|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 19, 2003 21:55:23 GMT -5
Is all this Neo-con love working? Who's next? Syria? Iran? If those countries start renouncing WMD's would the American bashers concede that tough love works? Saddam captured and going on trial, Khaddafi bowing under American pressure....."I am a simple Cretin" in the ice house.....things are getting better for the new year! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3335965.stmLibya to give up WMD Gaddafi's government negotiated with the US and UK Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi has admitted his country was developing weapons of mass destruction, but will dismantle its secret programme. He told the official Libyan news agency he was ready to play its role in building a world free from all forms of terrorism, after months of negotiations with the West. The process of dismantling the programme would be "transparent and verifiable" and the range of all Libya's missiles would be restricted to 300km, he said. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair revealed the unexpected decision and called it "an historic one and a courageous one and I applaud it". International forces will now go into Libya to assist with the dismantling process, which could take years. A welcome seasonal present for President Bush and Prime Minister Blair BBC News Online's Paul Reynolds Analysis: Gaddafi in from the cold The US and its allies have long suspected that Libya had secret chemical and bio-weapons programmes, however Libya always denied such allegations saying it had only facilities for pharmaceutical or agricultural research. In 1995 the country reopened its Rabta pharmaceutical plant, at Qabilat az Zaribah, which prior to its 1990 closure had produced up to 100 tons of chemical weapons, according to the US. But chemical weapon production at Libya's underground Tarhuna facility is thought to have been suspended following intense public scrutiny. UK officials believe Libya was close to obtaining a nuclear weapons capability before the deal. US President George Bush said Colonel Gaddafi had agreed "immediately and unconditionally" that international weapons inspectors could enter Libya. HAVE YOUR SAY It is an example to all nations that political differences can be resolved peacefully Ahmed Bishari, Tripoli, Libya Send us your comments "Colonel Gaddafi's's commitment, once fulfilled, will make our country more safe and our world more peaceful," President Bush said. "Leaders who abandon the pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them will find an open path to better relations with the US and other nations." Mr Blair said Britain had been engaged in talks with Libya for nine months. Tony Blair applauded the move "Libya came to us in March following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly co-operative manner," he said. The decision entitled Libya to rejoin the international community, Mr Blair said. "It shows that problems of proliferation can, with good will, be tackled through discussion and engagement, to be followed up by the responsible international agencies. "It demonstrates that countries can abandon programmes voluntarily and peacefully." Mr Blair contrasted Libya's voluntary relinquishment of weapons of mass destruction with Iraq's defiance, which led to military action and the toppling of leader Saddam Hussein. During three weeks in October and early December a team of experts from Britain and the United States had visited Libya and been given access to projects, including uranium enrichment, under way at more than 10 sites. The team was also shown "significant quantities" of chemical agent and bombs designed to carry it, British officials said. The Libyan Government said it had shown the experts equipment that could have been used to develop "internationally banned weapons". It said it had now decided to abandon the programme of its own "free will " and to admit weapons inspectors. Libya called for other countries to follow its lead. It said: "By taking this initiative, (Libya) wants all countries to follow its steps, starting with the Middle East, without any exception or double standards." BBC world affairs editor John Simpson said Libya had not been at the centre of the war on terror. But it had always been regarded as a "friend of terrorists" and had, for example, helped the IRA in the 1970s. BBC correspondent in Jerusalem, James Reynolds, said Israel would be "surprised and relieved" by Mr Blair's announcement. "Israel's main hope will be that the announcement puts additional pressure on Iran." But he added: "It may also refocus attention on Israel's own nuclear weapons programme." |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 19, 2003 23:06:37 GMT -5
