Gadaffi now an ally?

[Pekka]

Surely there would be a need for new strong leader, but let's face it he's a problem to the West, and if there was another leader that was not him because of his past, things would be much better for Libya. Just like if Saddam wasn't in power in Iraq. If he truly wanted the best of the people, he would have stepped down a long time ago. Because it the country was not so much a problem to the West or the rest of the world than the man himself.

[Giancarlo]

Name somebody who would replace Gadafi.

[Pekka]

This question is the same as 'name somebody who could replace Saddam' pre-war era.

[Giancarlo]

I'm not talking about Saddam.

But whatever. You're hopeless in debating with.

I'm going to bed.. it is also 2:30AM..

[Pekka]

Yes but the situation is same.

Saddam was known to be bad for the country and stepping down would have been the best solution for the Iraqi people. Who would have replaced him? Almost impossible question if you're not very familiar with the Iraqi politics.

Same for Gaddafi. If he would step down, West would most likely open up more to Libya. Who would replace him? Who knows, to answer that question the person should be expert on Libyan politics and know a lot of people there.

But one thing I think is for sure, and that is Gaddafi was a terrorist, is a terrorist and a terrorist running a country can never be a good thing in the long run, and if that terrorist would step down, it would eventually be better for the country.

[Pekka]

but it basically comes down to this:

You either think that there is a small chance, that a terrorist can be the best possible choice to be a leader of a country in some scenarios.

OR

You think that Gaddafi is not a terrorist.

You can't bypass this by saying I'm a child and can't debate.

[Pekka]

And earlier when I asked if you wold think a terrorist can pay his way out or if Gaddafi is a terrorist or not (same question basically).

You can't pay your way out of being a terrorist scum. Thus Gaddafi is a terrorist (old one) and it's ok to negotiate with terrorists. And this is why I said double standards in the first place.

OR

Gaddafi is not a terrorist, so it's ok to negotiate. But saying this would mean also, that even if you do terrorist killing hundreds of people or more, being a legit big time terrorist, you can get away unpunished, by paying money and not be a terrorist anymore.

There's just no way out of this loop.

[Pekka]

BUT if you say, that Gaddafi should not be given anything in exchange for the information and if he refuses to give that information now, he should be considered as an active enemy big time. If he gives the information, it would be welcomed, but nothing would be given to this man. This is what you said earlier, and this doesn't include any actual negotiating with him or anything, so it wouldn't be negotiating with a terrorist.

However, we continued that if he should step down or not, so ... terrorist can't lead a country in this world these days. That's what I think. Stepping down is only option. And after that he should be captured, brought to justice and tried.

[Pekka]

And before you say anything, I point out that I left a way out of this, if you agree that he should step down, be caught and tried. That way, we deal with terrorism same way everywhere.

Anything else, leaving him in power and not even saying anything about it, is well.. leaving a terrorist in power. Leaving a terrorist in power elsewhere and attacking them elsewhere can't be anything else except.. double standards.

I don't major in International Relations or anything like that, but if it teaches you anywhere to negotiate with terrorists, I'd say ask your money back pronto.

and letting Gaddafi live is a big prize granted to him every single morning he wakes up by the West.

[CerberusIV]

Pekka, you should read a bit more about British history before getting excited over negotiating with terrorists. We have a long history of it when it is the only realistic way to solve a problem.

Examples - most of the ex-British colonies in Africa were handed over to be run by people that Britain had denounced as terrorists. Begin (once Israeli Prime Minister) would have been hanged as a terrorist by the British if they had captured him in 1947/48. The Republic of Ireland exists because Britain struck a deal with people that it had considered terrorists. A similar process is going on right now in Northern Ireland. Britain brokered a deal between the Rhodesian government and "terrorists" to create Zimbabwe (perhaps not a shining success story ). And the list goes on.

If you look at the history of Britain, the USA, France and quite a few other countries over the period since 1945 you will find a trail of atrocities committed by people employed or supported by those countries.

I'm not excusing terrorism, it should be opposed by strong measures including pre-emptively killing those who carry out attacks, but the reality is that international politics is a dirty business and not determined by whether you are wearing a black stetson or a white one. If you think it is that simple, take a reality check.

