halfway around the globe to topple two regimes had it's desired demonstrative effect.

I am sure that the NYT hated printing that admission but I think that the drumbeat of the right (people like O'Reilly, for example) has sensitized them to their pro forma bias.

Incidentially, happy re-election George. I, personally, am thinking of a Sharpton vote.

[Ed]

From al Jezera, today quoteing Moe:

"He said Libya had been talking to the Americans, adding: "We want to defend our people's interests. What have Arabs done for Iraq or Palestine?""

Perhaps he has gotten it. Perhaps he wants to be the voice of moderation and citizenship in the Arab world.

Interesting, very interesting.

[crackmonkey]

Libya has been trying to get back into the good graces of the West for a decade or so. I'm delighted that Qaddafi has gone this route. This is unquestionably a vindication of the US's carrot-and-stick approach to rogue nations, as well as a testament to the resolve of the UN for imposing and maintaining sanctions.
I doubt Iran will prove to be as easy - there is far less will (particularly in the EU) to isolate Iran economically.
This is potentially as important a development in the Middle East as the fall of Saddam.

[Ed]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Libya has been trying to get back into the good graces of the West for a decade or so. I'm delighted that Qaddafi has gone this route. This is unquestionably a vindication of the US's carrot-and-stick approach to rogue nations, as well as a testament to the resolve of the UN for imposing and maintaining sanctions.
I doubt Iran will prove to be as easy - there is far less will (particularly in the EU) to isolate Iran economically.
This is potentially as important a development in the Middle East as the fall of Saddam.

Indeed.

I wonder if Moe is thinking

Gosh, here I am a reformed bad guy. The US loves contrition. Maybe, just maybe I can marginalize those loons in Iran in the world community. Let's see (consults check list):

- Own up to Lockerbee .... Check
- Get rid of the WMD mess ... Check
- Cut secret security deal with US/UK ... Check
- Meet w/ GM, Coke, Pepsi (note to self ..don't schedule these on same day) ... check
- Recognize Isreal ... Workin' on it
- Turn over some terrorists ... Workin' on it
- Share files on loons in the area ... Check
- Invite Chaney ... Checkeroonie
- Be feted in NYC by useful liberal tools ... Workin' on it (Note to self ... get Armani tux)
- Get invite to Isreal .. In the works
- Meet with Carvill this pm ... check and double check
- Meet Pope ... Workin' on it


We should keep our eye on this guy. He could make an enormous difference and it would not take much.

[Tmy]

Qudafi just got tired of wearing them out of date clothes. He fancies himself as quite the fashion plate. If getting ahold of Levi jeans and Tommy Hilfiger shirts means giving up your nuke program, SO BE IT!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy
Qudafi just got tired of wearing them out of date clothes. He fancies himself as quite the fashion plate. If getting ahold of Levi jeans and Tommy Hilfiger shirts means giving up your nuke program, SO BE IT!

A little hair weave action, perhaps?

A few Travolta Disco moves to wow 'em in Tripoli?

A white suit?

Attitude?

This man could be smokin'

http://www.posterplanet.net/pictures/images/Jt1b7.gif

It prooves the point, in a battle between principle and the Thong, the Thong wins:D

[aerocontrols]

I just can't take him seriously.

After decades of ruling the country, I would expect him to advance beyond the rank of "Colonel".

The student shows no motivation or ambition.

I recommend that he be held back.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by WildCat

It's also well known that Israels neighbors (you know, the ones who are constantly calling for the destruction of Israel) h

No, I'm not aware of all these neighbors who are constantly calling for Israel's destruction. Naturally, i assume the evidence to support this claim will be forthcoming.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by originalgagster


No, I'm not aware of all these neighbors who are constantly calling for Israel's destruction. Naturally, i assume the evidence to support this claim will be forthcoming.

You're kidding, right?

Well, you have a point; since most of them don't recognize israel, what they REALLY call for is the "destruction of the zionist entity".

You can start with Arafat's 1998 admission that the Oslo accord is part of the "Phase plan" for israel's destruction (here (http://www.freeman.org/m_online/may98/arafat.htm)) . If you want more... there's tons of 'em.

[Ed]

From the Telegraph, today

The trigger for Gaddafi's sudden decision last week to agree to inspections seems to have been that the old terrorist took one look at the pictures of the crushed and humiliated Saddam Hussein, and immediately decided that he did not want to not end up in the same hole. Libya's economy has also been teetering on the edge of collapse for a decade or more, and the prospect of significant foreign investment, which was promised if the dictator agreed to end his involvement with weapons of mass destruction, was enticing - although probably not as strong a motive as his desire to avoid suffering the same fate as Saddam Hussein.




What a shock.

[Troll]

Originally posted by demon
Segnosaur:
"However, I remember many people predicting how the invasion would derail world peace, stop diplomacy forever, etc. The fact that Lybia is willing to take steps shown, and to do so with the "hated Americans" shows that the predictions of the end of diplomacy were exagerated."

