Libya

Remove all ads!

Wow...I feel the need to defend myself!
I hate to dissapoint you, but I am not an Arab racist. Hell, one of my good friends in boarding school was King Hussein(the late that is) of Jordan's daughter. Who, btw, gave me some great insties on Israel and the middle east in general.

I don't think that Arabs and Muslams are crazy, but I do believe that they would LOVE to nuke Israel. I also think that THEY don't believe that their cities would be anniliated in the process. Hell, I think that most of the countries in the middle east, including Iraq, didn't believe that the US would invade Iraq until it actually happened. One of the positive things that has come out of the invasion, and I know I'm gonna catch hell for this one, is that The countries mentioned above are starting to realise that the US may indeed have the willpower and resolve to Invade their countries as well.

 

Wow. Thanks for supplying a perfect example of why I find it hard to take you seriously Ragusa.

@Llandon

Not from me you won't. Iraq was a smackdown. The Arab world stopped taking the U.S. military seriously after 8 years of Clintons "responses" to attacks on America. As the events in Libya, and Gadhafis own words, indicate, some have changed their minds about our willingness to be attacked without responding.

 

Jack Funk,

Great, with that menthality you shouldn't have any problem with 911. For Al Quaeda it was just that as well - a smackdown, collective punishment for the filthy infidels and their meddling in arab business.

When you're serious in your line, you and Bin Laden are brothers in heart, on different sides but with the same menthality. "Innocents dead? Who cares. I showed my strength and that justifies the means. Besides, my cause is just. Let God sort'em out!" You could now close arbitray, with "Allahu akbar!" or "God bless America!" or "Boo-Yah!" - same thing basically.
After that, you should find it easier to understand why I loathe people like you at sight and find their utterances sickening.

Llandon,
No pun intended. I was being so harsh because of your line:

It is that you then go on to suggest that because an israeli war would destabilise the region, it is better the US do the job when they see fit. That is weird thinking IMO. War is destabilising in itself, it's pretty much irrelevant wether the US or Israel start it. Iraq, once a stable country is a step away from civil war - thanks to US intervention. The palestinians Israel expelled to Lebanon and Jordan brought Jordan to the edge of civil war (the black September) and plunged Lebanon into it.

What I wanted to say is that: Arab people, their governments are just as intelligent as westerners. They are not fanatised hordes of doombringers. And they don't plot the end of the US, despite the occasional flagburning. This is no clash of the cultures, it is not about appeasement or holocaust (as the neocons like Perle seem to think). Arab leaders do care about their people, be in only as in the case of Saddam because of utilitarian motives. Iran for example eventually succumbed to Iraq killing it's civilians - they do care about their people and wouldn't risk an israeli nuclear counterstrike killing millions.

In the case of arab countries, risk assessment seems to cross the line of rational tinking. "They are evil and therfor will harm us with whatever means they have," seems to have been the guiding principle of Bush's ideologues. That is a paranoid and manichean point of view. Think about Bush's: "We are good people who love things, while they are evil people who hate our freedom!"

It is, that for a policy in the middle east the US have to take the arabs seriously. To think that they just need the occasional beating like a dog means not only humiliating them, but underestimating them. It is no way to find a way for a peaceful coexistence, what must ultimately be the goal when you're not in the "perpetual war for Siegfrieden" camp.
When you talk with arabs, respecting them, you can achieve much more than with running around like a foaming baboon, fingerpointing while crying "Evil, evil!" (as Bush/ Cheney/ Bolton/ Perle etc seem to enjoy), and refusing to to talk with evil, hysterically uttering ultimatums. Whenever listening to Cheney, Bolton and Perle I feel that Bush's diplomacy failed not so much because of the Arabs but because the US administration could not be talked with rationally.

http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2004/02/14/

Three articles on Arab nationalism and Iraq and Al Quaeda, excellent as ever, from the Asia Times:
US among the 'ruins' of Arab nationalism
Iraq and Al Quaeda - The usual suspects
Iraq and Al Quaeda - Why al-Qaeda votes Bush

[ February 16, 2004, 15:20: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

@RagUSA

You are beyond low. It is amazing how I get crap around here for "getting personal". Yet you can say stuff like this about me and not one admin says crap.

