Breaking news: Libya to give up WMD (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3335965.stm)

It's the beginning of what should be an interesting story. This is one of those where my long interest in a story makes it hard to decide where to begin, so I'm going to let the story play out so we gets some more information, and we'll figure it out from there.

$ Ka-ching $ , $ ka-ching $:D

Hey- how do you post a Euro symbol?

But it's all good, I don't care who takes the credit.

I hesitate to bring up one dire note in the midst of all this international gaiety, but how long can the world ignore the spectre of this hideous wardrobe!

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/muammar-qaddafi/199907.2.jpg

http://www.algathafi.org/IMAGES/algaddafi.jpg

http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/pics/esacpetohell.gif

It is also time for the United States to show true leadership, and for the sake of New World Order to firmly stay the course in establishing democratically the English spelling of Khaddafi aka kaddafi aka Qadaffi aka Ghaddafi's name: This problem is greatly compounding my difficulty in rooting funny pics of him from their spidey-holes. Please, Mr. President, stop the madness!

Here's a Gathafi website (http://www.algathafi.org/Index_e.htm) from his #1 Fan! Seriously, there are some points here worth consideration: Muamar wants very badly to be not only fashionable and popular, but wise. In return for giving up his entire menacing stockpile of fartballoons, Muammar will host a perky American morning talk show, while Jamie Farr (http://www.wallsoffame.com/html/television_43.html) will be appointed in his stead in Tripoli without incident: A true neocon triumph.

This is good news, it shows how far European diplomacy and good will, sorry I mean Euros really go. But how much WMD did Libya have? No nukes, small if practically non-existant BC and programs... I mean it's good news. But not much substance, I should say that. All I know what Libya had was Scuds, but those aren't WMD. But if anything this Libya thing is for Libya to rejoin the world economically. This is the second time when a nation has given up all it's WMD, hopefully this method could be used in North Korea. She wants the same thing, and a bit more.

It's masterful timing: Qaddafi gets maximum mileage for his military junk right at this precise moment when Washington and London are in High Sideshow.

I think Qaddafi makes the war in Iraq now seem foolish. I mean Qadddafi, let's be real here. I wonder what the deal was, how many Euros were passed along, or what economic guarantees were given to her. Maybe got a free trade deal from Gucci...

If only Saddam had actually had active WMD programs he could have agree to stop them and prevented the war.

Yea!!! was the scream from the oval office today!! when GW heard the news, (This will guarantee me re-election next year!!)

Tis good I've got Osama on Ice, I'll bring him out before election time next year, it will be like "Touch Down!!" LOL

Regardless it is an opportunity at stabelising the M.East, if only we can keep Sharon from commiting genocide of Palestines, then we will really have some progress.


$ Ka-ching $ , $ ka-ching $

Yea, it seems like H.G. hit the lotto with this one!!

LOL


:rolleyes:

Godless.

I have to say this, the Libya thing has just discredited the PNAC theory. Of invading to get rid of these threats, because they are so hell bent on war. Obviously Iran, and Libya have cowed under European! pressure. Iran has signed a deal in Vienna for snap inspections. AND LOOK NO INVASION! :eek: No $87 billion, no American soldiers dying, nothing. Just lots of Euros.

However the 87Billion are all ready in the hands of Bush&Co. It is for rebuilding Irag, and btw, soldiers are still dying in Irag, or havent you been watching the news?

http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/292562.htm

http://www.rense.com/general46/anger.htm

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/16/sprj.irq.saddam.rallies/

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2QLCZX3JSHPZOCRBAELCF FA?type=topNews&storyID=3990986

The capture of Saddam did nothing to deter violence in Irag.

H.Gahfadi only speaks for his government not for people's feelings. And really can we trust this guy?

H.G. " Dear Diary. Today I renounced our nation's nuclear program. Those silly Americans and Brits actually thought we HAD one! I'm going to wait for the check to clear, then I'll tell them they just bought a cement factory. Serves them right for killing my daughter!"

the above was a joke from WRH.

Godless.

H.Gahfadi only speaks for his government not for people's feelings. And really can we trust this guy?


I think we can, Qaddafi has for the last 5 years or so has been really trying to mend fences with the west. I guess oil exports need to be propped up. He gave Britain those Lockerbie suspects, and has been getting on Europe’s good side as of late. I think it was a deal btwn the Euros and Libya to show diplomacy can work. And maybe, just maybe Libya is saving her ass from PNAC. Also Libya’s greatest WMD friend the USSR is goners.

