Libya to Allow Weapons Inspections
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106263,00.html


Friday, December 19, 2003

WASHINGTON — President Bush said Friday that Libya will allow international inspectors to check for all major weapons in the country, a step he said would be "of great importance" in stopping weapons of mass destruction in a global fight against terrorism.

Bush said the war in Iraq and efforts to stop North Korea's nuclear program had sent a clear message to countries such as Libya that they must abandon weapons programs.

Libya's decision to dismantle its weapons program was first announced Friday in London by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Bush spoke minutes later, saying if Libya followed through with its commitment, "its good faith can be returned."

In an apparent warning to Iran and North Korea, Bush said, "I hope other leaders will find an example" in Libya's decision to acknowledge that it had tried to develop such weapons and in its commitment to end the effort.

Qaddafi is old, tired, and really trying to rehabilitate himself and his country so that he'll be well remembered. I don't think he'll do all that great a job of it, but still, kudos for trying.

It'd be nice to see Lybia get it's shit together and maybe follow Qaddafi with a republic, maybe even one that is either not muslim or at least not Islamist.

Gee, I wonder if Libya would have done this if the US and UK didn't invade Iraq.

hmmmmmmmm?

Saddam being captured is probably going to have a domino effect througout the world. I hope this is only the first of many!

Here is what he is agreeing to do.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106270,00.html

Libya has disclosed to the U.S. and U.K. significant information on its nuclear and chemical weapons programs, as well as on its biological and ballistic missile-related activities: Libya has also pledged to:



— Eliminate all elements of its chemical and nuclear weapons programs;

— Declare all nuclear activities to the IAEA;

— Eliminate ballistic missiles beyond 300 km range, with a payload of 500kg;

— Accept international inspections to ensure Libya's complete adherence to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and sign the Additional Protocol;

— Eliminate all chemical weapons stocks and munitions, and accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention;

— Allow immediate inspections and monitoring to verify all of these actions

I hope that this inspires other "rogue nations" to do this kind of thing. It would be great to manage a diplomatic solution after making an example of two countries so that we don't have to send our troops out there to be killed.

I hope that Libya cooperates fully, it would suck if some shit went down where they ended going back on their word and some conflict came about from it.

i think its fantastic that Qaddafi has gone public with Libya's decision to abandon its programmes for developing weapons of mass destruction

i think this promise should be made by all nations of the world - and yes that does include the US

if i may also address something that MrSelfDestruct has brought up

you dont have to send your troops any where - it is not your responibility - what is the US going to do when some one come to take away their weapsons of mass distruction

ill tell ya - they are going to use them

now thats scarier than an old man who is only making this promise because he need cash to create a legacy

Don't hold your breath on that one. :rolleyes:

Do as we say, not as we do.

And Howard Dean continues to say that the world is not safer. And France has the nerve to say " See how it can be done without violence?"

Two deluded statements.

Like hell, god damn France, hahaha.


If anyone ever tries to invade the United States, they'll be in for a world of hurt. You need to 1, defeat the finest military to ever exist. You need to 2, deal with the fact that you're occupying a country of well over 70 million irate gun owners, and finally 3, understand that we've got fucking subs roaming the seas with nukes on them.

In short, to those who want to invade America, suck it. Indeed, they can suck it hard and sexily, just the way their mother does.

Well, I'd assume the state (or coalition) would probably be comparable in military might before it ventured such an attack.

Hegemonic War Theory deals with such an event. Hegemony cannot be sustained as it is expensive and detoriates over time. Eventually another state will rise, creating a bipolar system and then the hegemonic power will lash out in order to maintain its declining status. It's happened with every empire in history (their decline that is), and it will happen with the US. It's already happening. The only problem is, the US has nukes and will most likely justify their use, perhaps destroying the world in the process.

SLM3

You should run for office.

Don't get my hopes up. The most dangerous enemy that I think the US has at the moment or in the foreseeable future, is itself. A war between the Socialists and those who value Liberty is inevitible at some point down the road.

The most dangerous enemy we've ever had has been "our selves". The open conflict on this board is evident of that. It always seems that when we begin to stray to far from our principles something always happens to reach out and pull us back. There is a predominance of extreme liberal viewpoint - call it Socialist if you like - in some parts of the US. I, like what seems to be a majority , don't think this viewpoint is nearly as large as it appears on this board. Many viewpoints expressed are from people outside of the US who care little for us or the US. It would be nice if people would at least post what country they are from so some of the views can be looked at in context. Actually, it would be nice if you had to post what country you're in. Some of you might not really want to be lumped into the appearance of living on the fringes of our society.

IF the US goes down, who is there to pick up the slack? In 35 years Europe will be mostly Muslim, so it wont be Europe. South America? Any African nation? Its in the worlds best interest that the US stays strong for as long as possible.

What slack? Who says the next major shift in the int'l system will end up looking like what we have now? I guess the obvious choice, as of right now, would be China emerging as the next super power. Keeping with sinocentrism, I think it'll probably be the US who starts the war, and China who ends it. This is really just one scenario so who knows.

