by imallgrowedup 44 Replies latest social current
SIMON,
The anti-War crowd can shout all they want to that the war had nothing to do with Moumar coming to the table...but facts is facts. It was in March when Libya got serious about this discussion...same time as the war with Iraq began...this is NOT a coincidence.
Thanks for posting this good news! It made me smile.
/<
Maybe one country realized it just isn't worth it.
I do believe that Bebu has a good point in that the death of his daughter may have played a role in Qadaffi's decision. However, since this event happened in April of 1986, I don't believe it is the sole reason he decided to disarm, or he would have done it well before 17 and a half years had elapsed. As Simon pointed out, perhaps part of the reason he is being so much more cooperative is because of the Lockerbie, Scotland settlement. I believe that may be a contributing factor. However, if his heart was so repentent and he was seeking to provide restitution to family members, why did he wait until the war against Iraq to belly up to Britain? Why didn't he do it right after the bombing?
There are very few decisions anyone makes in life based upon one consideration. Sometimes there is one very compelling reason, but generally speaking, most decisions are based upon several factors. So perhaps, Qadaffi's heart did soften after his daughter's death, and maybe he did decide to show his softer side by approaching Britain to make restitution to family members who died at the hands of terrorists he endorsed. However, I think the single most compelling reason Qadaffi decided to give up his WMD is because he saw that he could no longer hide behind the UN for protection. He saw that their very inaction rendered them useless, and that some countries weren't going to sit around and wait for the UN to grow a set of cajones. He knew it was just a matter of time before it was his turn at bat, and he didn't like the odds.
That said, I think Qadaffi made the right decision, and I hope Iran and N Korea follow his example.
SS - You are right - if one country in the mid-east needs to give up their WMD, so does Israel.
growedup
We're being told the date of March by politicians with the pressure on them. Forgive me for not believing everything they say at face value. They will spin everything they can to get the maximum political milage out of any and every event.
Of course Simon...it's all a political conspiracy. Geesh...just listen to yourself. STRONG ACTION by the United States and Others has brought this about BEGINNING with Reagan bombing the punk in 1986. The war isn't the ONLY thing that brought dumb dumb around...but it helped...a whole lot. You anti-war group won't give a hair. God forbid that maybe the war did play a part...that it was the final catelyst for Momo to settle.
SS - You are right - if one country in the mid-east needs to give up their WMD, so does Israel.Well now...isn't that special...except for the fact that the only reason Israel still exists as a nation is because it possess WMD. Listen ..when all the aggression against Israel goes away...and it can live secure in it's borders THEN we talk about Israel and WMD.
Yeri: You seem to have double standards - it's OK for Israel to have WOMD but not for Libya? Israel is a much mor aggressive country than Libya has ever been.
Also, there is no need to start posting insults unless you are ok with being called "knuckle head" and the like.
So now it's Reagan that caused Gaddaffi to change things? Sheesh ... amek you mind up !! Personally, I think the proper and sensible sanctions had more to do with it.
I'm sorry, did somebody just suggest that Moammar Qaddaffi is in conspiracy with Bush?
LOL!
I mean, Paris Hilton and I are in a conspiracy to dominate the world - but that other notion is just ridiculous.
CZAR
Yeru -
Well now...isn't that special...except for the fact that the only reason Israel still exists as a nation is because it possess WMD. Listen ..when all the aggression against Israel goes away...and it can live secure in it's borders THEN we talk about Israel and WMD.
Although I did not word it this way, I agree with you completely. Israel has been repeatedly attacked by the Palestinians and others (not to mention Iraq in the first Gulf War), and would not be safe until all the WMD in their region were gone. If anyone goes back in their history books and takes a look at who fired the first shot, it was the Palestinians. Israel has every right to defend herself against daily attacks against her country - especially against those who want to obliterate her from the face of the earth. Until Israel can be safe from repeated attacks, I see no problem with her having WMD. However, once they are all gone from the mid-east, I believe Israel needs to disarm as well.
Simon -
We're being told the date of March by politicians with the pressure on them. Forgive me for not believing everything they say at face value. They will spin everything they can to get the maximum political milage out of any and every event.
With all due respect, there were also reporters who had pressure on them to hammer out an article or get it on the news by 6:00. And for what it is worth, they are not innocent bystanders when it comes to spinning everything they can to get the maximum political mileage out of any and every event. Do two "wrongs" make a "right"? No. But can you honestly say that you take every article you read, whether it fits with your world views or not, with a grain of salt - due to a possible political spin?
growedup
You seem to have double standards - it's OK for Israel to have WOMD but not for Libya? Israel is a much mor aggressive country than Libya has ever been.
Really, how many airliners has Israel blown out of the sky. Israel is not an aggressive nation...it's attack quite a bit and has a strong defense...but aggressive....well, when on the day of your birth 5 arab armies invade you...and you've not known peace because of it...I guess people could view you as aggressive. Simon, you seem to be incapable of drawing moral distinctions. Libya has sponsored terrorism...including in the UK...has harboured and trained terrorists...and has been TRULLY aggressive as oppossed to defensively so.
It started with Reagan bombing Libya...the sanctions had some effect...but very little...they're too easy to get around...as France, Germany, and Russia have done for ages. Your refusal to admit that Moumar seeing we were serious in Iraq had something to do with it is really quite unbecoming a man of your intelligence.
Simon if you and the anti-war crowd can't see the glaring differences between the UK, the US, and Israel having Nukes as oppossed to Libya...your cause is lost...then again...like I asked before...when was the last time Israel put a radio on an airplane and blew it up in mid air...oh...that's right...they didn't LIBYA DID.
