Libya 'to give up WMD'

Libya's leader Colonel Gaddafi has said hiscountry sought to develop weapons of mass destruction capabilities but will dismantle this programme completely, Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3335965.stm

Could this guy be any more starved for attention?

about $200,000,000,000.00 worth

only thing is Tony upstaged him and had his news conference 1st!!

makes it more likely they exist, imo.

I think this was mostly a British op.

Claims Lybia approached him & blair 9 mos. ago, volunteered dat; Wants to be a good (old) boy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/1975365.stm

BBC reporter says some nerve gas involved, and apparently some uranium enrichment - which has surprised the reporter.

I've never heard any of them utter a word about Libya or Qadafi. They sure don't emphasize it.

...if you have WMD's?"

(oops, sorry wrong Bolton :crazy:)

did it ever exist?

We will be stuck with this regime if the Dems. luck doesn't change. How can everything always turn up roses for these *&^%# ers.

Libya actually HAS WMD, and the Bushies never said anything. They weren't even in the axis of evil.

Plus, he's giving them up without a war.

Meanwhile, we went to war against the guy that did NOT have WMD.

Plus, there's that strange incident with the Spanish intercepting the shipment from Yemen to Libya, and the U.S. intervening to let the shipment go through. Wtf was that?

The poor Rethuglicans have to invade third world countries to prop up this White House sqatter frat boy. They're peddaling the propaganda so fast I'm worried we'll start seeing the Rockettes doing a dance line at the next Presidential "news" conference.

That freeper hammer scared the heck out of me.:P
I have been feeling down by all the supposed good news for this gang. This week especially, they get saddam and put some hurt on Dean and now this.:argh:

Tony got to break the news first. Payback for Bushco support.

as soon as possible.

Let's give credit where it's due. Good job, George. It's good to see Libya coming in from the cold. See what you can do when you negotiate? You're still getting our kids killed in Iraq over nothing. You're still in bed with Halliburton sneak theifs. You still need to go away.

adressing nation on this now.



edit:typo.

Ari the Liar said this time last year that no matter what Saddam says, we know he's lying.

But the murderous Moammar tells us that he's giving up his weapons "program" and we believe it? And how does he give up his "program"? Does he promise to only think about baseball instead?

I can't believe this. We're giving a terrorist MONEY.

'Cause it's the same cast with this crew. They never go away completely; they just go off-radar for awhile before reappearing.

:eyes:

We invaded IRAQ because.......?

you're going to see it.

9 months of negotiation... the iraq war as a backdrop... Bush's posturing re 'you're all next'... i think Bush is in the process of making a case that his 'pre-emptive' stance can have positive effects with regards to using his aggressive fp to squeeze some of the iffy states around the world. It may work poorly in places like NK, but it seems to have worked well in Libya.

i hope no candidates say something stupid.

"i think Bush is in the process of making a case that his 'pre-emptive' stance can have positive effects with regards to using his aggressive fp to squeeze some of the iffy states around the world."

That is exactly what Rove & Co. are trying to accomplish - and I think they will be quite successful selling this notion to the American public.

"i hope no candidates say something stupid."

Hahaha. We will see.

Imajika

I think this may be one they should show they can agree with. How about ONE issue that is devoid of cynicism from the candidates. If I hear Dean spin this Libya thing into some kind of negative I'm gonna cringe.

If he's fighting Leiberman's accusations of divisiveness, this is a perfect opportunity for diplomacy on his part. Just congratulate and be quiet.

Great now Israel, Iran, Syria & N Korea can do the same, chaa right and pigs might fly.

This sounds like something that the Bush administration asked Kadafi to do for them, in order to lend credibility to Bush's prior claims of WMD in Iraq.

:evilgrin:

Yeah, since Libya always does whatever we say...

Could it be that yanking Saddam out of a hole may have had a certain emotional impact on Kadafi and other aging dictators on our naughty list?

I really don't see the bad news in this, guys... sorry.

It makes Bush look like a master diplomat. When in actuality, there is probably some kind of bribe followed by hush money, followed by coverup. Our hero, yeah right.

good news dezined to help bsh and the press just gobbles it up like good servints.

This week has sucked! I cant hardly watch the news anymore without throwing something.