This is just the sort of "diplomacy" that was advocated by those who opposed the invasion of Iraq.
One could I suppose (if one where only partially attentive), try to argue that the UK/US had tried peacful methods for the 10+ years between the 2 Iraq invasions - only that would be another big lie, as hardly a day went by, when Iraqi people were not bombed by the "coalition".

Now, one could also argue that nothing good can come out of this new declaration from Gaddafi , except perhaps a temporary reprieve for Libya.
An objective of The War Against Terror/PNAC/FSD, was to condition the Arab governments into acquiescence and reflexive subordination. This has worked, both in the case of the Libyan government's proactive efforts to distance themselves from the slightest possibility of acquiring the means to protect their population (something that is considered good and right in the West, but apparently not fitting for the brown people), and in Iran's eventual agreement to sign up to the NPT and 'Inspections' (brazen espionage).

The impetus for 'war' (bombing-invasion-occupation-colonisation) is what needs to be addressed, this is a problem of Western governments, not the 'rogue' regime's desire to arm itself with weapons of mass destruction.

It is quite rational to assume that a lowering of the defence capabilities of resource rich, or strategic third and second world nations will simply make the imposition of empire that much less of a burden, in terms of the lives of imperial goons and citizens and in terms of the military expenditure necessary to keep the empire subdued.

What 'negotiation' achieves is the rape without protest, it does not prevent the rape, it does not shorten the ordeal nor the psychological wake that comes afterwards.

Negotiation works as a European tool simply because of the actions of America, make no mistake about it, and France, Germanyand the rest? ... they are freeloaders on America's thuggery.

Of course, the essential racism of Europeans negotiating to disarm those that they would bleed dry is sick and maybe one day as a society, Britain, America and Europe will come to understand that many of their leaders were/are nothing more than murderers and robbers, their codes of law simply tools to enshrine that which they have taken.

Maybe then the scare stories of "rogue nations with Weapons of Mass Destruction" will appear to them as the twisted ironies that they are.

well our thuggery worked better than French buttkissing as we can see by the results.

Thuggery indeed. 9 months of talks with the US and the UK. France and other nimrod nations say it shows how negotiating can work, so why the hell didn't they negotiate the freaking deal?

And don't try to beat the bush here, My question was direct and I expect the answer to be the same. Who negotiated and showed negotiation works? The Brits and the Americans. So who showed negotiation works? The Brits and the americans. Who also claimed that sometimes negotiations don't work? Oh my gawd it was the Brits and the Americans. It's 2-0 for the Brits and Americans on action and negotiation and 0-2 for the French on both

[Jon_in_london]

Well, Libyans still dont have democracy and live under the shaddow of a brutal tyrant.

So whens' the invasion?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by originalgagster


No, I'm not aware of all these neighbors who are constantly calling for Israel's destruction. Naturally, i assume the evidence to support this claim will be forthcoming.
Uh huh, sure. Would you also require evidence if I claimed the sky was blue, things fall down, Marilyn Monroe was a woman, 2+2=4, or that there is an ocean between the US and Australia?

Really, if you don't know this you haven't paid even the slightest bit of attention to the last 50 years or so of Middle East history, and really have no business even posting to this thread. It's not my responsibility to educate you of the obvious.

[Skeptic]

An objective of The War Against Terror/PNAC/FSD, was to condition the Arab governments into acquiescence and reflexive subordination.

Even if so, so what?

You forget that the "Arab governments" are NOT the same thing as the Arab people. We're not talking about "subordinating the Arabs"--merely the tiny minority of thuggish murderers that rule 90% of Arab and Muslim states (with a few notable exceptions--e.g., King Abdullah of Jordan, or Muslim Turkey).

It is, of course, in the thuggish minority's interest to claim that subordinating them is an "unbearable insult to the Arab world", and that "the people will rise up against the jewish-imperialist occupier", or whatever. That, indeed, is what "public opinion"--in their state-ontrolled press--keeps claiming.

But, were I a Libyan, I would be praying for the day Quaddaffi would be "humiliated" completely and, for once, I could vote for my own leader. Of course, you won't hear this from them... but you'd be singing a different song (in public) if you knew the secret police would kill you had you dared to criticize the "great leader", too. Remember the "Spontaneous domonstrations" for Saddam in Iraq before the war?

This has worked, both in the case of the Libyan government's proactive efforts to distance themselves from the slightest possibility of acquiring the means to protect their population

Why, yes, I'm sure Quaddafi is SOOOOOOO concerned about "protecting his population". Right. How many of his own people did he kill in show trials and coups, again? How many people "disappeared"? I forgot...

(something that is considered good and right in the West, but apparently not fitting for the brown people), and in Iran's eventual agreement to sign up to the NPT and 'Inspections' (brazen espionage).

Imagine that. For some reason, the west does not believe that Iran, with oil and gas reserves for hundreds of years, really needs its atom project to "conserve energy". The Ayatollah's claims about the coming end of the evil zionist entity might also have something to do with the suspicion they're developing nukes.

