Libya announces end to all weapons programs

[GhengisFarb™]

Ned:

[Az]

Ned:

Lockerbie was Europe's 9/11. Don't under-estimate our hatred for Libya after it.

Europe's 9/11? I guess we have had a ****load of 9/11s for the last couple of years.

[GePap]

Ned

As for why Kaddafi did this: The war probably did have somehting to d with it, but most likely it was not the only rationale- There are Kaddafi's ambitions. He wants to be the leader of the African block, and thus has been spending lots of money to do so, this includes getting out of the "rogue" box, which is why he paid out the billions for Lockerbie and millions more to the French for the other airliner. The possibility of the war havign gone against Kaddafi was extremely low, and honestly, I find it amazing how quikly people ignore the fact that for the last 9 months after March Bush and Blair, vis a vi Iraq, were NOT in a position of strength. All Kaddafi could have needed to say to them is: "You think of invading Lybia, when you can't even get Iraq straight" (We haven't gotten Iraq straight yet, so that is another issue).

Notice also how the US went on to negotiate with Lybia, as opposed to the unconditional stance it has takn with everyone else-saying they would not allow blacmail- well, why are the US and UK negotiating instead of simply demanding and putting forward the "lesson" of Iraq? Everyone here is saying it was the Iraq war that scared him straight- 1. that ignores all that has happened since may, 2. fails completely top explain the difference in style taken with Lybia vs. Syria, Iran, and NK.

The difference is Kaddafi- he wants to be a world leader, a new sort of Mandela for the African box, and to do that he has to loose the old image, and he has been taking the steps necessary to do so for the past few years. This was a situation when the interests of Lybia (Kaddafi) and those of the US and UK coencided, and thus they acted together. NOw the question ishow do both parties deliver.

[Sirotnikov]

I find it amazing how quikly people ignore the fact that for the last 9 months after March Bush and Blair, vis a vi Iraq, were NOT in a position of strength. All Kaddafi could have needed to say to them is: "You think of invading Lybia, when you can't even get Iraq straight" (We haven't gotten Iraq straight yet, so that is another issue).

I find it amazing how you ignore the main fear of Gadaffi.

Why for heavens do you think Kadaffi cares if the invasion to Lybia (or Iraq) will be successfull in establishing a new country?

All he cares about, is that USA and UK can potencially remove leaders from power.

And while "You think of invading Lybia, when you can't even get Iraq straight" is a great arguement for TV appearances meant to influence western public opinion, it is most definitly not what keeps Kadaffi awake at night.

Why are the US and UK negotiating instead of simply demanding and putting forward the "lesson" of Iraq?

Because you don't need to take a harsh stance towards everyone. You need to take a harsh stance towards 1 person, and the rest will suddenly become easy to convince.

Iraq was not setting an exact trend. It was a threat. "See what happens to those that don't disarm the easy way".

Why would america reject an oppurtinity to talk with Lybia, in favour of threatening it? It already has indirectly threatened it by invading Iraq.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I find it amazing how you ignore the main fear of Gadaffi.

Why for heavens do you think Kadaffi cares if the invasion to Lybia (or Iraq) will be successfull in establishing a new country?

All he cares about, is that USA and UK can potencially remove leaders from power.

And while "You think of invading Lybia, when you can't even get Iraq straight" is a great arguement for TV appearances meant to influence western public opinion, it is most definitly not what keeps Kadaffi awake at night.

And you have what statements by Kaddafi to make this claim? Notice, what you just did was not argue logically, just make the statement which assumed somehow you have personal ingformation about what he thinks..which is an illogical arguement.

Iraq was not setting an exact trend. It was a threat. "See what happens to those that don't disarm the easy way".

Why would america reject an oppurtinity to talk with Lybia, in favour of threatening it? It already has indirectly threatened it by invading Iraq.

The one problem with this is: 1. the great difficulty of the aftermath of the war and the commitment of US forces would make it clear the US and UK are simply not in a position to do anything like Iraq for several months if not years. IN theory, the Syrians should be far more afraid and willing to compromise than Kaddafi, given their location. NO movement there whatsoever though. 2. problem, the WMD "argueemnt" is being ignored more and more by both the uS and UK gicven, well, their utter inablity to shw any active WMD's. The US and UK arguement now hinges on democratization-we removed Saddam becuase he was an evil dictator- these negotiations with Kaddafi do NOT end the fact he rules an illeberal state, and thus the main arguement now being made as to why Iraq was invaded remains valid for an attack vs. Lybia.

Try harder next time.

[Dinner]

The tried and true carrot & stick method seems to be working. Why is anyone surprised by this?

[GePap]

OK, i am getting some wierd actions here. things I have posted and things I know other people have posted are not coming up.

[JohnT]

It's not that they're surprised, they're just in denial. Just read GePap - he can barely admit that the war had anything to do with Kaddafi's (or however you spell it) change of heart and is dragging up every minor thing that Kaddafi did over the past decade that might, might indicate reapprochement with the West.

[DaShi]

Since we're all supposed to use this thread now, here's the report from Hairy Turtle:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...id=515&ncid=716

Libya Agrees to Dismantle WMD Program
1 hour, 22 minutes ago

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, after secret negotiations with the United States and Britain, agreed to halt his nation's drive to develop nuclear and chemical weapons and the long-range missiles to deliver them, President Bush (news - web sites) and Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said Friday. Bush said pointedly, "I hope other leaders will find an example" in the action.


AP Photo



Libya's most significant acknowledgment was that it had a program intended to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons, a senior Bush administration official said.


Libya's nuclear effort was more advanced than previously thought, the official said. U.S. and British experts inspected components of a centrifuge program to enrich the uranium, though the system was not operational, the official said, briefing reporters at the White House on condition of anonymity.