It makes Bush and Blair look like hypocrites and opportunists:

It's ok to go to war with Saddam who DOESN'T have WMD, but we negotiate with Libya which DOES have WMD? I don't think so.

Double standard all the way.

is that it sets a precedent. If Syria doesn't admit they have WMD, we can now use Libya's admission to justify invasion of Syria.

I think the reality is that Quadaffi may have see a time to take advantage of his past and Bush's present.

so if the fact that the UN inspectors couldn't find WMD was, according to rummy, proof that WMD was there, does gaddifi's admission they're dismantling a WMD program mean they have WMD as well?

i'm not sure that came out the way i wanted, but ya know what i mean...

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

though bad news for any anti-war candidates, and a benefit to Bush and Lieberman. I'm sure our conservative radio talk show "friends" will be closely monitoring these threads to use as ammo to damage our credibility...

http://www.slate.com/id/2092874/

its not that its bad news because it's good news - its just 'bad' news...

Great news indeed! It's only bad for those who claim that this doesn't make us any safer.

but what makes Moammar any more trustworthy than ol' Saddam?

Let's ask the families of Flight 103 whether they think Moammar is a better candidate for rehabilitation than Saddam?

Obviously, the inspection regime is the right way to handle things, as opposed to invasion. If only * could have been this forward-thinking nine months ago.

Please explain how this makes you and I safer.

Remember Lockerbie? Libya was going to sell these weapons to N Kore awho is working on delivery systems. They can get the missiles here now just not accurately.

THE US DOES NOT DEAL WITH TERRORISTS.

Isn't it wrong to give money to terrorists? I mean, the guy blew up three hundred people miles in the air over Scotland.

the invasion was still unnecessary. Gaddafi is every bit the "terrorist" that Saddam was. He sponsored terrorism more than Saddam. Saddam wanted to be treated as a leader of his country (just as most dictators) and would have come to the table for the same kind of assurances for lifting sanctions and making other deals.

Roveco is going to make the argument that the 'Mooo-mars' of the world come to the table because of Bush's 'tough stance' and actions in Iraq. Considering how long people'd beed trying to bring Libya to the table, and how now they're cutting the deal, they've got a good argument.

It looks like the news is playing it as a pro Bush win and what happened to sadam as the reason momar gave in. Whether we like it or not it's going to be played as proof tough action in Iraq has started reeping benefits...

yup... they're saying that it's a result of the war in iraq. making cause and effect arguments, now trashing Dean by saying 'good things are coming out of the war' etc...

the pubs are going to do a lot of backslapping over this

I'm asking because I tried to find actual prove that they did sponsor more terrorism then, let's say, the CIA or any other major Western nation.

I'm pretty sure for example that Libya was not involved in the Lockerbie bombing. The information I posses indicate that it was Iran together with Palestinian groups who brought the plane down as a retaliation for the deliberate attack of the US cruiser Vincennes on an Iranian airbus which killed 290 Iranian citizens, most of them pilgrims on their way to Mecca...

Libya eventually turned some or all of them over. Not only that but I believe that Libya addmitted that they took part in the bombing and offered a settlement package to the victims families.

world) invaded Iraq and killed 500 young Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens, when there were no weapons of mass destruction there -- they were in LIBYA?!?!

How in the fuck is this supposed to make the Chimp (sorry again) look good?

who the hell is Qadafi, where the hell is Libya, and if he was such a threat, how come the Bushies never mentioned it?

says US Administration points to his decision as evidence of the effectiveness of Iraq war.

that it was letting inspectors inspect its nuclear weapons program, the Chimp didn't jump up and down on television.

Nor, if memory serves, did he celebrate when Saddam Hussein himself tried to get the inspectors back in to Iraq to show yet again what we now know to be true -- that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.

world event it can. BBC update gives some credit to Mandella for meeting with Kaddafi a while back. I remember press reports about this when Libya agreed to turn over Lockerbie/UA bombers....

Sooner or later, one is going to get pissed off and bite.

Smirk seems determined to run all the countries in the Middle East. Then where will the dicktator of the world go??

