Full Version: Moammar Gadhafi urges for the end of all WMD
Whatever we put in this guys' drinkin water, lol ,we gotta use it more often...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/27...sels/index.html
The entire article is rather interesting. It will be quite so to also see how Libya's future is played out. So...
[B] 1. Can Ghadafi finally become a trusted member of the international community, now that he's disclosed his WMD programs and is now seeking peace?
2. What was his motivation to make a comlete 180 degree change from the old Ghadafi. It can't just be the threat of war with the US, can it?
Peronally, the sudden change is a little scary. I would see what he does with this 'opportunity' in the next few years and then see what relationships we can have with them.
As for his motivation, I mean, at any time since the Reagan days, we could of bombed his behind into the stone age. So he's obviously used to that threat. Don't get me wrong, I think the war in Iraq convinced him to give up his WMD, but why the appearance of a man of peace? I think there is something else. Lol, I couldn't tell you what (hence the drinking water bit), but there's something more there.
Of course, thats just my opinion... I could be wrong.
edited for spelling.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/27...sels/index.html
QUOTE
BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has appealed to all nations to follow his country's example and eliminate all weapons of mass destruction.
"This is a true opportunity for real historic peace," Gadhafi told journalists in Brussels Tuesday during his first official visit to Europe in more than 15 years.
"We say to America and we declare to Europe, we say confidently and we say it loudly, we should not waste this opportunity."
Speaking through a translator, Gadhafi said: "Libya calls on all countries, from America to China, to discard and get rid of all WMD. Libya has become an example to be followed...
"Libya did its duty when duty had to be done by force," Gadhafi said. "Libya fought America and shot down its pilots and aircraft, but now time has come to reap the fruit and the seeds of this armed struggle, namely peace and stability.
"Britain and America, who fought us one day, are now looking for investments, cooperation, trade, friendship between us," he said.
History has proven there is no gain to be found in fighting, he said, calling on all countries to make the Mediterranean "free of all military fleets and maneuvers."
"This is a true opportunity for real historic peace," Gadhafi told journalists in Brussels Tuesday during his first official visit to Europe in more than 15 years.
"We say to America and we declare to Europe, we say confidently and we say it loudly, we should not waste this opportunity."
Speaking through a translator, Gadhafi said: "Libya calls on all countries, from America to China, to discard and get rid of all WMD. Libya has become an example to be followed...
"Libya did its duty when duty had to be done by force," Gadhafi said. "Libya fought America and shot down its pilots and aircraft, but now time has come to reap the fruit and the seeds of this armed struggle, namely peace and stability.
"Britain and America, who fought us one day, are now looking for investments, cooperation, trade, friendship between us," he said.
History has proven there is no gain to be found in fighting, he said, calling on all countries to make the Mediterranean "free of all military fleets and maneuvers."
The entire article is rather interesting. It will be quite so to also see how Libya's future is played out. So...
[B] 1. Can Ghadafi finally become a trusted member of the international community, now that he's disclosed his WMD programs and is now seeking peace?
2. What was his motivation to make a comlete 180 degree change from the old Ghadafi. It can't just be the threat of war with the US, can it?
Peronally, the sudden change is a little scary. I would see what he does with this 'opportunity' in the next few years and then see what relationships we can have with them.
As for his motivation, I mean, at any time since the Reagan days, we could of bombed his behind into the stone age. So he's obviously used to that threat. Don't get me wrong, I think the war in Iraq convinced him to give up his WMD, but why the appearance of a man of peace? I think there is something else. Lol, I couldn't tell you what (hence the drinking water bit), but there's something more there.
Of course, thats just my opinion... I could be wrong.
edited for spelling.
1. Can Ghadafi finally become a trusted member of the international community, now that he's disclosed his WMD programs and is now seeking peace?
I'm not sure Ghaddafi's ever been the real threat he has always been made out to be. Libya simply never had the resources to be anything but an irritant.
That said, he took it upon himself to support terrorism against the West, and I think the sanctions and actions against him were justified in that regard.
Given recent developments I do believe that Ghaddafi is being forthcoming in his overtures to the west..
2. What was his motivation to make a comlete 180 degree change from the old Ghadafi. It can't just be the threat of war with the US, can it?
No it isn't. Ghaddafi himself gave some very telling interviews a few years back. He basically put forward the notion that Libya would no longer consider itself an Arab nation, but hence forth would be considered African. The reasons he gave for this were that certain other Arab leaders had 'tricked him' by playing on the idea of Arabic fraternity, encouraging Libya to act against the west, whilst they themselves did secret deals with the very enemy they privately spoke out against.