The White House suggested that Libya's dramatic decision was influenced by the war in Iraq (news - web sites) that toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), as well as U.S. efforts to rein in weapons of mass destruction capabilities in North Korean and Iran.


Blair, speaking from Durham, Britain, and Bush, addressing reporters in the White House briefing room, described a process of nine months of secret talks and onsite inspections, initiated by the long reviled Libyan leader shortly after he agreed to a settlement in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland.


In the decision announced Friday by all sides, Libya agreed to disclose all its weapons of mass destruction and related programs and to open the country to international weapons inspectors to oversee their elimination


"Colonel Gadhafi's commitment, once it is fulfilled, will make our country more safe and the world more peaceful," said Bush.


Recalling the war in Iraq, Bush said other nations should recognize that weapons of mass destruction "do not bring influence or prestige. They bring isolation and otherwise unwelcome consequences."


Bush said the United States and Britain, wary of Libyan promises, would watch closely to make sure Gadhafi keeps his word. And he said Libya's promises on weapons aren't enough; it must "fully engage in the war against terror" as well.


If Libya "takes these essential steps and demonstrates its seriousness," Bush held out the promise of helping Libya build "a more free and prosperous country."


The U.N. Security Council ended sanctions against Libya on Sept. 12 after Gadhafi's government took responsibility for the Pan Am bombing and agreed to pay $2.7 billion to the victims' families.


But the United States has kept its own 17-year embargo in place and has kept Libya on the list of nations that sponsor terrorism.


"As we have found with other nations, old hostilities do not need to go on forever," Bush said. "Libya can regain a secure and respected place among the nations and, over time, achieve far better relations with the United States."


The move represents a shift for a nation long regarded as an outlaw.


While Libya is credited with moderating its behavior in recent years, Gadhafi has been depicted as an erratic, untrustworthy ruler. In 1986, President Reagan sent American warplanes to bomb the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benzghazi in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin disco where a U.S. serviceman was killed.


The bombs struck Gadhafi's barracks and killed his young, adopted daughter and wounded two of his sons but Gadhafi, sleeping in a tent outside the compound, escaped injury.


Susan Cohen, a Cape May Courthouse, N.J., woman whose daughter was among the 270 people killed on Pan Am 103 (news - web sites), said Friday night that Gadhafi cannot be counted on to keep his promise.





"How can we trust somebody who has blown up a plane?" she asked.

The Libyan news agency Jana Tripoli quoted Foreign Minister Abdel-Rahman Shalqam as saying Libyan experts had shown their U.S. and British counterparts "the substances, equipment and programs that could lead to production of internationally banned weapons."

Libya's decision is a "wise decision and a brave step that merit support from the Libyan people," Gadhafi said in a statement carried by the official news agency.

Teams of American and British experts went to Libya in October and December, the Bush administration official said.

They visited 10 sites related to Libya's nuclear program, the official said.

Libyan officials also showed the American and British team a significant amount of mustard agent, a World War I-era chemical weapon. Libya made the material more than a decade ago, and also had bombs that could be filled with the substance for use in combat, the official said.

Libya also acknowledged having chemicals that could be used to make nerve agent, the official said.

The U.S. official described little evidence of a Libyan biological program.

Libyan officials further acknowledged contacts with North Korea (news - web sites), a supplier of long-range ballistic missiles, and provided the U.S.-British team access to missile research and development facilities.

According to a recent, unclassified report to Congress, Libya's longest-range missiles were thought to be Scud-B ballistic missiles. These have a range of 186 miles. Libya agreed to destroy missiles with longer ranges, but it was unclear if the country had any.

Bush also used the announcement to try to nudge unnamed "regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass destruction" into similar cooperation.

"Those weapons do not bring influence or prestige; they bring isolation and otherwise unwelcome consequences," he said. "Leaders who abandon the pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, will find an open path to better relations with the United States and other free nations."

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The tried and true carrot & stick method seems to be working. Why is anyone surprised by this?

What stick? Anyone here seriously think the US and UK would have the capacity, within the next year, to do an "iraq" agaisnt Lybia?

And why offer carrots if Lybia is so obviously in the wrong? I thought the Bu****es don't negotiate with terrorists?

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT
It's not that they're surprised, they're just in denial. Just read GePap - he can barely admit that the war had anything to do with Kaddafi's (or however you spell it) change of heart and is dragging up every minor thing that Kaddafi did over the past decade that might, might indicate reapprochement with the West.

or , which is more appropriate?

I think both are best. Did the war have somehting to do with it? Probalby. was the war, the sole reason this happened? The question being, had the US not invaded Iraq, would Kaddafi not done this? That is what JohnT and his fellows seem to be arguing, and also the line the WH want to play.

Unfortunitelly, that line does not compute either, for the reasons I have stated.

Now, it would be cine JohnT for you to answer the two following questions:

1. Do you think the US has the capability at this time to invade and occupy Lybia given our current commitmnets in Iraq, NK and gennerally worldwide?

2. If what Lybia is doind is simply wrong-why negotiate? Iraq was given an ultimatum- disarm or else. If thw war in Iraq is what caused Lybia to give, why not use the same methods agianst Lybia, aka, an ultimatum?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Quaddafi's son is now saying it has nothing to do with Iraq.

I hate that my discussion was the second to last on the other page...


Just a thought...how many different ways has this man's name been spelled in this thread?

[Az]

Quaddafi's son is now saying it has nothing to do with Iraq.

Dang. I expected him to say that this was out of complete surrender to US will.

[GePap]

I see my question were ignored..I wonder why?

No, I really don't- I know exactly why they were ignored.

[Dr Strangelove]

I simply can't imagine Libya constructing sophisticated weapons. I think they're better off not trying. They might have hurt themselves.