What is the evidence that our invasion of Iraq, as opposed to international sanctions, caused Libya to abandon its weapons programs? Libya wasn't even on the "Axis of Evil" A-list, and as far as I know there have been no noises from the US Government about regime change in Libya specifically (contrast with Syria and Iran...), Gaddafi has been trying to re-ingratiate himself with the world community for some time now (my notion is that he would like to be taken seriously as an important African leader...), so I'm not convinced that this abandonment has much to do with Iraq. Sounds to me like more carrot, less stick in this case...Correlation isn't the same thing as causality...

-SM

"Simpson suggested that Colonel Gaddafi had been heavily influenced by a visit from Nelson Mandela, at a time when he was shunned by the rest of the world."

Certainly more believable than being convinced by Bush and his hanging posse...

the value of international good will (and pressure).

B*sboy just don't get it.

Notice little mention by Blair of the US role in any of this...maybe's he's listening to UK and EU opinion that braod based diplomatic engagement can produce results.

is that moo-mar contacted the west in march of last year (right around the time the tanks started rolling). Considering how long people'd been trying to get international inspections, and elimination of any WMD construction etc... and the fact that UK officials believed Libya was close to obtaining a nuke capability before the deal... i think we're going to see Bush try hard to make the connection.

I suppose it's possible the sanctions were the primary cause - and i personally agree with your logic - but Bush is going to make the circumstantial argument and, truth or not, it's likely going to stick.

My notion is that Gaddafi may just be taking advantage of the Iraq situation - let's face it, we're not going to peremptorily invade Libya anytime soon - our military is already stretched too thin in Iraq. I seriously doubt Gaddafi feared that we were going to launch an amphibious invasion to regime change him...Plus, Libya has been pretty quiet for about 10+ years now, at least regarding countries we care about (There was that whole Chad thing, but nobody cares about Chad, except the French...)

Gaddafi wants to be a major player in Africa - it's my understanding that Libya gives a lot of aid and military support to other nations in the region. (Whether or not he has greater intentions of being a shit-disturber in the region remains to be seen...) Maybe he just saw the Iraq situation as a good time to suck up to the international community a bit and take the heat off - possibly a canny move on his part... (Is this the case of a semi-pariah state half-assedly developing a WMD program, simply to abandon it at a politically expedient time?)

Bush can say what he wants - how many Americans, victims families not withstanding, even remember Lockerbie or could find Libya on a map? When North Korea starts acting all lovey-dovey, then I'll be impressed...

-SM

will be allowing the weapon destruction, the facility inspection, etc. to be televised for political consumption, giving the story extended legs.

This whole thing smells like a paper-mache Thanksgiving turkey cooked up by Karl Rove. Mission accomplished! Why didn't I hear about any Libian weapons programs in the news during the last three years?

go there after...or was it before...he met with Saddam all those years ago...?

...for Moammar. He can cool his jets for a few years, make some money off US and European deals, and finally get enough capitol to get back in the terror game.

Good for him in the long run, and Bush in the short. Bad for everyone else.

And I'm asking again: Is there any proof for the allegation that Libya did sponsor more terrorism then, let's say, the CIA or any other major Western nation?

I'm pretty sure for example that Libya was not involved in the Lockerbie bombing. The information I posses indicate that it was Iran together with Palestinian groups who brought the plane down as a retaliation for the deliberate attack of the US cruiser Vincennes on an Iranian airbus which killed 290 Iranian citizens, most of them pilgrims on their way to Mecca...

:) Why'd Libya cop to Lockerbie, then?

Quaddafi took the blame for Lockerbie, because he actually had no other chance to stop sanctions against his country. That's how international "law" is defined these days: Either you comply with the views of the only remaining superpower on this planet or you get a taste of his mighty military firepower.

But back to the facts: I looked for some reports I read some time ago and found the following links which show rather coherently that Libya was not involved in the Lockerbie bombing:

http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky3.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/Libya.asp#lockerbie

except it didn't get the sanctions lifted. This might; see my other post in this thread.

I have to suspect that the fact that Qaddafy paid reparations to the families of the Lockerbie victims gives some hint of the fact that evidence of his support for terrorists does exist.

the idea that he was suddenly swayed by some percieved threat of invasion a la Iraq. Everyone reads the world press and he knows we have our hands full w/Iraq and Afghanistan deployments. This decision has been evolving over time as the hand over of the Lockerbie/UA bombers suggests.

ed sp.

compare it to the atrocities the West has conducted. These crimes (if it's true then these are atrocities, of course) pale in comparison with what the British secret service, the CIA and I fear also the secret service of my government has conducted over the years.

