Gadaffi now an ally?

[Pekka]

oh right, that's Madeleine. Nice..

Yeah I'm sure and wouldn't ever doubt if they could have their daughter back, they would in an instant instead of any other option. So I hope they get as much money as possible.

[The Mad Viking]

Pekka

I'm not sure "double standard" is a useful term in this case.

Sort of like, the US stating that all foreign nations are different, so you can't expect us to react the same standard way to North Korea and Iraq.

I like your distinctions about talking with terrorists; but again, not negotiating with terrorists is rhetoric. The same people who say they won't inevitiably trade POWs with them. (Isreal, for example). What is the difference between "buying information" and "bribing"? Are you saying no intelligence operatives gathering info about bad guys from other bad guys?

You don't think Syria supports terrorism? Yet the US and Canada are cooperating with them in exchanging info. (And sending innocent Syrian-Canadians to spend a year in Syrian torture cells, but that's another story.)

[Chemical Ollie]

Air Bin Ladin is a company in Texas, according to Michael Moore. We all know that he does not always tell the truth and the whole truth, (only the awful truth) but I'm surprised that he is the only one who have discussed it in public (as far as I know). I have never seen anyone counter his statements about the close bonds between the Bush and the Bin Ladin families and the suggestion that Arabs from the Bin Ladin family were allowed to fly freely over US and all the way home on September 12-13 2001.

[GePap]

What exactly is the porblem here, besides the wonderfully brain killing Pekka-Fez "debate"?

Ghaddafi decided non-confrontational policies will serve his plans better, and right now proclaming him a changed man, as long as Bush and Blair can use it to strenghten their points (bush:Iraq worked, Blair: diplomacy works) then everyone wins.

[Uncle Sparky]

Laura Bush is a Bin Ladin on her maternal grandmother's side.

[Uncle Sparky]

Originally posted by GePap
What exactly is the porblem here, besides the wonderfully brain killing Pekka-Fez "debate"?

Ghaddafi decided non-confrontational policies will serve his plans better, and right now proclaming him a changed man, as long as Bush and Blair can use it to strenghten their points (bush:Iraq worked, Blair: diplomacy works) then everyone wins.

Except the Libyan people.
Remember in the last few months freeing the Iraqi " people-from-a-ruthless-dictator-and-establishing-a-democracy-in-the-Middle-East-that-will-be-the-example-to-other-arab-nations-in- the-region" had become the Bush/Blair mantra. Deflects from the facts that there were no WMD, Iraq is in anarchy and the war on terrorism is failing.

Why shouldn't the poor Libyan (or Saudi or Syrian) people be liberated ?

[GePap]

The Lybian people are not living in horror. Certainly Ghaddafi is an autocrat, but whether he is a ruthless despot is another thing. The people of Lybia sadly are not living any worse than the people of China and they sure as heck live much better than 90% of the people of Africa. Better living in dictatorial Lybia than democratic Nigeria.

Heck, better living in SA than NIgeria, or Ethiopia, or Eritrea, or Guatemala

[Chemical Ollie]

Or Idaho

[Whaleboy]

Gadaffi is an unstable man that is probably taking the West for a ride. We need more time to make sure he is being sincere.

If he is, good luck to him, if he isn't we should leave well alone.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
When Gadaffi first came to power, he was actually a rather liberal leader. I have friends who lived there at the time and they said they had no problems despite being European - that Gadaffi actually appeared socialist, trying to help the poor and such. Obviously I don't know if this is true, whether my friends had a true picture of what was going on, but this is how it seemed to them while living there.

The claim is that Gadaffi only turned to terrorism when he realised that he couldn't fight the multinationals who were robbing the Libyan people of thier wealth. So maybe this change is really a step back to what he was before.

I heard this as well, that Gadaffi is a socialist. Supposedly, the Libyans get a share of the profit from oil exports every month. It is said that because of this, Gadaffi and the US hasn't exactly got along.

[Fake Boris]

Now, that would be too good to be true. Why don't we give the neo-cons a chance?

[DinoDoc]

Sponsorship of terrorism of course had nothing to do with it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I heard this as well, that Gadaffi is a socialist. Supposedly, the Libyans get a share of the profit from oil exports every month. It is said that because of this, Gadaffi and the US hasn't exactly got along.

Actually, he was quite a socialist. Go so far as to say Communist and you would not be too far off. Except he did it from an Islamic viewpoint. Hense his little 'red' book was green. Confiscation of property from land owners and redistribution and such were the same though. As is/was suppression of fundamentalist Islam, curiously enough; full beards are frowned on.

Quite a ball of contradictions (from our viewpoint, that is) and someone who is definitely not well understood by very many people in the West.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sponsorship of terrorism of course had nothing to do with it.

If this is the criterion the US should be really on bad terms with itself by now

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by monkspider
I have to say that I agree with Giancarlo (!). Why not give Quadaffi another chance if it seems like he has changed his ways? That is the only just thing to do, IMO.

Quadaffi, or Gadaffi, or however the heck you spell it, is (as someone previously mentioned) a survivalist. He hasn't changed, we have simply made certain options more beneficial to him than others.