Well, not really. Libya has been moving towards the West for years now, most evidently since 1999, but really starting in 1995. With the fall of the Soviet Union (Libya and Mu'ammar Quaddafi's principle sponsor) and with the subsequent UN sanctions against that country, Libya lost all economic ability and strength. While they did have a strong weapons program, weapons do not come cheap, and with a dead economy, for the most part the program was non-existent. While sanctions are extremely harmful to the regular population, in the long run they do cripple nations. In the late 1990's the sharp decline in oil prices further crippled the Libyan economy, and by then Quaddafi was looking to deal. He had lost his international prestige, he had lost his daughter, he has lost his precious weapons program. Negotiations with England were begun, and in 1999 (well before Bush was elected of course) the two men suspected of the Lockerbie bombing were extradited out of Libya, to stand trial in Scotland. This, of course, was a main stumbling block in the lifting of sanctions. UN sanctions were suspended. In the 3 years since, Libya's economy has, well, not boomed, but "prospered", showing a 16% surplus in GDP, an enviable stat for any country. Their real domestic growth sits at around 6.5%, and inflation is a modest 2.5%. To compare and contrast, in 1998, Libya's oil exports sat at $6 billion. With the lifting of UN sanctions, that rose to $10.8 billion a mere one year later, in 1999, and is expected to top $12.9 billion in 2003. With this additional announcement, and continuing economic and international reforms, Libya's strong recovery is probably going to continue. Again, before the neo-conservative "love", as you put it, in January of 2002 (still before the Iraq affair) Libya announced its intentions to open it economy to foreign investment. Custom duty rates were cut, and the value of the dinar was cut, to make it more competitive and attractive. By May of 2002, Libya was offering financial compensation to the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy, reportedly to the tune of $2.7 billion, in a further effort to remove Libya's pariah status, and return the oil-rich country to its former status as a major player. As far back as 1999, American oil officials were visiting Libya, to lay ground work for future investments. Frustrated with the pace of the negotiations, Libya threatened to allow European investors to exploit its oil fields, and not so surprisingly, in May of 2002, State Department officials granted permission to executives of Marathon Oil to speak with Quaddafi. While undoubtedly Bush and Blair will take credit for Libya's "sudden" turn of heart, the truth of the matter is Libya has been courting international favor for at least four years now, if not longer. Their "opening" of their weapons of mass destruction program, is of course, merely an admittance that they do not have any. No country admits to having them secretly. They either destroy them, as South Africa did, or ignore all allegations, as Israel does. When they vigourously deny, as Iraq did, and Iran is doing, you can suspect they are trying to get them, and if they open their doors, as Libya is doing, you can bet your bottom dollar they do not have any. If they openly admit to having them, as North Korea does, then you have a problem. These events had little, if anything, to do with the Iraq situation, as any follower of international events can tell you. However, as we all know, politics is a "here and now" game, and seeds of events that were planted years and years ago, will be reaped by whoever happens to be in power, and crowed upon as clear vindication for whatever short-term policy happens to be in effect at the time. Witness Jean Chretien and his insistence that he somehow, had something to do with Canada's strong economy. An article, from which the stats and dates come from: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/libya.htmlThe situation in Iran is also very interesting to follow. For the last several years in Iran, there has been a massive power struggle between the hardline mullahs who obstensibly run the country as a dictatorship, and the elected, moderate politicians personified by President Mohammed Khatami, and the mayor of Tehran. Huge demonstrations have been waged by the citizens of Iran, against the religious conservatives, and it was during one of these demonstrations that Montreal photojournalist Zahra Kazemi was arrested, and beaten to death. Any "reforms" that come out of Iran in the next little while, will also be trumpeted as validation of the Cheney-Rumsfield plan (if, indeed, they have thought it this far through) but again, the truth of the matter will be infinitely more complex. More complex than a CNN ticker anyways. Actions, and counter actions rarely exist in a vaccuum, and even rarer still do simple plans like "invade, that'll show 'em" have any long term, international effect. As a lover of history, you of course know that. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 20, 2003 2:52:36 GMT -5
I'd like to know
a) How much is Quadaffi being paid to 'dismantle' his WMD?