The capture of Saddam did nothing to deter violence in Irag.

Did anyone actually believe that it would stop?

Now that I've pondered some more, Moammar could have been even more clever before selling out for however few billions he's getting:

"Hello, President Boooosh? Georrje sir, I prropose I getting uppity, yes? You come land on our sandy beaches, we shooting only a few Marines for looky good, then I givitup, terrror war slamdunker homerunning, yes? Then we enjoy blessed elections for you and me both in 2004 inshallah, OK? But I want pink Concorde for Libya Air force Wahad, hehehehe"

Thankfully he's a little to goofy to have thought of it: I know his scruples wouldn't hold him back.

Khadaffi may seem like an idiot in those wardrobes, but you got the give man credit for still being in charge...

Yossi Melman, of Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/376201.html) writes in a December 26, 2003 article: In the discussions, the Britons and the Americans met for talks into the wee hours with Muammar Gadhafi himself. Experts on chemical, biological and atomic weaponry from Britain and the United States were allowed to visit 10 sites in different parts of Libya. And all this was kept from the eyes of the media. "That we, the journalists, have failed, is very painful," admits a senior editor at The New York Times. "We didn't know and we didn't sense that the deal was cooking, even when there were already signs of the emerging change in Gadhafi's approach."

The signs of the change were Libya's agreement to admit responsibility for the terrorist attack on the Pan Am plane 15 years ago over the town of Lockerbie in Scotland; to hand over the two intelligence agents who were responsible for the terror operation to stand trial in a Scottish court in The Hague; and, four months ago, its announcement that it would pay $10 million to every family that lost one of its members in the explosion of the airplane.

Even more problematic than the fog that surrounded the international media was the failure of Israeli intelligence, which did not realize that something important was happening among Gadhafi, U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "We hardly knew about these contacts, and if we did know, we mistakenly believed that they had to do with the matter of the compensation," admitted one senior Israeli intelligence official. "Our lack of knowledge is embarrassing for two reasons. First of all, because our American allies compartmentalized us entirely, and secondly, because Libya is not terra incognita for us."I hadn't even begun to think of this aspect of the situation, although I'm not at all surprised that the press missed it; that's why the governments tried to do it secretly, and besides, "media acuity" seems almost an oxymoronic term these days.

But the weapons tally so far seems to be: . . . . that Libya, as it admitted in the contacts with the representatives of the West, has a stock of 100 tons of mustard gas, bacterial and germ cultures and the ability to fashion bombs and arm missile warheads with chemical weapons. To these must be added a nuclear research reactor, an installation to enrich uranium and attempts to increase the range of Scud missiles to 1,000 kilometers, so that in the future they could also hit Israeli territory.Mmmm ... mustard gas. Excuse me, is that your lung?

I shouldn't make light of it like that. Mustard gas is horrible.

Melman's article goes on to discuss Israeli policy issues:Above all, the moment Libya begins - within a few months - to destroy its chemical and biological weapons and limit the range of its missiles to 300 kilometers, there will remain only one state - Syria - that will have the ability, though small, to hit Israel with missiles and chemical weapons, at least theoretically (since Egypt has signed a peace agreement with Israel and has not been uttering threats to use its armaments against it). But it is difficult to see Syria as a real threat to Israel, and certainly not as an existential threat. Its economy is shaky, its weapons systems are obsolete (it doesn't have the budget to renew and improve its army) and it is afraid of the long arm of the United States, because it gives patronage to terror organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, coordinates actions with Hezbollah and allows the infiltration of Al-Qaida activists into Iraqi territory . . . .

. . . . Mossad chief Meir Dagan said over a month ago in the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that nuclear weapons in Iran are "an existential threat" to Israel. He said this even though it was clear to him that Iran had agreed to suspend its nuclear program and sign the additional protocol to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz warned Iran again this week, and hinted that Israel might attack if it arms itself with nuclear weapons.