You put so many words in my mouth in that one statement that I did not bother to read the rest of your diatribe. This is why it is pointless to "debate" with you. You are an agitator. Nothing more.

I will not respond to any more posts by you. I assume this is what you want, and so shall you have it.

 

It wasn't me who spoke about the smackdown. You said that. And I even added the caveat "When you're serious" in my rebuttal. If you weren't serious - the better, then I have underestimated you and I apologize - but then, why do you write stuff like that?

When you've been serious, well, then there's not much left to say except this:

From your reply I felt you found "smacking down" on Iraq in response to 911 somehow ok - but I'm unsure if you're aware what "smackdown" on Iraq means. Because that then includes accepting the consequences of a "smackdown". When saying

you suggest the "Beat your children every day, if you don't know what they did, sure they do!" approach to foreign policy.

"Smackdown" basically means killing somone or destroying something just to show strength, here to intimidate the Arab world. And for a smackdown you can just take someone, anyone to make your point. Iraq, Syria, any arab country.

IMO that is quite an outrageous proposal.

Iraq in the end had little to do with Al Quaeda and 911, if anything at all. So, bombing Iraq to smithereens in response to 911 meant: Killing innocents - every Iraqi soldier - even Saddam was innocent in regard of 911.
Considering a conservative estimate that means some 35.000 +++ Iraqis killed - in a "smackdown". Sorry, that is the point where my stomach is turning.

And that is why I referred to 911 - the people who died there had nothing to do with the grudge Al Quada had against the US, they killed them anyway, to state an example, so make a "smackdown" on the US.

There cannot be a doubt that 911 was an outrageous atrocity. "Smackdown" on Iraq would be an atrocity at least tenfold in scale.

So, either you find "smackdown" is a good idea, or you've been taunting. But after writing it, don't wonder about me taking offense of it.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I just showed you what a "smackdown" means. When you don't like it, then you're perhaps not as I thought you to be, which is good news.

 

Well here is yet another revelation on the whole Lybia WMD topic...this time from the IAEA


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/02/20/libya.nuclear.ap/index.html

It seems that Lybia DID have a covert nuclear weapons program. In fact it completely contradicts the statement that Lybia abandoned its WMD program over 10 years ago.

 

Libya is an astounding case, full of contradictions.

News reports told a tale that the Spanish Navy made a brilliant coup in the Indian Ocean in 2002 - they stopped and took over a vessel shipping North-Korean Scuds plus chemicals like nitric acid.

Now that is quite a peculiar twist.

The neocons, who usually can't help but howling "No negotiations with evil!" when it comes to countries like North-Korea or Iran hand Libya a shipment of scuds, courtesy of Vice President Dick Cheney: After giving a few of the to the US for research, the Libyans will be allowed to keep the rest.

Somehow that conflicts with the "Oh they were so afraid because of Iraq" theory. They wouldn't really have a cause to fear a US that is actually arming them.

Or it is that it was all more about strategic access? Libya has just established diplomatic relations with Israel. And with Libya the US just re-openend an alternative oil supplier.

And I can't help wondering: Maybe Libya wasn't that much a threat to be feared after all - when the US themselves give them the renowned Scuds they use to justify their own missile shields. Perhaps the Libyans even disarm what the US just handed them. Wouldn't that be funny?

 

Wow...I thought that this topic had been finished a long time ago!

I'm not really sure what kind of point you are trying to make here Rags...I've read your links and opinions...but they don't seem to match up.

You say "Spanish Navy made a brilliant coup in the Indian Ocean in 2002" but how is it either brilliant or a coup when Washington told Spain about the ship and asked them to stop and board it?

