Libya

Remove all ads!

I can't believe nobody has posted this yet

Go here

It is great to see diplomacy work. Of course it makes you wonder what made Gadhafi (sic) change his mind after 17 years. Cough Cough Iraq Cough Cough.

Before I see any complaints about posting a link from Fox the article was written by the AP.

However, this was the thing that truly horrified me this morning. Go here if you dare

[ December 22, 2003, 23:01: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]

 

Ahm, what's surprising about that ? Libya (Strange place for the y) is since the ninties trying to get closer to Europe and get rid of the embargos (and we want their oil, so bad). Not to say, that his an importan ally in operation "fortress Europe". The more intersting news I've found that Ghadafis (Sp?) son had a career as professional footballer in Italy (that is, he paid for being member of the team on the bank). Well, now is banned from playing because of doping (wanting to get away from the bank on the field). That of course, does not interfere with Libyan and Italian (European) agreements on trade and police-co-operation, which was noted then.

 

@Snook...I guess that no one has posted this because there is nothing in it to criticize the US or Bush Administration over!

Surely this is just a coincidence that just a few days after seeing Sadman drug from his snake hole, that Go-daffy reveals and his WMD capacity and expresses a desire to "go straight."

Anyone else notice that Ill Kim has put away his saber (erm, katana), and that Iran is seeking to Democratize? We may even see an end to the fighting between India and Pakistan in Kashimir, both nuclear powers with readily accesible "buttons."

I think as the months pass it will become even more obvious that America's actions have made the world safer for everyone...except perhaps for Americans!

 

It is wonderful news. The world is a better place.
Diplomacy can work. Bush is capable of using diplomacy.

 

Ahm, no. Iran also started its democration proceses in the nineties. I personally wondered what the time frame would be until grey magistrate on the other pond-side would hear about that.

Creating myths ? First introduce a nation completly wrongly (grammar ?) into a weird thing called "axis-of-we-do-not-like-you-that-much" and then, wondrous thing, saying bombs have changed that country ?

 

No myths here, Iago...there is a huge difference between talking about changes and making changes. Prior to this time, Libya has never formally admitted the possesion of WMD's, despite the suspicions of the world community. This is a huge turnabout from a nation which previously supported the bombing of passenger jets in flight over Scotland! If Mr. Go-Daffy has softened his stance over the last few years, I would daresay it was more likely due to the bombing of nuclear facility that he previously thought was hidden, than his secret desire to have his own soccer team. (Although he does like to appear in public in shorts)

And you can say what you want about Iran and Democratization, they made no moves toward such a stand during the nineties...only spoke of it while they attempted to promote their own nuclear program.

And I think I can speak for Grey Magistrate and say that the news arrives on this side of the pond in a very timely fashion...remember, we invented CNN, FoxNews and the National Enquirer

 

I must agree with Hacken Slash here that it is probably due to fear that these nations have expressed desires to change, if not the sole reason (and it probably is not) then it is likely what has nudged them over the edge [This of course means that diplomacy on the US's behalf had little to do with it].

Still, a change of heart for the better good is still a good thing, I only hope that it stays that way. At least we have avoided another war.

I was going to suggest that the rest of us follow suite, but the thought of all those 'stale-mate' responses gave me a headache

Edit: My question is this; since the US has put all of its skill points into Intimidate rather than Diplomacy -and so cannot be a Paladin- is it a Rogue or Barbarian? Sorcerers only apply if Bluffing, too many hot-heads in charge for that anymore

Edit2: Hehe, too bad Bush never bothered with Knowledge: Geography and Skill Focus: Pronounciation.

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself

[ December 22, 2003, 18:28: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

At least you admit we tried diplomacy. Thanks, I think.

 

FOR WHO??? As we move to Code Orange security alert. Visions of 9/11 may be out of YOUR head, but they still stick with me.

Supported??? How about directly responsible. I don't trust that regime as far as I can spit.

 

@Spellbound - does that mean that it's all or nothing? Incremental improvements don't count? No wonder no ones ever satisfied.

One less crackpot with WMD's does make the world a better place.

And don't presume to know what is going on inside my head. I do not minimize 9/11, I have never minimized 9/11, and as someone whose life has been touched by murder, I live in fear all the time. So please, spare me the condescension.

 

@Spellbound
I think that the way I put it originally says it best:

I will never forget the images of 9/11 either, but I also aknowlege the possibility that our use of "Code Orange" has prevented similar events.

Eventually, if all of the nations of the world see that they will be held accountable for allowing terrorist groups to meet, train and organize within their boundaries, there will be no place left for them to go. They will always exist, but the ability of the terror groups to orchestrate a strike similar to 9/11 will be almost non-existent.

I agree completely with you, but as some will still debate whether the Libyan admission of guilt was genuine, I sought to minimize the avenues under which my opinion could have been attacked!

 

What this points towards is that it is possible to use diplomacy, that guns blazin' is not the only way. True that what befell Iraq might have made Khadaffi speed things up a bit but things would have moved in that direction anyway.

Who did the negotiating with Khadaffi? I wouldnt be surprised if it was someone from Powell's department.