Ghaddafi, to my knowledge, never said who these leaders were, but I am guessing Egypt and Saudi Arabia since he made great play of the fact that Libya had been blocked from using its great oil reserves whilst these other nations openly dealt with the very enemies they were calling on their Arab brothers to destroy.
Peronally, the sudden change is a little scary. I would see what he does with this 'oppertunity' in the next few years and then see what relationships we can have with them.
I don't think the change is really all that great. I think whats happened is Ghaddafi has taken advantage of the current situation to basically change sides. Don't be surprised if in the next few years we see even greater concessions to Libya.
I'm not sure Ghaddafi's ever been the real threat he has always been made out to be. Libya simply never had the resources to be anything but an irritant.
That said, he took it upon himself to support terrorism against the West, and I think the sanctions and actions against him were justified in that regard.
Given recent developments I do believe that Ghaddafi is being forthcoming in his overtures to the west..
2. What was his motivation to make a comlete 180 degree change from the old Ghadafi. It can't just be the threat of war with the US, can it?
No it isn't. Ghaddafi himself gave some very telling interviews a few years back. He basically put forward the notion that Libya would no longer consider itself an Arab nation, but hence forth would be considered African. The reasons he gave for this were that certain other Arab leaders had 'tricked him' by playing on the idea of Arabic fraternity, encouraging Libya to act against the west, whilst they themselves did secret deals with the very enemy they privately spoke out against.
Ghaddafi, to my knowledge, never said who these leaders were, but I am guessing Egypt and Saudi Arabia since he made great play of the fact that Libya had been blocked from using its great oil reserves whilst these other nations openly dealt with the very enemies they were calling on their Arab brothers to destroy.
Peronally, the sudden change is a little scary. I would see what he does with this 'oppertunity' in the next few years and then see what relationships we can have with them.
I don't think the change is really all that great. I think whats happened is Ghaddafi has taken advantage of the current situation to basically change sides. Don't be surprised if in the next few years we see even greater concessions to Libya.
QUOTE(Titus @ Apr 27 2004, 01:37 PM)
1. Can Ghadafi finally become a trusted member of the international community, now that he's disclosed his WMD programs and is now seeking peace?
I don't think so. Not yet at least. He has to have something under his sleeves
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Apr 27 2004, 04:40 PM)
I don't think so. Not yet at least. He has to have something under his sleeves
GoAmerica - you should know better than to post one-liners. Please bring some substance to the debates.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Apr 27 2004, 03:40 PM)
QUOTE(Titus @ Apr 27 2004, 01:37 PM)
1. Can Ghadafi finally become a trusted member of the international community, now that he's disclosed his WMD programs and is now seeking peace?
I don't think so. Not yet at least. He has to have something under his sleeves
Would you care to offer any proof of this? There is an overwhelming body of evidence that change of some sort has occurred, as he has taken on the role of peace-maker in recent years (and before the War on Terror you guys should remember). Has there been any evidence that he hasn't?
QUOTE(Titus @ Apr 27 2004, 12:37 PM)
2. What was his motivation to make a comlete 180 degree change from the old Ghadafi. It can't just be the threat of war with the US, can it?
Peronally, the sudden change is a little scary. I would see what he does with this 'oppertunity' in the next few years and then see what relationships we can have with them.
The guy has been in charge there since 1969. Age changes a person, and maybe he's reached the end of his fire-brand days. You are not of the same mind when you are 30 compared to say-60. Of course, I'm not saying that he is experrience a change like say Paul, but it is something that we should definitely strive to meet him half-way on, as well as encourage others to do likewise.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 27 2004, 05:54 PM)
The guy has been in charge there since 1969. Age changes a person, and maybe he's reached the end of his fire-brand days. You are not of the same mind when you are 30 compared to say-60. Of course, I'm not saying that he is experrience a change like say Paul, but it is something that we should definitely strive to meet him half-way on, as well as encourage others to do likewise.
QUOTE
Once you've been a demon can you become an angel?
I say no.
For now, for always and forever, Muhammar Gadhafi has been a evil man and for all this crap about how he has changed for the better I offer this sentence in reply:
On December 21, 1988, Pan-Am flight 103 explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 259 men, women and children.
Never forget evil. Never forgive evil.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Lockerbie/0%2C27...31005%2C00.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/headpage.html
Gadhafi is such an interesting little booger. He capitulates to weapons inspections for Bush, and for the wonderful PR he's provided Bush he's suddenly a SWELL GUY and the foreign community is now permitted to receive the Prodigal Son with open arms.