But the real questions that need to be asked is what is the truth? You site one report that "claims" that the ship ended up in Libya


"The official was referring to declarations by sources from NATO to the Madrid daily 'El Mundo' that claim 15 complete Scud missiles, a set of conventional warheads and 85 containers of chemical products -- some 20 holding nitric acid -- were ultimately delivered to Libya under a Washington decision"

I'd love to read some more articles that support the "claim" that the ship ended up in Libya. For some reason this article reads like propaganda from a Spanish political publication rather than a news story. Please send some more links on that ship.

Speaking of ships, the second article talks about another ship with scuds on it....one that has left Libya, and is headed for the US. with 8 SCUD C missiles that Libya cannot keep. Now you make it sound like they are the same ships, but they are not.

You go on to make the statement that "The neocons, who usually can't help but howling "No negotiations with evil!" when it comes to countries like North-Korea or Iran hand Libya a shipment of scuds, courtesy of Vice President Dick Cheney: After giving a few of the to the US for research, the Libyans will be allowed to keep the rest."

another false and misleading statement. The missiles that are being shipped to the US are missiles that they are not allowed to have. Namely Scud C missiles. The remainder of the SCUDS are older type B missiles that the Libyans already had in their possession http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040309-libya-scuds.htm

Even if the first rather dubious article is correct, it surely doesn't make much sense. What possible benefit could Libya have in receiving new scuds from North Korea, and agreering to turn all of their new scud missiles over to the US?


"Somehow that conflicts with the 'Oh they were so afraid because of Iraq" theory. They wouldn't really have a cause to fear a US that is actually arming them"
I am also curious. Can you tell me when the US gave missiles to Libya? Maybe you are arguing that by not stopping a ship may or may not have delivered missiles to Libya through Yemen the US was giving them to Libya. Of course if the US had stopped the ship, it would have been a clear violation of International Law. Something that you seem to hold in rather high regard.

In any case it doesn't really matter that much. Libya does appear to be disarming, and like I said much, much earlier:
"The old Col. himself admits that the Iraq war had something to do with his decision to dismantle his WMD programs.

Here is a link to the CNN article/interview

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/22/gadhafi.interview/

 

You know, there is no business like showbusiness. Politicians, even on CNN don't necessarily tell the truth. Remember Powell at the security council giving the show of his life? How many of the menaces he conjured up have yet been found? According to David Kay they have never been there.

And with brilliant coup I mean that: Even when they got a tip it ain't that easy to intercept a ship. The US got a tip on one of the 911 hijackers and alas, they didn't get him. Getting a tip and making something out of it is something.

And then: The spanish parliament dealt with the matter. They had a formal debate on that. It is hardly a non-issue. And indeed, the Asia Times wrote about it: US, Spain caught in Libya missile mixup. That 'dubious' article, as you can see, originally is from Washington's Interpress Services, a pretty well reputed news agency.

And with a little goodwill I found it not at all hard to find some other aticles on the matter: Inside Baltimore titled U.S. Holds, Then Releases Yemeni Missiles, pretty actual. Another article here, this time from the british Guardian: US and Spain at sea over Korean missiles. A funnier article here, from the Yemen times: They’re ours!. Yahoo News wrote about it, and MSNBC rote about it: U.S. to release missile ship to Yemen. And it goes on: Libya may be allowed to keep some Scud missiles, Intel: U.S. OK'd Scud shipment to Libya, the latter article confirming the major facts:

I find your incredulity a little surprising, as it only took me a few minutes and google to find all these articles.

What I really wonder about is why there are barely reports in the US press. But then again, they also didn't really perform at their best in the last year.

And you ask some interesting questions - indeed - why should the US give Libya missiles? I don't know the answer either, but I'm just as curious.