You speak of the world's interests, but you're only implying the interests of the North. Do the people of most Sub-Saharan African nations really care that much about the US and the multi-national corporations which continually rob them of a better existense? What about the people of the Middle East? I understand this is a generalization, but empires come and go, and the world never bands together to save them.

When the time comes, it will most likely be in everyone's interests to side with the new top dog.


SLM3

You mean those greedy corporations that create things like farm tech and medicine ( mostly by US corps) that have increased African farm production and lifespans? I am sure Sub Sarharan Africa might miss those.

I'm talking about those corporations that use structural adjustment programs to put people to work for pennies a day so that the money can go back to the US instead of being reinvested into the country. Are you honestly going to argue that these types of programs have done more to help these countries than harm them?


SLM3

Shit, i'm american and if i'm on the fringe, it's damn nice. If you haven't noticed, the fringe is where most innovation and original thought comes from. As far as socialist, do you mean socialist like the author of the pledge of allegiance, or socialist like helen keller, or socialist like some of the policies that brought us out of the great depression? If so that's fine. I'd rather be socialist like that than the stereotypical greedy short-sighted capitalist.

Whether this whole iraqi business has any long term effect on other rogue nations remains to be seen, either libya is exaggerating the extent of their wmd programs and then "doing the right thing" to curry favor or they are over-estimating the american public's tolerance for occupational pre-emptive invasions.

I watched NOW with Bill Moyer's on PBS, and an analyst explained that, while the deal was "sealed" right before it was announced, the administration was well aware of the direction the talks were going. That is, the deal was made and agreed upon weeks ago.

He went on to say that Libya had already allowed inspectors in before the deal was "officially" announced, which indicated that the deal was already in place before it was announced.

Of course, I don't think it's inappropriate that our government would request Libya officials to aid us in our attempt to make other rogue nations capitulate by holding any announcements in abeyance. I just wish our own civilian population was more aware of the geopolitical machinations other than believing our president is actually scaring the world into submission. One reason I don't like this attitude, as opposed to diplomacy based on mutual respect, is that obediance based on fear is short-lived; it only lasts as long as the one in power is seen to be powerful enough to force compliance.

When dealing with the Iraq's, Lybia's, and North Korea's of the world, I think the big stick does a lot more then 'mutual respect'.

Would you agree that it doesn't matter which one "does a lot more" if the results are only short-lived?

I think Lybia has been trying for some time to deal with the U.S but their requests have fallen on deaf ears. Qadafi wanted to deal ages ago to lift the American embargo while discussing reparation for the PanAm flight over Scotland. With his implyed request now, it makes it look like he caved and to a degree he did.

If the Democrats come on strong on the run up to 2004, I expect bin Laden to be picked up just in time to save the Republicans. Even better will be the movie of the week.

Hey, what a neat and interesting little conspiracy theory you have there! Please, do tell more! :D

During and after the war in Iraq, Democrats said the Bush administration had failed in diplomacy.
During and after the diplomatic victories with Iran and Libya, Democrats started suggesting that it was all a big conspiracy.

When reality doesn't suit you, just make something up, right? Dean did it... Madelaine Albright did it... Jim McDermott did it... and people like OFKU0 are doing it.

Should we be worried?

Only if people like that get to make foreign policy decisions.

Story after story indicates that the people making our foreign policy do exactly this:

So, yes, you ought to be worried.

Ha ha ha. Now that made me laugh. According to your reality them the U.S and the Brits with all their technology and manpower are nothing more than complete idiots.

How fucking useless are several hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Afganistan if they can't find some guy on a camel. Christ almighty, It's been almost a year. Or is it two?

I'm betting bin Laden gets picked up just in time for Bush to enjoy the Final Four in college hoops if not sooner. It should be an opportune time just like Saddam being nabbed just in time for Christmas. ***OFKU0 waves arms in the 'We're not worthy' non-conspiratist way in salute to the awesome capturer's of unscripted justice.***

Settle down. They weren't there to find some guy on a camel. They were there to dismantle the Taliban and the Al Queda network. They've made major progress toward that end.

And in the interest of respect and decency, please do not refer to our soldiers as "fucking useless" and "complete idiots."

Besides, Afghanistan covers over 250,000 square miles. That's a quarter of a million miles of remote, mountainous, cavernous, land. With some twenty million people scattered about...

You just tipped your hand.

It's obvious now.

Want to hear my conspiracy theory? Clowns like you make silly "bets" like the one you just posted so that if we catch Bin Laden they can say "I told you so," and if we don't they can say "you're fucking useless, complete idiots."

You have yet to convince me that any of your above ideas have any rational basis.

Alright, simmer down Skippy. You keep believing in what you believe and I'll do the same.

I was refering to your reality in which nothing is a conspiracy when I mentioned the Americans and Brits.

By the way, I'm not a clown. I'm Santa Claus.

EDIT- Apechild can you tell me if it is possible that the Americans know the where abouts of bin Laden? Is it possible? Can it be possible without it turning into a conspiracy?