[Pekka]

Cerberus, I never claimed anything else, except that if we decide to really negotiate with Gaddafi, it's not what the talks about the terrorism were and still are. 'you are either with us, or against us'. It's pretty simple in this case. If we negotiate with Gaddafi, this is gone with the wind. Yes?

What ever happened in the history of negotiations I'm not even referring to. I'm referring to what is happening now and what is said to be done to terrorism. So I'm not the one wearing the stetson, I'm pointing out double standards.

[Rogan Josh]

I must admit, I am a little surprised.

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.

Do any of you know of anything to support or destroy this pov?

On the other hand, I am very suspicious. If the Americans had killed my 8 year old daughter (was she 8? - I can't recall) I would stop at nothing for revenge (even though I know it is wrong too). I certainly wouldn't be shaking the hands of western leaders. So maybe he is up to something....

[Cruddy]

Well... I'm cautiously optimistic about this.

It's been a long haul since Lockerbie - but it seems that Libya is heading in the right direction.

Wouldn't be at all surprised if Gaddafi gets knocked off and a new Islamic revolution happened - but maybe that would have happened anyway if Libya stayed isolated.

As for getting justice for Yvonne Fletcher - I doubt it. There's this little thing called diplomatic immunity that covers all embassy wrongdoing.

There's also a conspiracy theory that the fatal shot wasn't fired from there - but that's mostly based on rumour rather than facts.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Pekka
Cerberus, I never claimed anything else, except that if we decide to really negotiate with Gaddafi, it's not what the talks about the terrorism were and still are. 'you are either with us, or against us'. It's pretty simple in this case. If we negotiate with Gaddafi, this is gone with the wind. Yes?

What ever happened in the history of negotiations I'm not even referring to. I'm referring to what is happening now and what is said to be done to terrorism. So I'm not the one wearing the stetson, I'm pointing out double standards.

Last time I checked, the US was holding regular talks with Arafat.

Ariel Sharon committed terrorist acts when he was a young man.

You have to learn the difference between rhetoric and realpolitik.

If you want peace you must have understanding.

If you want any level understanding or Arabic nations, you must understand the culture and the rhetoric. You must appear strong, you must talk tough, or you cannot lead.

Qadaffi's rhetoric, like many arab leaders, has always been much more bark than bite.

Bush is given to major rhetoric, and 'you are either with us, or against us' is a prime example. Not even the chickenhawks are that black and white.

The whole negotiate with terrorists is a chicken and egg argument.

You say never negotiate with a terrorist.

I say, show me a terrorist, and I'll show you someone the powers that be have refused to negotiate with.

You cannot win a war with terrorists. These people have legitimate issues, and are willing to die for them. We have BMWs, and are willing to ***** about gas prices.

They don't want to be terrorists. But their situation is being totally ignored unless they engage in terror acts.

It is not a question of right or wrong. Really. Do you want them to stop? Or not?

Talk.

Don't kill.

[Pekka]

Mad Viking, what the hell was this all about?

Seriously, are you trying to tell me not to take everything literally? Are you trying to tell me to learn realpolitik and and rhetorics? When have I ever said anything else! I said these are double standards! Listen, you can have all the terms and words going and flying around, it doesn't change the fact that this is double standards.

I never denied listening Gaddafi. I denied being his allie. There's a difference right there, like it says in the topic, I answered NEVER.

So, because of realpolitiks and rhetorics, this is not doublestandard? yeah right. I know rhetorics is mostly bull****, but we have a serious problem here if these things go down, we have a problem of hypocricy and doing the other thing and saying the other thing. You can't cover the double standard issue saying it was rhetorics. Everyone knows it was exactly that. The difference is, you can't use the rhetorics when it suits you and do the other thing when it works better and say 'hey I'm doing what I said'.

Yes, terrorist are poor people who are oppressed and have no other choices, because we are robbing them with our greed so we can drive your BWS's. I feel bad for them already *tear*.

And hell yes it's a question of right and wrong. If you start being allies with Gaddafi, it's not right. I'm not saying you shouldn't have relations to Libya.

I said never negotiate with a terrorists, let me be more accurate by what I meant. Never bribe a terrorist and never be extorted by a terrorist, never agree to pay terrorist anything in exchange for something. Because the cycle continues, and it never stops..