But how about a theory: The US, after seeing their intel fail on Iraq, recognised that they also don't know much about North Koreas capabilities. So they might have persuaded Libya to play the strawman, to buy stuff from a US wishlist in North Korea to allow the US to get a hand on it and to learn how far they have progressed.
Now that would really be a gesture of goodwill by Tripoli methinks, using its then bad rep as a rogue state to persuade North Korea to deal with them, quite something to restore trust between US and Libya. The disarmament and being afraid of Iraq part are the showbiz element. But that's just my humble opinion.

 

I have a crazy idea - maybe there can be more than one reason for people to do something? Ya' think?

 

"I find your incredulity a little surprising, as it only took me a few minutes and google to find all these articles."

Are you kidding me? There is still only 1 article! It's the same one from the Spanish Daily "El-Mundo" By Tito Drago. Just because the asia times and a few other rags copied it, dosen't make it true. I find it a little odd that this happens to be an "El-Mundo" exclusive! Even stranger that no major news web sites have even mentioned it.(check aljazeera, BBC, CNN ect.) So much for the "MAJOR FACTS".

As far as the other articles go...great! I remeber when the ship was originially intercepted. The fact Spain intercepted the ship, and then let it go when it was found to be headed to Yeman is undisputible. What is disputible is if you actually read the articles you link to in your posts.

"And with brilliant coup I mean that: Even when they got a tip it ain't that easy to intercept a ship. The US got a tip on one of the 911 hijackers and alas, they didn't get him. Getting a tip and making something out of it is something."

ummm....no. It was way more than a tip...according to the articles you linked "It later emerged that the So San had set off from the North Korean port of Nampo and had been tracked by US intelligence for weeks." and "The Spanish military stopped the ship Monday,.... The move came after intelligence officials watched the vessel for weeks as part of an interdiction operation that is part of the U.S.-led war on terrorism." Clearly the Spanish didn't jsut stumble across this ship on a vague tip, it was tracked and watched for weeks until it entered the Indian Ocean, when the US ASKED the Spanish to interdict it. However I will concede that it was brilliant on a tactical level...the actual take down of the ship.

Which kinda makes your entire premis really THIN.

I'll tell you what, lets make Lybia a really GREAT deal! We'll stop a ship that we already know is headed their way. Then we'll let it go! And for this good deed, Lybia will agree to hand the ship back over to us in a few month along with ALL of the elements of their illegal weapons program! What a great deal!

All of the articles state that the ship carried either 15 SCUD "C"/or 15 SCUD "B" missiles, or a combination of each. This isn't exactly cutting edge technology. Even so, US intelligence agents were on the ship for days before it was handed over to Yemin. If it were carring some new advanced North Korean missile system, they could have gotten all of the information they needed then and there.

Sorry Rags, but your theories just don't make much sence

 

The official story neither.

The US gave scuds to Libya. Why? And they got a shipload of crap from Libya - so you say. Why then do the US praise it as a major success in Libyan disarmament?

That are a few unanswered questions that make me curious. I don't know about you.

And I don't know what you have, really. Usually I get accused to do US bashing. This time I imagine the US doing something smart and not that silly dishonest after all, just a little deceptive - and what do I get? Complaints ....

[ March 12, 2004, 09:24: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Well, that's rather disingenuous. By your own admission you were engaged in a made up theory:

Lllandon called you on that theory - rightly or wrongly. Now you're crying that you're being persecuted. You're trying to paint LLandon's challenges as a challenge to something other than your sites and theories. Llandon didn't accuse you of being anti-US etc. You've resorted to playing your trump card of a martyrdom complex. I hope you can see the irony of that.

I still can't see why it isn't possible though that someone could do something for more than one reason.

 

Nope, maybe you missed it, I war rather using that arcane thing named irony. But anyway, I tried to line out that there are interesting questions unanswered that make me doubt in the official line and suggested an alternative scenario.

Besides, as for Libya caving in to the US because of Iraq, that isn't what The Financial Times from March 9, 2004 lined out in an article titled The Iraq War did not Force Gadaffi's Hand. As a whole that article gives a few hints on what was going on behind the scenes:

That is, more pointed, Libya's disarmament is not a late justification for the war on Iraq as was suggested earlier.