and
b) Can they really eradicate Mad Camel Disease?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 20, 2003 10:43:03 GMT -5
These events had little, if anything, to do with the Iraq situation, as any follower of international events can tell you. . A bit rich on the feul there....... Since I am a blind, war mongering Neocon, I don't buy the argument.... Things that go "boom" in the night delivered by ghost planes have nothing to do with it. The military estimates that Libya can be overrun in a matter of hours has been even less of an influence over his decision. To say nothing about America's willingness to flex it's hyperpower. Yup.... All in all, Khaddafi has been just a misunderstood "Little Guy form a Bedouin Tent". What I clearly see is a dictator who is doing his best to NOT become the next target. It's self preservation and self interest at it's dictatorship best. The last Great Dictator to seek self preservation over heroics was that guy named Saddam. He was found in a hole and said "please don't shoot me". This is the same hero who exhorted and pushed other at gun point to do his murdering. It’s amazing what Great Lovable Dictators will do to preserve their own hides…. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As an aside, let me tell you what an Egyptian friend of mine said and he happens to be a low ranking diplomat. "This has been a bad year for the Arab man.". Khaddafi has added another nail to that pain. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And a side to the aside, Libya is chairing the UN Human Rights Commission. Isn't that just peachy! And what was one of the things that Libya and France "officially" cooperate so France can have access to more oil? They want to lift the UN sanctions on SUDAN! They will actually sweep Sudan human right violations and declare it a “a nation with no violations” just to suit their political agenda and economic benefit. Isn’t that just double peachy! Might as well make money while preserving ones hide!  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And yet another aside (I buy them by the dozen). Libya’s greatest and natural trading partners are the Europeans. So I hope you wont try to make the argument that "it's about America and oil". |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 20, 2003 14:31:04 GMT -5
edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/20/libya.wmd/index.htmlNow, now. We both know there was no imminent plans to invade Libya. In fact, Libya is so far down on the list of pariah of nations, they didn't even get a mention in the infamous Axis of Evil. Quite the slight, really, to any aspiring despot. The US is currently incapable of launching another invasion. Everyone knows it, including Quaddafi. On every level there is no ability to attack another nation. Militarily, politically, economically, internationally. Militarily the US is stretched too thin as it is. The reserves have been called up, Afghanistan has been largely abandoned outside of Kabul, even the bases in Saudi Arabia were closed. Everything the US has is in Iraq, and even that's not enough to adequately police the nation, as we have seen. No way can they maintain enough troops in Iraq, and amass another 165,000 to invade Libya. Politically George Bush was on slippery ground to begin. As expected, his numbers spiked following the capture of Saddam Hussein, but the week before his Iraq approval ratings were under 50%. Another invasion, another quagmire, and those numbers will plummet. Bush has an election to win, and invading another country won't do it for him. He knows it, I know it, you know it. Economically there was tremendous "shock and awe" at the staggering numbers requested by the Bush administration, from Congress, to rebuild Iraq. Much, much more than anyone expected, including the Bush admininstration themselves. Requesting another 50 billion to rebuild Libya just won't fly. With Republicans or Democrats. Internationally, it would be impossible. Not one single nation would support an American invasion of another country, without a spectacular, 911 event preceding it. Not one single country would buy a "but they have WMD" argument, after the continuing Iraqi blunder. Not even Britain, where Tony Blair's government is teetering as it is. There would be no coalition of the willing. The US would have to do it alone. There are no more invasions planned. Everyone knows it, including Quaddafi. My original post stands, despite your "asides" - the invasion of Iraq had nothing to with Libya's ongoing attempts to return into international acceptance. Thats what the facts say, anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 20, 2003 18:15:05 GMT -5
