Lybia to Give up WMD
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3762401/
Sorry for the spelling error. Duh.
Anyway, your thoughts on this? I've been hearing that Moammar Gadhaf became "cooperative" after 9/11 and Afghanistan. It seems to me that those questioning Bush's "with us or against us" policy have some explaining to do. The "are we next" factor carries some serious weight.
Sorry for the spelling error. Duh.
Anyway, your thoughts on this? I've been hearing that Moammar Gadhaf became "cooperative" after 9/11 and Afghanistan. It seems to me that those questioning Bush's "with us or against us" policy have some explaining to do. The "are we next" factor carries some serious weight.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
We're not interested in this, I suppose.
nope. you're just right. enjoy!
Originally posted by bunge
He was friendly with us long before 9/11. It was the bombs we dropped on him that scared him into submission, not GWB. I think you're really, really off base with this one.
Lockerby?
Originally posted by Towel
Like gyc said, Qaddafi's been behaving better since long before 9/11. The Lockerbie suspects were turned over to an international court way back in 1999, and their trial wrapped up in early 2001. Long-stalled negotiations over Lockerbie compensation bore fruit only this year, but Libya settled with the French over a separate (1989) airliner bombing back in 1999. I think you could fairly say that Qaddafi made a choice in the mid-90s to seek rapproachment with the civilized world, and at best GWB/9-11 just further convinced him of the wisdom of that choice.
That's it.
Qaddafi want's to have a preeminent international role, and to achieve this goal, he finded that he can't be against the occidental world. Lybia thinks that they can be a privilegiated link between africa and the occidental word.
It's a terrible shame that Syrian President Assad's call in May 2003 for the entire middle east to disarm itself of WMD met with embarrassed and stifled "umms and errrs" from those who advocated war on Iraq for the very same reasons (altho in that case it was all based on lies). Assad's suggestion was a brilliant political move and it illustrated sharply who the hypocrites are.
Originally posted by shetline
My warped perspective: I'm hoping this leads to enough of an improvement in relations with Libya that I can legally, and with a reasonable level of safety, visit Libya in 2006 for the total solar eclipse.
That's not so warped.
You guys should note that supposedly negotiations have been going on since before the war, and there are contradictory accounts of the cause.
Also, few people are agreeing with the claim that libya was close to making a nuclear weapon.
All in all it looks like a really good thing. For the past couple of years there has been talk that libya wanted to start reintegrating into the international community, and we are seeing the beginning of that..
I, for one, look forward to being able to go to those amazing roman ruins without depending on a third country.
Originally posted by sammi jo
It's a change to have a couple of pieces of good news for once, in sharp contrast to the endless horrors of the last 3 years. Weapons of mass destruction are of no use to Libya any more than they are of use to whoever else may possess them. Ghadafi is a pragmatist and he realizes the folly of WMD pursuit.
It's a terrible shame that Syrian President Assad's call in May 2003 for the entire middle east to disarm itself of WMD met with embarrassed and stifled "umms and errrs" from those who advocated war on Iraq for the very same reasons (altho in that case it was all based on lies). Assad's suggestion was a brilliant political move and it illustrated sharply who the hypocrites are.
Of cos it's a brilliant political move. It a Trojan horse.
As long as the Arabs harbor their imperialist dreams, the ME is going to be what is it, a place of strife and wars. The ME will not be free of Atomic weapons when the Arab/Islamic demographic weapon is there to be used against Israel. These diplomatic moves to "disarms" are nothing more than covert sinister acts of aggression on the part of the Arabs.
Israel needs to regain its historic natural borders and be secured as a Jewish/Judean state within them. I don't see this happening as long as there are Arabs calling themselves "Palestinians" aspiring for the old Arab imperialists dream of Islamic domination and subjugation. I think it's best to consider a population transfer of these Arabs back to their respective areas (see 15th century Spain) followed by a democratization and liberalization of Arab society. This, it seems to me, is the only solution that is viable for long term stability and peace.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Israel needs to regain its historic natural borders and be secured as a Jewish/Judean state within them.
Well let's look at 15th century Israel. Oh wait, there was no Israel....
Originally posted by bunge
Well let's look at 15th century Israel. Oh wait, there was no Israel....
hahaha. so true...