 

Jack -- it was sarcasm, not condescension -- no insult intended. The world, in my opinion, is NOT a safer place....not for Americans that is. And as far Moammar Gadhafi's sudden turn of heart? Well, pardon me if I'm a little skeptical and untrusting....he hasn't got much of a track record to go on.

 

Hm, so we agree to disagree, at least. The myth was aimed at Iran and axis-of-whatever. Iran, I personally am still convinced about it, will become the first working democracy in that region, and that's mainly because of internal pressure, i.e. a lot of people wanting to make something of themselves and therefore improve the state they live in.

As for Lybia and Gadaffi. I personally think is absolutely trustworthy in this matters. Why ? He doesn't want to die and leave his country in ruins for is heirs to takeover. He wants $$$$$ (internatinal understable sign for everything that matters in large amounts ) and we in the north of him want his oil and his co-operation in immigration-matters.

And CNN did inform you, that the re-approachment ("let's leave the past behind") between Libya and Italy has been signed and sealed some time ago ? That's why the one with his son did spawn big articles where I live, would this incident somehow scratch the relationship between those two ? Both affirmed, no, no, no.

So, this might also be seen as great breakthrough for Gadaffi, as his got rid of the crippling embargos, some countries still upheld against him.

 

The Financial Times had an editorial today by Amity Shlaes, quoting Richard Perle who described the current American diplomacy as "You're next." As in, America doesn't have to bomb a rogue country - it just points its finger at the next baddie in line and says, "You're next."

I guess this just goes to show that, for all the talk of Bush's militarism, his administration really is ruthlessly pragmatic. One strategy for Afghanistan, another for Iraq, another still for Iran, yet another for North Korea, a different take for Liberia, and now this for Libya. A case where the end justifies the means - whether those means be military, money, diplomacy, delay, isolation, interaction, whatever.

P.S. to Iago - Other side of the pond, indeed! That's what I get for getting my news from a European paper!

 

Great! Now Libya can start buying its WMD from the US corporations, the weapons suppliers of choice. Of course as long as they don't use them
on anyone we like they will be OK. Still, I wonder if we are engaged in bringing "democracy" to Libya too?

 

Sorry but Gadhafi has a long time ago abandoned his hard and mean look for a smoother and subtler negotiating approach. And the arsenal of WMD he is possesing was known before this statement. But this was just the perfect time to make another statement and get some more credit.

Gadhafi has turned around his attitude and has stop the terrorist training camps working in his country from early 90's. He is know a bussinesman and head of state with great acceptance among his people. Furthermore i would like to inform you that this guy is very very clever and has managed the last 7 years to create and strengthen the bonds between Libya and EU.

One act of diplomacy and reedement was and the fact that he accepted his country to be trialed for the training of the terrorists responsible for that act (that happened in summer). Because that was the one accusation the world was having against Gadhafi, the existence (and tolerance if you wish) of terrorist training camps in Libyas soil. Any other support has never been proved and if we are to talk here about unproven accusation then lets rename the topic.

Well Grey having the half of the world follow your whims by fear of arms is a true Democracy and the greatest goal of a trully free, God fearing and peace loving nation. I wonder how all this will end. In the first sign of weakness by the US, all the nations that play the good boys because of fear of invasion, will turn their heads and bite a slice of the hand that hold the reins. I would have guess that Historys examples would have made it clear. But it seems we are doomed to run around the same patterns and walking over the same old pains and fears.

I won't either but i also don't forget that every month or so we have something like this in the US and also have these statements to diminish the panic. I want to point out that we have this every time and it looks to me that even the officials don't believe these alerts. They just use them for other purposes. More if i am asked to. It is impossible for a terrorist group to have the ability to organize so frequent attacks and not to mention that attacks like 9/11 were first planned a couple of years before they actually happened. And with the security frenzy not existing at that time.

Well sorry if i sound sarcastic or whatever but it was USA administrations choice of how the bed should be made and now the citizens must sleep on this bed.
But can you tell me why should i live now next to two time bombs and fear not a terrorist attack but two possible wars? Or why should i instead of enjoying the Olympic games that will be held i August in Athens i am seriously thinking to find a way to be away from Athens and any Olympic games city, because of this security frenzy? I know there was another path that was not followed. And sadly i fear it is too late

 

European, yet Austrian from head to toe, but still European, I must confess. Caught me here. On the other hand, (surprise, surprise !) I'd not go for deep thought based on quotes from black and white B-movies with Johnny Wayne. You're next, you'e next, you're next, then you, then you. How many bullets are in that revolver (how overstretched are those forces) ? Ruthless pragmatism may fire back in one's face. It's the policiy you chose, but I hope my neighbouring countries keep a smart, sound distance, I don't want to reap what I haven't sown.

On the issue again, still, it seems to me like this fits nicely into the pattern of Gadaffis re-approchment to his next-door neighbours north of him. Quite lucrative for both sides.

By the way, I thought another element of gun-boat diplomacy would be, that one side gets a rather bad deal, like the 1850's treaty between Japan and the USA ?

Edit: Spelled correctly, I bet.

[ December 23, 2003, 11:52: Message edited by: Iago ]