I don't think so. Same for Moammar telling the Chinese that they should get rid of their WMDs. Like the Chinese are going to listen to him now that he's joined the choir.
Yeah, that's the ticket! But don't trust this new "believer."
I don't think so. Same for Moammar telling the Chinese that they should get rid of their WMDs. Like the Chinese are going to listen to him now that he's joined the choir.
Yeah, that's the ticket! But don't trust this new "believer."
QUOTE(Titus @ Apr 27 2004, 02:37 PM)
Personally, the sudden change is a little scary. I would see what he does with this 'opportunity' in the next few years and then see what relationships we can have with them.
As for his motivation, I mean, at any time since the Reagan days, we could of bombed his behind into the stone age. So he's obviously used to that threat. Don't get me wrong, I think the war in Iraq convinced him to give up his WMD, but why the appearance of a man of peace? I think there is something else. Lol, I couldn't tell you what (hence the drinking water bit), but there's something more there.
Of course, thats just my opinion... I could be wrong.
As for his motivation, I mean, at any time since the Reagan days, we could of bombed his behind into the stone age. So he's obviously used to that threat. Don't get me wrong, I think the war in Iraq convinced him to give up his WMD, but why the appearance of a man of peace? I think there is something else. Lol, I couldn't tell you what (hence the drinking water bit), but there's something more there.
Of course, thats just my opinion... I could be wrong.
Yep, you could be wrong....
Libya's rehabilitation in the works since early '90s U.S. lifts sanctions as Gadhafi agrees to abandon WMD
QUOTE
The White House has defined Libya's decision in December to give up weapons of mass destruction as one of its biggest foreign-policy achievements and a byproduct of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Speaking at a fundraising event in Coral Gables, Fla., on Friday, after lifting most trade restrictions on Libya, President Bush said, ''Because we acted, Libya got the message, and it now voluntarily decided to disarm.''
Sure SOUNDS like Bush got to him, doesn't it? But that's where reality comes in....
QUOTE
Interviews with a half-dozen current and former U.S. officials, Libya experts and a Libyan-American close to Gadhafi's family show that Libya began discussing giving up weapons of mass destruction in 1992, when its arsenal was rudimentary. And it may have bought nuclear technology just to have something to give up in final negotiations.
''Gadhafi felt that the Americans wanted some more to get them interested, so he put some more on the table,'' says Mohammed Bukhres, a Libyan-American with close ties to Gadhafi's sons. ''We tried for a long time to get relations with the United States. Don't let anyone tell you it's because of the invasion of Iraq.''
''Gadhafi felt that the Americans wanted some more to get them interested, so he put some more on the table,'' says Mohammed Bukhres, a Libyan-American with close ties to Gadhafi's sons. ''We tried for a long time to get relations with the United States. Don't let anyone tell you it's because of the invasion of Iraq.''
A long time. How long?
QUOTE
Gadhafi has shown remarkable consistency over the past decade in his efforts to reconcile with the United States. He began seeking to restore ties shortly after two Libyan intelligence operatives were indicted in 1991 for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. The bombing of the jet over Scotland in 1988 killed 270 people, including 189 Americans.
<snip>
A secret communications channel was finally established under the Clinton administration. Two assistant secretaries of State -- Martin Indyk and Edward Walker -- held five meetings from May 1999 through early 2000 with Libyans, including the head of Libyan external intelligence, Indyk and Walker revealed this month.
<snip>
''We went with a long laundry list of things we expected the Libyans to do to 'graduate' from U.S. sanctions,'' Indyk told the Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank, on April 7. ''They were prepared to accept pretty much all the requirements we had.''
In their second meeting, he says, Libya agreed to sign an international agreement renouncing chemical weapons and to submit to inspections. ''At that point, as far we knew, they didn't have a nuclear program,'' Indyk says. Walker says negotiations were suspended in 2000 for fear they would leak during the presidential campaign.
<snip>
A secret communications channel was finally established under the Clinton administration. Two assistant secretaries of State -- Martin Indyk and Edward Walker -- held five meetings from May 1999 through early 2000 with Libyans, including the head of Libyan external intelligence, Indyk and Walker revealed this month.
<snip>
''We went with a long laundry list of things we expected the Libyans to do to 'graduate' from U.S. sanctions,'' Indyk told the Middle East Institute, a Washington think tank, on April 7. ''They were prepared to accept pretty much all the requirements we had.''
In their second meeting, he says, Libya agreed to sign an international agreement renouncing chemical weapons and to submit to inspections. ''At that point, as far we knew, they didn't have a nuclear program,'' Indyk says. Walker says negotiations were suspended in 2000 for fear they would leak during the presidential campaign.
