Libya

Remove all ads!

Jack Funk wrote

Well, that doesn't really convince me. As a matter of fact Ghaddafi has been working for years, focused and consequent, on entering the international mainstream again, and coming closer to Europe especially.

His coming out of the cold is neither a result of him being scared ****less after the example Bush stated with Iraq (and bound there he's unlikely to start another adventure anytime soon), nor is it the result of Bush's grandiose diplomacy.

Let me also point out a little inconistency - arms comtrol in Lybia uses a solution that includes the IAEA (the very organisation US hawks bashed so much as inadequate for Iran and Iraq) and UN inspections (a solution the US hawks especially bashed as inadequate for Iraq) .... Whoa! Should it be that inspections in fact DO work?.

The Lybia deal is primarily British and also European work. The US wouldn't even have anything to offer to Lybia short of not bombing them whereas the EU is just across the mediterranean, and Lybia only waiting to enter that market. Lybia want to become associated with the EU to gain the tarrif privileges its neighbours got. There you have the carrot. You can also expect Lybia's former colonial power, Italy, to have played a major role.

There was an interesting comment on it in The Nation. Bush is wearing someone elses feathers.

I wholeheartedly agree with the part I left out in your quote because I would say it stronger: Diplomacy DOES work.

 

Wait a minute...this converstion seems to be going awry in the face of the facts.

Prior to last Friday Libya had never formally admitted having a WMD program. This change in stance is certainly not due to a long term cuddling up to the EU. Besides, the big lure for Libyan wealth is not some economic alliance with Italy, it is to lure back the US Oil Companies that once did business there before 1986.

Do you claim that this then is a lie? Or how about from Gadhafi's own mouth?

Any move toward the EU that Libya has made was an obvious attempt to have their cake and eat it too...enjoy the fiscal benefits, without answering to lawlessness.

And it appears that some European nations are far from satisfied with Libya's dealing with the airline bombing trial

A key word in the above statement was that the defendants were tried in absentia...Libya has made no move to turn over the convicted murderers.

Of course Libya wants IAEA inspectors...they are far gentler than the US Marines.

This all reminds me of the kid who has done something wrong, so hurries off to tell his mom becuause he knows that if he waits till daddy gets home, he's gonna get his butt whipped!

 

Don't count on it.

 

Well, whatever Ghaddafis reasons were, Bush has made sure that Ghaddafi was at least not directly after US oil - as the US companies atm are atill barred from contracting in Libya.

Check this article to see what I mean,. This also is interesting, about Libya's licensing history.

First of all, Lybia wants the UN sanctions lifted and to earn oil revenues again to boost its economy, and it gives a **** about wether the US helps or not. Total Fina Elf or Texaco - they don't care.
And as oil isn't everything an association with the EU, to gain the tarrif benefits that will make libyan imports from there cheaper, as well as their exports more profitable - this arrangement will significantly contribute to Libya's economic recovery.

Europe will go in there first anyway, as fast as possible, to capitalise from the US sanctions which remain in place. And for the US time's running, considering Libya's oil ultimatum.

So it will be interesting to see wether the US acts quick on its sanctions or not. With Cheney US oil sure has an open ear in the administration and Cheney will understand the concerns of the US companies of losing their fields in Libya.

EDIT: Sojourner - not 'till the elections 2004 at least ...

[ December 23, 2003, 15:51: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

Yeah, it's a game of carrots and frogs, not sticks. Both Libya and the Europeans have carrots to sell, Libya the oil and fighting islamists and europe it's market, oil companies and prestige for Ghaddafi.

The frogs to swallow are for Libya the Lockerbie payments, loss of his WMD (probably old and useless anyway, the stuff decays in storage) and some nominal democratisation and for the Europeans to live with Ghaddafi.

It's not that everyone is happy, but it's a good arrangement to live with.

 

????

You know that Italy is one of the 7 biggest economies of the world, bordering some kilometers north of Libya? It is usually so, that two neighbouring countries have a rather big trade with eachother. Not to say, that Libya wouldn't like some trade with the US, but seemingly, the Americans don't want. Also, Libyia should be member of the mediterranian-trade agreements.

Italy and other European countries have re-estalblished economical normal relations with Libya some years ago, while, it seems, Washington still was listing it as rogue-state. And it obviously was one of the first priorities of Libyan foreign policy to get good relations with its neighbours for years, while, he, he, sometimes making some nationalistic gestures, singing to the choir of the folks at home. So, I do not see a sudden change in politics, rather it looks like logical consequence to some degree of the course he was heading since some years anyway. On the other hand, of course, no nation is happy to let foreign people looking into it's hidden cellars, except of course its Italian soldiers, helping Libya where they can.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/907811.stm

 

While it would seem silly to believe that the EU had nothing to do with the recent developments in Libya it seems equally silly to discount as inconsequential the recent US actions next door. However, I'm certainly not surprised to see that credit is not being given. Is anyone else?

Because one was against the war with Iraq does not commit one to denying any good consequences of that action. Personally, I was against the war in Iraq because I didn't think it was in the long term best interests of the US but not only am I willing to be proven wrong I am hopeful that a great deal of good can come from the situation.