Actually, I said that the invasion was one of the factors. BC, you say that the US has no invasion plans for Libya. In fact, they have war scenarios for every country on this planet. Given the 400 billion dollar budgert, they may even have one for HabsRus.  It will not exactly "stretch" the US military to invade a military postage stamp like Libya. Politically Bush is rising in popularity again (unfortunatly) and if Khaddafi gave cause for military action, American public opinion would galvanize behind Bush in an instant. Yes, you make valid arguments but don't throw the fear factor of survival out the window. It becomes a major factor with dictators who think that their own survival is the survival of the country. Now, lets see if this is contagious and more country "renounce" WMD. If it does happen, then it would reinforce the Neocon carrot and stick. Carrot is more trade and a better life for the tin pot dictators people...sticks are the the shiney aircraft carrier groups. In the end of the day, I don't care how WMD's are reduced. As long as they are REDUCED or ELIMINATED. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 20, 2003 19:19:41 GMT -5
Leaving the US perhaps as the only country with WMD (eventually)? Then they would surely treat all other nations with fairness and justice. I didn't realize it was some other country with which we had a softwood lumber dispute or who continues to wreak havoc with our beef industry because of one cow (imported into Canada originally, by an ex-American). Yep, those Solomonesque Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 21, 2003 8:39:51 GMT -5
Am I the only one supporting some of the American policies? Mind you, I think the current administration makes the Keystone Cops look like a brain trust.....
If Dabbya had a Trudeau IQ and intellect, I would feel much safer. As it is, I am waiting for the next installmaent of the Three Stooges as a basis for comparison....
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 21, 2003 20:50:38 GMT -5
Am I the only one supporting some of the American policies? Mind you, I think the current administration makes the Keystone Cops look like a brain trust..... If Dabbya had a Trudeau IQ and intellect, I would feel much safer. As it is, I am waiting for the next installmaent of the Three Stooges as a basis for comparison.... No, I wouldn't say you're alone at all, HA. Americans must feel a little more secure knowing that their secret services are proactively working around the clock. And, believe me, I'm grateful too; if the USA is a safer place, then so is Canada to a lesser extent. However, one has to ask, "what's in it for the USA?" I think this is possibly the most significant motivating factor in recent decisions regarding US foreign policy. Now, that's not a reflection on our American brethern; however, it seems to be the way things are being handled in Washington these days. If any of our American friends wish to reprimand me go ahead; I deserve it. However, please understand, it's the way I feel after the US failed to find any WMD in Iraq. That aside, I hadn't realized that Libya was involved in the WMD business; hats off to the US, or international secret service. However, their disarming is rather predictable I think. Libya tried to take on the US before and it almost cost Kaddafi his life. That too, was somewhat predictable; I mean, we're talking about a man who thought he could take on the USA and win. Hmmm ... All that aside, I think it's a good thing that Kaddafi first admitted to having them and then agreeing to disarm. It's a prudent move for the whole region. And for that I give thanks to the US secret service as well. Cheers. |
|
HFFM
Rookie
Posts: 62
|
Post by HFFM on Dec 22, 2003 20:41:07 GMT -5
"If any of our American friends wish to reprimand me go ahead; I deserve it. However, please understand, it's the way I feel after the US failed to find any WMD in Iraq."
What's to reprimand? Truth is truth and if you look at the polls, about 50% of Americans probably share your skeptical outlook (I know I do). As an American, I have felt lied to from the beginning. From the WMD debacle right down to the scandalous handling of he Halliburton contracts, I have very little reason to trust what the current Administration is telling me right now and I'm not the only one. All you have to do is look in the papers and read the polls to see that there was a short spike in the public approval ratings concerning Iraq, but the furor has died down. In fact, I think it's been 6 days since I last saw Sadaam Hussein's name even mentioned in the local papers.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 1, 2004 3:41:11 GMT -5
Well, not really. Libya has been moving towards the West for years now, most evidently since 1999, but really starting in 1995. Cleaning out some old junk before leaving my parents place, I came across a national Geographic from 2000, talking about how Kaddadi has been trying to get closer to the West in every possible way.... |
|