Are some of you so politically naive to think that the president won't use the capture of bin laden to his utmost political advantage? I don't know if we have obl yet, but it really wouldn't surprise me if we know where he is and are just sitting on him until the admin can maximise the political capital gleaned from his capture. Furthermore, some of you who denounce conspiracy theorists seem to have no problem with such theories when they concern the link between saddam and obl.

Naive? Because we don't blindly accept your baseless, cynical speculations as plausible?

The only thing you have offered to support your fantasy is that "it wouldn't surprise me if..."

You too have yet to convince me that any of your above ideas have any rational basis.

Ok now lets think about this rationally. Lets pretend we have OBL. Now I could understand us not releasing that info if we are 'encouraging' him to give us information. We could nab some of the other top operatives who would be unaware that OBL was in US custody. That I would have no problem with.

Now lets pretend we know where he is hiding but we are 'waiting' so Bush can give an October surprise. Boy that would sure help the president. But wait, lets take it from another angle. What happens if it comes out Bush did just that? That he knew where OBL was and didn't nail him? It would destroy his presidency and destroy the republicans for a good part. No one would stand for it.

Further if Bush gets OBL today, tomorrow, or next October it doesn't matter, he will win. The democrats will have NOTHING to stand on except 'hating Bush'. No one could claim to be better at national security, and the economy is fine.

While strategically it might be a bit better for OBL to be caught closer to the election, the risk is worse. While you happily assign the worst possible motives to the presidents actions, I can only wonder if this is a legitimate fear or just the bitter musings of another democrat without a prayer in 2004.

Not as plausible, just as possible. With little devils like karl rove and paul wolfowitz whispering in his ear, how can you pretend that bush only does what he thinks is right. Your denial of the possibility that bush may actively decieve us seems to lack a certain amount of rational thought as well.

Speculation is fantasy only in that it hasn't panned out as reality. Another fantasy that many of you don't seem to mind buying into- WMD's in iraq, or even the idea that we are safer in by some quantifyable, demonstrable level since 9/11.


Ustwo,

Forgive me for not living up to your assumptions, but i am no democrat. I don't hate bush, sometimes he even makes me smile. The man has got cojones.
despite that
I could also come up with rationalized situations to justify my position, but you'd no doubt discount them as the bitter musings of a democrat.
Besides, all my position really boils down to is
1. The tendency for sitting presidents to decieve the public.
and
2. The tendency of sitting presidents to maximise their political gain whenever possible.
Allow me to pre-emptivley question your ability to think in a rational manner if you decide to question those two statements.

While i'm "happily assigning the worst possible motives to the presidents actions" you seem content to close your eyes, plug your ears, and scream "LALALALALA" whenever anyone questions the president's integrity.

I think that the dems need to pull a rabbit out of the hat to win the next election, but bush is by no means bulletproof and if he does lose, it will be partly the result of the current attitude of his laypeople that he is unstoppable.

YOu can not buy these products, in fact you should only buy union made American goods if you feel this way. Who built your car, your computer, your sneakers, your TV your radio, your etc....

I am against sweat shops, but unless there is no market for their products, they will exist.

Can you say that you dont support them at all, or do you just complain?

Qaddafyi's been moving that way since the beginning of Clinton's first term. All that Iraq did was give him the exact prescription he needed to write to get a clean bill of health with the Western World: Ditch the WMDs, and try to appear to be a rational Arab.

I said it up at the top, and I'll say it again: Qaddafyi's getting old and he's looking for a legacy.

Are you going to just keep creating arguments? All I'm doing is stating the realities of how the West contributes to escalating the debt and poor standard of living in developing nations and how this could create a population who really has little to thank the West for.

No where did I talk about the morality of purchasing specific products based on who and how they were made. You're putting words in my mouth because you don't/can't argue what I'm actually talking about. Stop doing that.


SLM3

Libya may be stepping up their disclosure and discontinuation of WMD programs, which were already on their way (remember when they decided to pay restitutions to the families of those who were on the flight last year), in the hopes of hosting the World Cup.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../60549/1/.html

I think its amazing that you think its a crazy that when money is lent out, that it should not be paid back. So by your logic, I should not have to pay back my credit cards, and student loans?

And if you are buying any non union products, you are part of the problem.

And you are ignoring that Bush forgave 15 billion worth of debts last year. But why talk about Bush doing anything good?

I think it's crazy that you're comparing Third World debt to your student loans. Money is constantly being taken out of these countries while their industries are becoming totally controlled by international companies. They can't even pay off the interest on these loans as they spiral into worse and worse condition. Do you think 15 billion is really even a drop in the bucket?

No, I don't think they should have to pay off this money that has done little to no good for them, instead institutionalizing power and control in the hands of the wealthy while exploiting those without a hand to play.

There is no good or bad. Only interests. Stop putting Bush on a plateau. He couldn't care less, much like any other president.


SLM3

So Bush forgiving 15 billion in debt last year was lost on you?

Atleast pretend to have read what I've written. I've covered this.


SLM3