If we start telling countries their borders should be drawn they same way the were back in [insert year here], we'd have global political chaos and more warring than can possibly be comprehended.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It seems to me that those questioning Bush's "with us or against us" policy have some explaining to do. The "are we next" factor carries some serious weight.
When you are the biggest thug on the block, threatening all and sundry, some will roll over and do what you want.
I imagine Robert Magabe is shaking in his boots, yes?
But, as has all ready been mentioned, Lybia was already coming in from the cold before all this happened.
What's amusing is seeing the lapdogs in the Australian government try to get some credit for this.
Are the lies about WMD and liberating for democracy still believed?
Is Kuwait a democray yet?
Originally posted by bunge
Well let's look at 15th century Israel. Oh wait, there was no Israel....
There was no US of A either.
Jews never abandoned their Judean nationality. So to them Israel never ceased to exist, international politics not withstanding.
All I'm suggesting is that a territorial compromise be reached based on the roll back of Arab imperialist gains. I think this is perfectly reasonable, given the huge land mass now under their political control. It's going to have to have happen, one way or another.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Of cos it's a brilliant political move. It a Trojan horse.
As long as the Arabs harbor their imperialist dreams, the ME is going to be what is it, a place of strife and wars. The ME will not be free of Atomic weapons when the Arab/Islamic demographic weapon is there to be used against Israel. These diplomatic moves to "disarms" are nothing more than covert sinister acts of aggression on the part of the Arabs.
Thats too funny! There is one thing and one thing only which has caused the Arab world such a disastrously unbalanced evolution in the 20th century..and that is the sudden and huge addiction of the industrialized world for their primary natural resource,...OIL. When oil becomes too expensive to use as an energy resource for the masses (looks like soon...anything between 10 and 30 years estimation)...the prime source of income for those (mostly Muslim) mid east desert countries will dry up. Until then, its the West's reluctance and irresponsibility re. the development of alternative sustainable energy sources that has given medieval islamic fundamentalist regimes in the mid east technology and capital which meant that their societies changed too rapidly in a too shorter period of time to remain optimally stable, or evolve naturally. So, if there is to be a meaningful war on terror...or if it means ridding the world (and tincan regimes) of WMDs, then perhaps we should prioritize looking after ourselves, instead of showering the mideast with $$$$$, which ends up making a very tiny minority of elites fabulously wealthy, and buys a bunch of expensive military hardware.
Israel needs to regain its historic natural borders and be secured as a Jewish/Judean state within them. I don't see this happening as long as there are Arabs calling themselves "Palestinians" aspiring for the old Arab imperialists dream of Islamic domination and subjugation. I think it's best to consider a population transfer of these Arabs back to their respective areas (see 15th century Spain) followed by a democratization and liberalization of Arab society. This, it seems to me, is the only solution that is viable for long term stability and peace. [/B]
Some day, the wisdom of the founding fathers' separation of "church" and state ideal will be recognized by all countries. Theocracies don't work for people, period, and they always result in favoritism on the one side, and oppression for those of faiths not represented in Government. It matters not whether it's Jew vs. Muslim, Protestant vs Catholic, etc etc...its always the same BS...and human beings suffer. Freedom of religion equals freedom from religion...and one day, the rest of the world will catch on to this relatively novel idea which has worked so well in the USA for 200 years +...and that is when terrorism will be lose one of its primary raison's d'etre....(poverty and voicelessness being two others) Until thenj, the "war on terror", as preached by BushCorp will remain bogus and ineffective.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Thats too funny! There is one thing and one thing only which has caused the Arab world such a disastrously unbalanced evolution in the 20th century...
... OIL ...
...has given medieval islamic fundamentalist regimes in the mid east ..
That's a patronizing and bogus argument. They had, oh what, 600 years to evolve and get with the program. How much more time do they need?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Some day, the wisdom of the founding fathers' separation of "church" and state ideal will be recognized by all countries. Theocracies don't work for people, period, and they always result in favoritism on the one side, and oppression for those of faiths not represented in Government. It matters not whether it's Jew vs. Muslim, Protestant vs Catholic, etc etc...its always the same BS...and human beings suffer. Freedom of religion equals freedom from religion...
I actually agree with you here. That's why I prefer to use the term 'Judean' nationality, as the term 'Jew' is often too closely associated with the Jewish religion.