 

Slightly but...am I the only one who looks at Gaddhafi and thinks "Good lord...that's the worst wig I've ever seen!"

 

Well, that is true. I think, after some pondering (arrgh, ponder, ponder) there is some causality between happenings around Iraq and this new agreement between the Brits and the Americans. Yet, is not like a sudden walk to Canossa from the Libyan side, as mentioned, he's going in direction Canossa for some time. And weapons seems to be rather American beef, as those obviously weren't high on the list of the European countries in case. And one should in no way forget, that the relationship between Italy and Libya is not unlike the one between USA and Mexico. Immigration and economical relations are huge domestic issue.

 

@DR

At least with the current sanctions in place, we can be certain that that rug didn't come from the US!

Maybe it's Italian!

I am not belittling the strength of the EU, nor that European corporations will take advantage of the head start they will have to "cash in" on a compliant Libya. I do not dispute Gaddhafi's ability to sieze every opportunity to self promote. I can't help but feel that this is a situation where the US/Bush detractors will refuse till the end to entertain even a tenuous link between the actions that they despise and some "good" outcome. Oh well, such is the nature of political debate.

I bet if the Lackerbie trial had been held in a US court, the convicted terrorists would already be in custody...what need does Libya have to fear France? That glaring omission in those legal procedings is suportive of the arguement I have made from the begining.

EDIT: Just saw Tal's post...actually Libya does have a "weapon" of mass destruction...it has been confirmed that they have stockpiles of a mustard gas derivative and Scud C missiles with @ 500 mile range. If that does't qualify, I'm not sure what does.

 

How silly. If anyone thought that there was a "great deal of good" to come out of the war, he/she would not be opposed to it in the first place. Of course, some may try to have it both ways - supporting the war, and not supporting the war; supporting the Bush policies, but not supporting "Bush." I suppose that what is being argued here. But I think most have been pretty clear on which side of this they are on. At least almost everyone. Nevertheless, the war itself is not the topic here, and some of us think the war is not the main force at work in Libya.

The guy who runs Libya is no better than the guy who ran Iraq. But Libya did not even get an honorable mention on the "Axis of Evil" hit list. It must have been the fault of English Intelligence.

 

No Chandos, this was silly:

Reading comprehension my friend, reading comprehension. Go back and look at my post. I didn't say that I thought a great deal of good would come from the war, I said that now that the war is done I'm hopeful that good will come of it. I was, "willing to be proven wrong." I certainly don't understand why anyone would say, "I was against the war and so now I'll never hope for some good to come from it and I'll never admit any good that may come from it." That seems entirely too...commited to partisanship for my tastes.

This isn't a game where you lose points if something that has been done that you disagreed with benefits people so I don't see anything wrong with my being against the war but now hoping that some good comes from it. I was against the war not because I thought it was unjustifiable but because I thought the US would botch up the job in the long term. Now that it has happened - I can be hopeful that it isn't botched and that in the long run things work out well for the folks in the US, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

It is entirely permissible in my view for everyone to take off political blinders and hope for the best every once in a while.

Maybe that doesn't make me a good fan though.

 

Nay, I understood the tenor of your post all too well:

You will have to do better than that. This is a typical "backhanded," or perhaps "underhanded" approach of attacking those who just "won't go along." The rules of this board prevent me from commenting on these kinds of tactics further. Sometimes people disagree on the issues and have real convictions on the morality (you would say American interests instead) of this war. Get over it.

 

Chandos,

Acknowledging that some good came out of a bad situation does not equate to being a turncoat. You know that I'm as much against the war as anyone here, even you. But I'm glad Saddam is out of power, even if the way we went about his removal was sloppy and dishonest. I'm glad Gaddhafi is backing down, whether or not it has anything to do with Iraq, and I hope Iran, North Korea and Syria will at least throw us a bone if not play ball all together.

I agree with what Laches said. As far as I'm concerned, if truth in advertising were applied to this war it would've been called "Operation Sh*t Storm." But now that it's here and we have to live with it, there's nothing wrong with hoping for the best. Praying for a good outcome doesn't mean sporting a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker. I still feel the war was wrong, misrepresented and unnecessary. Don't go after the wrong people.

[ December 23, 2003, 18:05: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

@Chandos

Yeah, we're all trying to make you go along.

I agree with Laches, there will be no credit given to the U.S. here, regardless.

The way I see it, I (and those of us who support the war) have nothing to get over. I approve of the war in Iraq and the positive effects that have resulted.
It seems that you are the one who needs to get over it.

 

And that's great. I'm sure you, Laches and others who support the war and Bush "feel" that this war is justifiable for various reasons. All of us have argued the moral consquences of this war at length on this board. But I really disagree that this issue with Libya has much to do with the war. And that it is NOT a positive effect of this war or anything that Bush has done. Some of us think Libya was headed in this direction already. I guess this makes me one of those who "won't give Bush credit" but I'm sure you are "not surprised by that."

Edit: But if I am wrong, it's the fault of English intelligence.

[ December 23, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@Chandos

This is true. What you seem to be avoiding is discussing the moral consequences of NOT fighting this war.

 

Take it for what it is worth, from April of this past year:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/04/wun04.xml