Did Libya blink because of Iraq? You have to wonder what makes an old guy come to his senses after decades don’t you?
OTB
OTB
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Libya Blinks
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
Iraq probably had something to do with it. But there was likely a lot of back-door diplomacy going on that we'll never know about. I wouldn't really be surprised if a deal was brokered by a third party. In addition the UN sanctions weren't exactly making life easy for Libyans.
Ghaddafi is a dictator who wants what probably every dictator wants - unlimited power to rule with no best before date attached to the deal. By offering to play by "the rules" he brings his country back into the international arena. i.e. He can now proclaim himself the saviour of Libya and therefore stay in power for a little while longer.
Ghaddafi is a dictator who wants what probably every dictator wants - unlimited power to rule with no best before date attached to the deal. By offering to play by "the rules" he brings his country back into the international arena. i.e. He can now proclaim himself the saviour of Libya and therefore stay in power for a little while longer.
I agree
I’m not a big believer in single cause and effect, especially on this scale (we invade Iraq and Libya blinks). I do think the timing is interesting.
And think this puts Israel in an interesting position - do they own up to their weapons program. Why do I think we (US) helped with that?
OTB
xarir said:Iraq probably had something to do with it. But there was likely a lot of back-door diplomacy going on that we'll never know about. I wouldn't really be surprised if a deal was brokered by a third party. In addition the UN sanctions weren't exactly making life easy for Libyans.
Ghaddafi is a dictator who wants what probably every dictator wants - unlimited power to rule with no best before date attached to the deal. By offering to play by "the rules" he brings his country back into the international arena. i.e. He can now proclaim himself the saviour of Libya and therefore stay in power for a little while longer.
I’m not a big believer in single cause and effect, especially on this scale (we invade Iraq and Libya blinks). I do think the timing is interesting.
And think this puts Israel in an interesting position - do they own up to their weapons program. Why do I think we (US) helped with that?
OTB
Re: I agree
The unfortunate aspect about all this is the way in which it was brought about. While I applaud the reduction of WMD programs around the world, I am disturbed by the methods used to achieve this reduction.
I think the central issue is that each country is being dealt with on an ad-hoc basis instead of tring to pull everyone together in a cohesive action like the land-mines deal. (Which the US still hasn't signed ...)
As OTB put it, how does Isreal react to this now? And what of North Korea? For that matter, how does the US deal with its stockpile of chemical weapons?
To me, the whole thing just seems too seat-of-the-pants to be truly effetive.
onthebottom said:And think this puts Israel in an interesting position - do they own up to their weapons program.
The unfortunate aspect about all this is the way in which it was brought about. While I applaud the reduction of WMD programs around the world, I am disturbed by the methods used to achieve this reduction.
I think the central issue is that each country is being dealt with on an ad-hoc basis instead of tring to pull everyone together in a cohesive action like the land-mines deal. (Which the US still hasn't signed ...)
As OTB put it, how does Isreal react to this now? And what of North Korea? For that matter, how does the US deal with its stockpile of chemical weapons?
To me, the whole thing just seems too seat-of-the-pants to be truly effetive.
Re: Re: I agree
The UNSC just cannot find credible ways to lead on many of these issues. N. Korea for example, China and Russia would never agree to sanctions - then what does the UNSC do? If you want consistency you have to look to the UN, but the UN is a toothless tiger that no longer reflects the world’s power structure.
I thought the US was destroying it's chemical weapons?
As for land mines, so generous of countries that have no credible militaries to ban mines.
OTB
xarir said:The unfortunate aspect about all this is the way in which it was brought about. While I applaud the reduction of WMD programs around the world, I am disturbed by the methods used to achieve this reduction.
I think the central issue is that each country is being dealt with on an ad-hoc basis instead of tring to pull everyone together in a cohesive action like the land-mines deal. (Which the US still hasn't signed ...)
As OTB put it, how does Isreal react to this now? And what of North Korea? For that matter, how does the US deal with its stockpile of chemical weapons?
To me, the whole thing just seems too seat-of-the-pants to be truly effetive.
The UNSC just cannot find credible ways to lead on many of these issues. N. Korea for example, China and Russia would never agree to sanctions - then what does the UNSC do? If you want consistency you have to look to the UN, but the UN is a toothless tiger that no longer reflects the world’s power structure.
I thought the US was destroying it's chemical weapons?
As for land mines, so generous of countries that have no credible militaries to ban mines.
OTB
I think it was savvy timing on Ghaddafi's part. They had NO nuclear program and a rudimentary (at best) chemical program, so what do they lose by saying they'll give them up? Nothing, is what, but they gain plenty, and the Bush administration gets to strut and preen a bit, while the unwashed masses hail them for doing nothing.
Politics is truly amazing.
Politics is truly amazing.
Nah, I think Ghaddafi's / Qaddafi is just tired of all the confrontation and all the resources that hostility is draining from the country. If he can work something out with the US, he'll be able to allocate those resources and effort to infrastructure and health care.
Pakistan's Musharraf is doing the same thing by moving to normalize relations with India, the amount of money that these people spend on their respective militaries would be much better spent on civil services.
good move on both their parts, btw. Fighting is just tiring and expensive.
Pakistan's Musharraf is doing the same thing by moving to normalize relations with India, the amount of money that these people spend on their respective militaries would be much better spent on civil services.
good move on both their parts, btw. Fighting is just tiring and expensive.