When you for at least four years want to disarm anyway, why should you invest in a doomed program? That is - the Libyan "weapons program" was not active. In fact, considering Tripolis willingness to disarm makes the "shocking discoveries" of Libyan arms and promises of dramatic disarmament look like a PR stunt.

 

Oh boy.....

"The US gave scuds to Libya. Why?"

The question shouldn't be "why" but instead WHAT?
Where do come to the conclusion that the US gave scuds to Lybia? None of the articles that you posted said that! As I've said before the El-Mundo story is the only one you can come up with, and it doesn't say a damn thing about the US giving scuds to Lybia. It only says that North Korea SOLD scuds to Yemen, and they in turn sold them to Libya. As I asked before, please, please, please give me another article! And make sure that it isn't just the same one from the same dubious source. I've spent alot of time searching for one, and I have yet to find one that isn't either the exact same story, or a paraphrased story that citeds El-Mundo as the only named source.

"And they got a shipload of crap from Libya - so you say."

I don't say....the articles you linked to before say that! Here http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040309-libya-scuds.htm

"That are a few unanswered questions that make me curious. I don't know about you"

Like what? The only curious question I have is why there are not more articles out there that claim that the Missiles that were interdicted by Spain and the US ended up in Libya.

I enjoyed the article from the "Financial Times". Of course I am a little curious why Libya was interested in "secreatly" giving up it WMD program 4 years ago. Why not just go to the UN publicially? It sure would have helped their case. I also liked the last paragraph of this article:

"The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration's achievement in securing Libya's nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims."

I still find it really funny that Gadaffi can state that the Iraq war factored into his decision to disarm, and still there are people out there that claim it didn't.

Now was the Iraq war DESIGNED to force Libya to give up it's WMD programs? Absoutely not. However it is clear that the war was a factor in finially pushing Libya over the edge....at least according to Gadaffi.

 

You pretty much restrict your argument to that you don't believe the El Mundo article and about everything I write. Fine with me.

How about that one: Yemen bought missiles in North Korea. There are tensions between Saudi Arabia and Yemen atm - the Saudis were even building a border fence, and only stopped after US pressure. The US, with no interest in additional missile proliferation in the Arab Peninsula, likely persuaded Yemen to give them to Libya, as a reward for Libyas role as an intermediary in dealing with Iraq.
And everyone is happy:

• The Saudis because of less threat from the notoriously unstable south
• the US because there are less missiles likely to fall into wrong hands in, as said, notoriously unstable Yemen.
• Yemen is not so happy because it was denied its missiles but it sure bargained out something for compliance, like US military aid against their opposition, err, muslim militants (in a predominantly muslim country all militants likely are muslim militants )
• Libya is happy because they got a load of Scud B, while old still a capable weapon with only minor upgrades, to replenish their old stocks
• the US is happy again because they get North Korean Nodong missiles aka Scud C in their hands for flight testing and signature analysis (a key for missile defense), plus they got these missiles out of the Middle East.

That would be an advantageous arrangement for everyone, and that is basically just the bazaar-like way international politics are negotiated.

You didn't understand the Globalsecurity.org article (that's what you get for reading the headlines only). Libyan disarmament referred to the Missile Technology Control Regime. The criterium there was not at all age but *range*. Had the old Scud B had a *range* of more than 300km, the US would have demanded them too. That is, Libya will have to fit ballast in their Scud B noses to keep the warhead to the allowed limit.

And you didn't understand the article in the Financial Tims too: When Libya played it the US way they would be allowed out of the doghouse again. And the US conditions were: Stop bugging us at the UN. Not playing with this US line would have been self-damaging by Libya and that exactly is the reason why Libya didn't do it.