Negotiation works as a European tool simply because of the actions of America, make no mistake about it, and France, Germanyand the rest? ... they are freeloaders on America's thuggery.

Thank God for that. Remember the 1930s, when negotiations with Hitler and Mussolini were done in the "old" European style WITHOUT the leverage of American action? That worked out well, didn't it?

Of course, the essential racism of Europeans negotiating to disarm those that they would bleed dry is sick and maybe one day as a society, Britain, America and Europe will come to understand that many of their leaders were/are nothing more than murderers and robbers, their codes of law simply tools to enshrine that which they have taken.

In that case, why are you living in the west, in Europe (I suppose) or Australia? Surely, you don't want to profit from the "murderers and robbers" who gave you your high standard of living, do you? Well, you're free to leave to any one of those poor, opressed states...

...oh wait. You want the "moral high ground" WITHOUT any loss of creature comforts. So you'll remain in the west, but keep thumbing your nose at its "evil colonialisation".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


It may very well be that Lybia would be taking the exact same actions even if Iraq had not been invaded.

However, I remember many people predicting how the invasion would derail world peace, stop diplomacy forever, etc. The fact that Lybia is willing to take steps shown, and to do so with the "hated Americans" shows that the predictions of the end of diplomacy were exagerated.



I think that no one exptected that

a) the war would be won so easily
b) the peace would be lost so easily.

Diplomacy is a lot cheaper, (maybe trillions of dollars and numerous lives) and still gets results. If the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan had been more successful, then I think Diplomacy would have relegated to the reserves.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think that no one exptected that

a) the war would be won so easily
b) the peace would be lost so easily.

Diplomacy is a lot cheaper, (maybe trillions of dollars and numerous lives) and still gets results. If the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan had been more successful, then I think Diplomacy would have relegated to the reserves.
Really? These wars are over?! I must have missed the news that we have pulled out of those countries and all the soldiers are home...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by demon
Segnosaur:
"However, I remember many people predicting how the invasion would derail world peace, stop diplomacy forever, etc. The fact that Lybia is willing to take steps shown, and to do so with the "hated Americans" shows that the predictions of the end of diplomacy were exagerated."

This is just the sort of "diplomacy" that was advocated by those who opposed the invasion of Iraq.


There is a major difference; the US is negotiating from a position of strength, where it has demonstrated a willingness to act.

The countries opposing the war were basing their diplomacy on appeasment.

Originally posted by demon

One could I suppose (if one where only partially attentive), try to argue that the UK/US had tried peacful methods for the 10+ years between the 2 Iraq invasions - only that would be another big lie, as hardly a day went by, when Iraqi people were not bombed by the "coalition".


The majority of the US/UK attacks were directed at Iraqi military installations that were targeting planes patrolling the no-fly zones (the ones used to help keep Sadam from killing his own people). The average Iraqi was not targetted and would have been in no danger.

Originally posted by demon

An objective of The War Against Terror/PNAC/FSD, was to condition the Arab governments into acquiescence and reflexive subordination. This has worked, both in the case of the Libyan government's proactive efforts to distance themselves from the slightest possibility of acquiring the means to protect their population (something that is considered good and right in the West, but apparently not fitting for the brown people), and in Iran's eventual agreement to sign up to the NPT and 'Inspections' (brazen espionage).


I believe Iran had already signed the Non-poliferation treaty a long time ago, but wasn't following the terms laid out in them.

As for your other comments, you are implying racist motives to western actions. Got any proof of that?

I doubt the fact that they are 'brown people' really matters; what matters is the likelyhood that people may actually use the weapons they have. I would rather have 100 nuclear weapons in the hands of a democratic country that is responsible to its people than 1 nuclear weapon in the hands of a dictator who answers to no one, regardless of their skin colour.


Originally posted by demon

It is quite rational to assume that a lowering of the defence capabilities of resource rich, or strategic third and second world nations will simply make the imposition of empire that much less of a burden, in terms of the lives of imperial goons and citizens and in terms of the military expenditure necessary to keep the empire subdued.


So, what you're saying is that those resource rich third world countries have a right to any weapons they choose, and should obtain them, regardless of what type of government they have?

Originally posted by demon

Of course, the essential racism of Europeans negotiating to disarm those that they would bleed dry is sick and maybe one day as a society, Britain, America and Europe will come to understand that many of their leaders were/are nothing more than murderers and robbers, their codes of law simply tools to enshrine that which they have taken.


Sorry, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that the majority of political problems in the world are caused by the people in the problem countries themselves. Yes, the European countries did do a very bad job of drawing the borders of countries when they were dividing the world a hundred or so years ago, and the Americans and Europeans have been meddling in the affairs in many countries, but lets face it, so many of the genocides, dictatorships and overall problems are not the result of what the American's or Europeans did but result from deep-seated hate or other problems that the western world is powerless to control.