The Bush team picked the negotiations back up after 9/11, found that Libya only had rudimentary chem weapons and an old Russian research reactor. To sweeten the pot, Libya also bought some centrifuges from the now-disbanded Pakistani nuclear network, but many of those were still in their boxes when they were turned over to the USA.
Back to your questions:
1. Can Ghadafi finally become a trusted member of the international community, now that he's disclosed his WMD programs and is now seeking peace?
A good cynical rule of thumb: No leader of any nation can be "trusted" to do anything that's not in their own self-interest.
2. What was his motivation to make a comlete 180 degree change from the old Ghadafi. It can't just be the threat of war with the US, can it?
Nope. He really has laid low since Reagan dropped bombs on Tripoli years ago. His motivation was probably to get out from under the sanctions we've enforced for years and maybe he's concerned for the country it appears he plans to leave to his sons. Hard to know for sure.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 27 2004, 05:42 PM)
Once you've been a demon can you become an angel?
I say no.
You bring up a good point about the Pan-Am flight. I could be wrong(after all, like the president, I'm not a "fact-checker"
) but the Libyan government agreed to pay compensation to the families of the victims on the Pan-Am 103 flight. I could also be wrong, but weren't the individuals involved in that episode handed over and tried? I believe that one was innocent and the other had a guilty verdict of some kind. I don't mean to diminish the memory of those who died, if I had a relative on the plane, I would be very upset, even unto this day. At the same time, it's notable that he's tried to make amends for past misdeeds. 
His country is dirt poor and he has been an international pariah.
The advantages of being pro-west, anti WMD are as follows:
1) Western aid
2) Eventually be able to participate in organisation such as the WTO, which has had a beneficial effect on the economies of all the countries in it.
3) He gets invited to all the really good dinners
4) Much lower likelihood of sudden regime change
The disadvantages
1) Being harassed to become more democratic
2) Libyans will become more exposed to free countries in the West and demand more freedoms
3) Constant pressure to stop torturing people
4) Cooler relations with anti-Western countries (although that is less of a problem now than during the Cold War).
Given his age, i think he's looking towards the days when he gets a bit too old to run a country and is suddenly converting to 'our' side. That and Iraq showed him how much trouble you can get into for supporting terrorists etc.
But a nice guy? A trustworthy guy?
No
He's scum.....ask anyone from Lockerbie.
The advantages of being pro-west, anti WMD are as follows:
1) Western aid
2) Eventually be able to participate in organisation such as the WTO, which has had a beneficial effect on the economies of all the countries in it.
3) He gets invited to all the really good dinners
4) Much lower likelihood of sudden regime change
The disadvantages
1) Being harassed to become more democratic
2) Libyans will become more exposed to free countries in the West and demand more freedoms
3) Constant pressure to stop torturing people
4) Cooler relations with anti-Western countries (although that is less of a problem now than during the Cold War).
Given his age, i think he's looking towards the days when he gets a bit too old to run a country and is suddenly converting to 'our' side. That and Iraq showed him how much trouble you can get into for supporting terrorists etc.
But a nice guy? A trustworthy guy?
No
He's scum.....ask anyone from Lockerbie.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 27 2004, 09:54 PM)
QUOTE(Titus @ Apr 27 2004, 12:37 PM)
2. What was his motivation to make a comlete 180 degree change from the old Ghadafi. It can't just be the threat of war with the US, can it?
Peronally, the sudden change is a little scary. I would see what he does with this 'oppertunity' in the next few years and then see what relationships we can have with them.
The guy has been in charge there since 1969. Age changes a person, and maybe he's reached the end of his fire-brand days. You are not of the same mind when you are 30 compared to say-60. Of course, I'm not saying that he is experrience a change like say Paul, but it is something that we should definitely strive to meet him half-way on, as well as encourage others to do likewise.
I have to say I tend to agree.
I think he's getting to the stage where he's looking at his time in charge and seeing that it hasn't brought any benefit to him or to Libya, and that he's maybe trying to leave some kind of legacy that doesn't involve the words "terrorism", "pariah", "tyrant" or "extremist".
As for Lockerbie, I have my doubts that Libya was involved at all. There is credible evidence I've read (hard copy, I'm afraid - published in Private Eye magazine) that it was Syrian terrorists that were behind it, and the political expediency of the time led the British and American governments to blame Libya. They resisted this for many years, but gave up one of their own citizens and paid out compensation when they realised that sanctions would be continued until they did so.