These and other recent remarks testify to the stultified thinking at the official decision-making level and among those who shape Israel's security perceptions. The reality in the region is changing, but they are refusing to recognize this, or minimizing the importance of the change. Such a recognition would force them to draw conclusions that are incongruent with their worldview: that the size of the IDF should be cut and less invested in developing advanced weapons systems. Above all, they would be forced to admit that the only strategic threat to Israel as a democratic country with a stable economy, a high standard of living, social justice and Western values is the conflict with the Palestinians and the rifts that it causes in Israeli society. Libya's dramatic announcement should impel Israel to recognize the fact that the strategic threats "beyond the horizon" have decreased immeasurably and have perhaps even disappeared, whereas the real threats are at its gates here and now.I apologize for the amount of citation, but it's a multidimensional and compelling article that attempts to cover quite a bit.

Even I, whose first-ever political cartoon was drawn about Libya (it might exist somewhere in a storage unit in Oregon), had come to regard Libya with a sense of insignificance. The Ha'aretz article would suggest I was wrong in that.

Give it a read, put in your two cents. Two interesting notions float through the haze:

- I expect, as in all things human and political, that some would disagree with the magnitude of change the Libyan renouncement brings to the Middle Eastern political and security dynamics. How big a change is it, really?

- What happens if the world outpaces PNAC in a defensive move? After all, as the Petroleum Bush War shows, WMD may frighten people, but oil plays a huge part in the Grand Strategy of the American Imperium. (e.g. - An April, 2002 PNAC memorandum from William Kristol (http://www.newamericancentury.org/saudi-042502.htm) discusses, among other things, "the oil weapon.") Sure, the US can play the "making the world safer" role until the New American Century runs out of reasons for attacking oil-rich states. And then the whole New American Century falls apart.

Just a couple of thoughts. There are positive outcomes that will be unsatisfactory to the New American Century. What happens if people who really don't like the US figure them out? What happens if, to them, it's worth the trade?

- Melman, Yossi. "Don't confuse them with facts." Haaretz.com. December 26, 2003. See http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/376201.html
- Kristol, William. Memorandum: Saudi Arabia. April 25, 2002. See http://www.newamericancentury.org/saudi-042502.htm

In another maximum milage move sometime ago on several he occaisions he "bought" free western hostages from millitant islamic groups hel in Africa and Phillipines, paying the ransom with western money (what a nice way to officially sponsor terrorism while creating goodwill in the west and prevent millitary intervention in Libya!)

What Khadaffi lacks with millitary power he seems to make up with brilliant snakeoil diplomacy...

Everytime that Libya gets into the millitary crosshairs, you can bet that suddenly westerners will be hostaged (far away from libya to avoid a direct connection naturally) and that Khadaffi will be the "reasonable guy" that talks them free....

Originally posted by Vortexx
Khadaffi may seem like an idiot in those wardrobes, but you got the give man credit for still being in charge...


he is a thug like rest of the arab leaders. pitty usa let him live this long. he should be removed like sadaam and repalced by some one else. he gets no credit for being incharge.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Undecided


I think we can, Qaddafi has for the last 5 years or so has been really trying to mend fences with the west. I guess oil exports need to be propped up. He gave Britain those Lockerbie suspects, and has been getting on Europe’s good side as of late. I think it was a deal btwn the Euros and Libya to show diplomacy can work. And maybe, just maybe Libya is saving her ass from PNAC. Also Libya’s greatest WMD friend the USSR is goners.


no one can trust him. He is a terrorist like Arafat and gang. It is stupid to trust him and it will come back to haunt west later. Just like sadaam needs to repalce him.

The Libyan threat has been totally done out of porportion in that article, I mean its Israeli. Libya's Frog are old, she couldn't launch her Scud-B's they were too old, she had the Al-Fatah missile was a joke, what like 15 years of development, and still no working model...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031222-ghadafi-wmd.htm

In the end, his dreams of destruction proved only to be, like the despairing cry of Shakespeare's King Lear, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."


Need I say more, Libya was impotent.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001823290_frilets26.html

The letters to the editor of the Seatle Times for December 26, 2003. There's actually a couple interesting ideas there. The argument about Ramzy Baroud's article are of minor interest to Sciforums, but relevant to this topic is if you skip down to the "Nuclear exposure" section and read those two letters.

The one from Mr. Ahrens made me hoot with laughter. Obviously, it was written before certain details (e.g. negotiating since March, which I finally picked up last night when I read the Ha'aretz article) became better-known in public, but it does feel good to rush to a patriotically hasty conclusion, I admit.

I wonder if the West can capitalize on Libya's attempted return to the world community in ways not generally discussed. Can you imagine the man of many spellings in "The Negotiator II: The MILF Wars"?