Just let me quote one example from one of the links I posted above:

"If Iran was responsible, it's quite likely that they would have sought "plausible deniability" - the kind of service that the CIA provides for the White House - and used agents, as the CIA apparently did when it arranged the worst act of international terrorism in Beirut in 1985, a car bombing outside a Mosque, timed for when people would be leaving, which killed 80 people and wounded unknown numbers of others - a US atrocity and therefore not a crime, by the usual conventions. Possibly Iran might have even chosen a Libyan agent. But this is all speculation. Probably we will never know, since these are not the kinds of topics that are appropriate for inquiry."

http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky3.htm

Malta and Libya are finally getting together on exploiting the areas of the continental shelf between them -- used to be they shot at each other when someone starter drilling there. Gotta get all this to market -- but the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) makes that impossible.

But wait! Japan wants to work with Iran to develop the Azadegan oil field, a little less than 3 billion barrels' worth. Once again, ILSA getting in the way, since the US might sanction Japan.

Wait, did I actually say "the US might sanction Japan"? Sorry.

It's all a money game, folks. Look for the ILSA to drop faster than the Constitution.

Jim Lehrer's News Hour. PBS showed junior speech for five minutes and I had to mute the set.

Can't help but believe it is a big game the Arabs are playing with us.

Unlike Saddam, Ghadafi knows when to shut up. Losing family members to an air strike can have that effect. Also, he may be a tyrant he isn't stupid like Saddam- he knows better than to get into a confrontation that he can't win.

We're not pretending we're unaware of PNAC now, are we?

"The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'...It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.
...
The PNAC report also:
...
pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'..."

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/09/01/libya.uta.facts.reut/index.html

What compensation has Libya offered?

On April 30, 2003, the Libyan government accepted responsibility for Lockerbie and set up a fund to compensate victims' families. Compensation could reach $10 million per victim.

Under the deal an initial $4 million would be paid for each victim once U.N. sanctions are ended.

That would be followed by another $4 million if the United States lifts its sanctions and by $2 million if it drops Libya from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.

If Washington does not take these steps within eight months, the families would receive only $1 million more, bringing the total to $5 million per victim.



I suppose it would look so much better and even maybe give * a great big old talking point about how his war in Iraq is convincing evildoers everywhere to roll over, if we traded off some nasty 'WMD' for lifting sanctions instead of just making sure victim's families get their due.

Im going to the movies.

Bush looks good, winning war on Terror.

But is it really?

All the terrorists have learned is to look good and go under the Broadwalk at the same time, Gimme a break, we are NOT safer/

If they say that, then the question is::

Can the Pubs Gaurantee no terror attacks in the future?? Of course not/

So then, we are NOT SAFER are we? Who will make the odds? Ah yess, why don we go ask those pesky insurance guys and their actuaries? They know how to do it.

Its a clever Con Job. I don trust both sides.

What kind of deal did poodle boy & * cut with Gadhafi? Out of the blue Gadhafi goes straight? I'm not buying it.

As I explained in two postings yesterday (see above) I found almost *no* evidence for wrongdoing of Quaddafi. For all I know today Libya was not responsible for Lockerbie.
Maybe he was responsible for an attack on the disco LaBelle. Could (!) be, as this happened after the US bombarded Libya and killed, next to many civilians, Quaddafi's daughter.

My impression is that those who call Libya a rogue state are falling for propaganda.
Just have a look at the links I provided above and judge for yourself. I read out of curiousity (because 20 yeaars ago the media told us here that Libya was resonsible for the LaBalle bombing) a lot of reports about Libya. And my conclusion is that Libya is a rather civilized state that cares a lot about its citizens.