And besides, as for WMD program, Libya had bought plans, sure, and it had centrifuges, a dozen. You know it requires cascades of hundreds of centrifuges to enrich uranium in a quantity sufficient for bombmaking? How much of a program was that? Else they had some WW-I vintage mustard gas.
I shake in my boots. And I repeat, Libya, offering for four years to disarm, would certainly not, especially considering their economical situation, invest in a doomed program. They had other spending priorities, like modernising their oilwells to get some cash one day to relieve their accounts.

And if you find comfort in the illusion that Ghaddafi was afraid of the US and US military action because of Iraq and therefor gave up his missiles and token programs - fine.
Then you don't have to bother about how the US, overstretched in Iraq already and likely unable to start another major operation, like conquering and occupying Libya, for the next 4 years, should accomplish such a feat. Ghaddafi sure knows that too, he may be odd looking but he's not stupid.

The "We mean business" and "We are oh-so street-tough" (Iraq was a smackdown) attitude sells good at home to the gung-ho fraction - all nonsense, but who cares as long as it sells and no one asks?

[ March 15, 2004, 09:36: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

"You pretty much restrict your argument to that you don't believe the El Mundo article and about everything I write. Fine with me."

Bingo! I don't believe it. As a matter of fact, I'm having a hard time understanding why YOU believe it. Like I've said before, find me another corroberating article. Hell, I would even settel for an article about the Spanish Parlement having a formal debate about the issue. Now my spanish is a little rusty, but I can't even find mention of that! Good luck!

Nice theory, but that's all it is. Maybe you should send it into ConspiracyTheory.com, they might send you a check for it.

"You didn't understand the Globalsecurity.org article (that's what you get for reading the headlines only)."

I understod the article fine. What I don't understand is WHY you posted it. I don't see anything there that even vaguely sugests that the US "gave" missiles to Lybia. Or even that Yemen gave missiles to Lybia. So Lybia MAY be able to keep some of their older missles....so? What in the hell does that have to do with your "theory"?

"And if you find comfort in the illusion that Ghaddafi was afraid of the US and US military action because of Iraq and therefor gave up his missiles and token programs - fine."

Well, I don't find comfort in it. Like I said before, Ghaddafi himself said that the invasion of iraq factored into his decision about giving up his WMD program, not me! Maybe you should try and send him an email....you can continue this arguement with him....while you're at it, please ask him how the missiles from Yeman, I mean North Korea, I mean the US are.

 

People who like to believe everything their gvt tells them, usually die stupid, if the don't take care in a war. That especially and traditionally applies to boys. Do you feel a draft? Srutiny in this view is self serving.

Ever considered that the US demanded Libiya to say they were afraid, as a condition of their deal? A simple single lie. It would be a small price to pay for economical recovery and international rehabilitation.

By the way, Inspectors Confirm Libya Chemical Arms Declaration: Libya's formidable, menacing chem arsenal has been confirmed to consist of 24 tons of WW-I vintage menace. Scaaaary.

Industrial toxic wastes, routinely disposed of in the US are more dangerous ... but they don't have the scare factor of Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

"People who like to believe everything their gvt tells them, usually die stupid, if the don't take care in a war. That especially and traditionally applies to boys. Do you feel a draft? Srutiny in this view is self serving."

Not sure what to make of this statement. I think you might be implying that I am a boy who is naieve enough to believe everything he reads. I am not.

However, considering some of the sources you have gotten your "facts" from lately, The above statement sounds ironic. Maybe you should take your own advice to heart. A little scrutiny on your part would be prudent.

"Ever considered that the US demanded Libiya to say they were afraid, as a condition of their deal? A simple single lie. It would be a small price to pay for economical recovery and international rehabilitation."

Again great theory. I guess when there are no facts to back up your personal beliefs, the only thing you have to fall back on is what you can make up in your own head. That especially and traditionally applies to boys....and immaturity.

I'm still waiting for another article on the Lybia/Nortk Korea/Yeman/US missile exchange. While you are working on it find me some on the US pressuring Quaddaffi to say that that the Iraq war was a consideration in his decision to disarm.