Even if it really was the Libyans who blew up the Lockerbie plane, I don't think we should begrudge Gaddafi his belated moves to do the right thing, any more than we should with ex-terrorists in Northern Ireland.
The process of making peace requires that we and our enemy stop fighting, and they only stop being our enemy after the guns fall silent. If we demand that they stop being our enemy but we intend to still treat them as our enemy, we shouldn't be surprised if they decide to keep fighting. This kind of thinking only ends up with a fight to the death, from which nobody benefits.
QUOTE(Julian @ Apr 28 2004, 07:15 AM)
I think he's getting to the stage where he's looking at his time in charge and seeing that it hasn't brought any benefit to him or to Libya, and that he's maybe trying to leave some kind of legacy that doesn't involve the words "terrorism", "pariah", "tyrant" or "extremist".
I'm not sure about the "Libya wasn't involved" thing, but I do know that some people tend to mellow out as they get older. We could take advantage of his desire to leave something behind in terms of a legacy. Perhaps Tripoli could be turned into the Geneva or Paris of Africa where peace treaties are signed, and international leaders and diplomats meet to resolve problems. I believe that he would jump at such a chance to make a difference.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Apr 27 2004, 11:42 PM)
For now, for always and forever, Muhammar Gadhafi has been a evil man and for all this crap about how he has changed for the better I offer this sentence in reply:
On December 21, 1988, Pan-Am flight 103 explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 259 men, women and children.
Never forget evil. Never forgive evil.
On December 21, 1988, Pan-Am flight 103 explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 259 men, women and children.
Never forget evil. Never forgive evil.
In response to that, perhaps it might be worthwhile to mention:
"On February 21, 1973, an Israeli aircraft shot down a peaceful Libyan civil Boeing 727 airliner killing the French pilot and crew and 106 passengers"
"On July 3, 1988, the United States warship USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger jet over the Persian Gulf, destroying the European-made A300 Airbus and killing 290 people."
Don't get me wrong, I think this and the Locherbie incident are not the same thing: the first situation was never explained, Israel justified it by saying the liner deviated slightly from its course and was drifting over occupied territory. That does not explain shooting down a commercial aircraft with registered flight plan with no warning mind you...
The second incident was apparently a mistake, the captain of the Vincennes apparently mistook the huge airbus passenger liner for an F-14 fighter.
None the less, I find it interesting how some people are so willing to ignore or forget evil in one person's name, and condemn it eternally in another.
Just something to think about.
QUOTE
None the less, I find it interesting how some people are so willing to ignore or forget evil in one person's name, and condemn it eternally in another.
It's rather simple IMO. It's all about intent. If you are responsible for a miscalculation or an accident, then that calls for one condition of blame or reparation.
For those who by malicious intent, plot to kill civilians, then that of course calls for an entirely different repsonse. Dare I say, calling them evil could be a rational attitude.
While I am not SURE that Ghadafi has DEFINATELY changed I think that it is a definate possibility. In fact to publically admit he was duped by Arab nations is a substantial step foreward. This could also signal a shift amonst the people of Lybia and not just in Ghadafi. Has Ghadafi done bad things - yes - Of that I am well assured. I think Ghadafi and Lybia could become strong member of the international community.
I think that it is important to remember that a switch like Ghadafi's switch is not unprecedented. Malcolm X changed truly and radically, why is it impossible to believe Ghadafi has done similarly?
I think any move TOWARD peace and in favor of NO WMD is positive. It is sad that we live in a world where one of the stongest voices now active on the subject is not a "superpower" but the country that use to sponsor terrorism.
I think that it is important to remember that a switch like Ghadafi's switch is not unprecedented. Malcolm X changed truly and radically, why is it impossible to believe Ghadafi has done similarly?
I think any move TOWARD peace and in favor of NO WMD is positive. It is sad that we live in a world where one of the stongest voices now active on the subject is not a "superpower" but the country that use to sponsor terrorism.
No, Kaddafi didnt "lay-low" after Reagan bombed him... he then proceeded to bomb Pan Am 103 (to which we didnt respond militarily). Reagan bombed Kaddafi for a disco bombing years earlier. Really, Kaddafi had the last shot at us.
Hes an interesting character and more Castro than Bin Ladin or other crazy islamic type. As far as his recent efforts at mending fences he acknowledged himself recently that repairing relations with the West has alot to do with servicing and upgrading the libyan oil infrastructure.
Hes an interesting character and more Castro than Bin Ladin or other crazy islamic type. As far as his recent efforts at mending fences he acknowledged himself recently that repairing relations with the West has alot to do with servicing and upgrading the libyan oil infrastructure.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.