Just look at the statistical data concerning children mortality, peoples's incomes (especially before sanctions). It seems that even while sanctions are/were active Libya provides a lot of benefits for its people. That's at least my impression.

not the other way round.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1653848.stm

Timeline:
5 April 1986: A bomb explodes in the La Belle disco
15 April 1986: US planes bomb Libya

Other things Libya has done wrong:
Murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside Libyan embassy in London, 1984
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Lockerbie/Story/0,2763,206627,00.html

Shipping arms and explosives to the IRA, first in 1973, then after 1986:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/northern_ireland/1482426.stm

Let's say Libya does give up some so called weapons of mass destruction (e.g. mustard gas). The U.S./U.K. could not be sure they gave them all up, thus planting the notion that an invasion might not be a cakewalk. At the same time, Libya gets some good worldwide P.R. out of the move. Just a thought.

yet another enemy vanquished! Tomorrow: Luxembourg!

Like most other nations, Libya's chemical weapons program is probably more advanced than their nuclear program. So, Libya will soon join the OPCW. This is the Organization of UN inspectors whose aim it is to ensure all members comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention.

www.opcw.org

"Members" means countries. Libya will make it 158.

Bush can make a big deal out of this because America is ignorant of Bush's history with the OPCW and weapons treaties in general.

1 - Bush's machine had the OPCW Technical Secretariat, Bustani, fired. Bustani had tried to get Iraq to join the OPCW, an event then dismissed by Bushies and other neocons as "appeasing." Somehow, when it comes to Libya, they've managed not only to flip-flop on this issue, but also to play up the "appeasement" thing as a victory for Bush's reckless idiocy.

2 - Bush rejected a similar treaty aimed at biological programs. WHy? Because Bush doesn't like weapons treaties.

After all, it was during CLINTON that the OPCW and the Chemical Weapons Convention became so relevant in these matters. American conservatives generally hate treaties, and this Libya thing is (a) not a big deal, and (b) just the opposite of what neocons generally strive for.

After it becomes a member of the OPCW, Libya will be able to apply for one inspector position. Ultimately, through this inspector, Libya will know just how many chemical weapons other nations have. We, meaning the good old USA, have the most (in case you didn't already know that).

Jr

They sure have more WMD than any other country and the most dangerous "leadership" for this planet.

How could this have slipped by our crakerjack reporters in the media?

tenatively titled-- "Rebel to Asskisser:--a 12-step program for the new millenium"

It will be sold at your local gas station any day now.

:shrug:

Obviously the Scrub was ignorant of Gaddafi or he would have been whining about him a long time ago. It actually seems odd that he never tried to cash in on Gaddafi because that was Reagan's boogeyman. Poppy's boogeyman got ALL the attention.

Gaddafi has tried more than any non-allied leader to work with the U.S. Maybe he just didn't want to be blasted, who knows.

Now I have a question for folks here because I see some people going after * both ways on this. OK, he got them to give up WMD and did so peacefully. Why are people complaining about that? Would you prefer another war?

Personally, I am happy it turned out this way. No war needed, thank you.

http://www.sundayherald.com/38834
it is a paper out of scotland that had some surprising answers.What do you think?Ahe'ee Nehemah

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the USA gave up its WMD peacefully?

Why should the U.S.? What about China, Russia, France?

The world looks to us for direction. Our leader has a vision from God to lead the world to peace.
The United States should be the first to disarm. We must lead not lay back like a coward, 'eh?

America must show the way to the world by setting an example, right?

I don't see why we should have bio or chem -- except enough to study in a lab to figure out ways around them, but nuclear weapons are a necessary part of the arsenal.

You can bet that if FOXCNNMSNBC has not been blasting it to the far ends of the galaxy then it's not even on the Son-of-a-Bush's radar.

In this case it looks like long-term sanctions worked and the SOB is simply in the right place at the right time to take the credit. Like Reagan and the Berlin Wall/collapse of the USSR.

They believe in war, not sanctions.

It seems some here pretty much want to blame him for both sides of this situation.

I just am trying to figure out what they really expect.

He's just another murderous freak.

My opinion is based on articles like these:

http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky3.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/Libya.asp#lockerbie

Why didn't they do that with Iraq?

Strategically without interest for the USA

Posting posts saying they are depressed, trying to make DU look bad and cheerleading Bush's administration.

He's been active in the WMD arena for some time.

He knows some of his WMDs are in the hands of terrorist organizations. He may have even given them WMDs.

He knows something bad is going to happen real soon.

He wants to build bridges now so he doesn't get bombed/invaded/killed in retaliation.