Are we beginning to see the secondaries? Libya to abandom WMD

Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...


Is this the beginning of the useful changes in the middle east that
some suggested would follow the "more active" approach taken
in dealing with terrorist states?

An alternative interpretation is that it shows that a regime
of sanctions, negotiation, and inspection can work. After
all it worked for Iraq, so why shouldn't it work for Lybia?




What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?


Khaddafi needs money. So, a new lie is not expensive. He is uded to.

Tank Fixer wrote:

: What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?

This may not be the correct view: Lybia has offered to
accept inspections before. What's new is that Bush and
Blair accepted the Lybian proposals: Probably mainly
because they needed a success very much, although of
course better terms may have been negotiated now.

As for Khaddafi's motives, the economy of the country
is in ruins after years of sanctions; the oil industry
doesn't function any more. This situation is a threat
to the existence of the regime -- there has already
been an islamist rebellion -- and ultimately to the
survival of the "great guide" himself. This is a very
good time for Khadaffi to trade in an expensive and
probably useless WMD programme for an economic boost
and (horresco referens) the opportunity to be praised
as a "great statesman" by western leaders.

That Lybia feared an US invasion now is unlikely.
"Colonel" Khaddafi probably understands as well as
anyone that the US army is already overstretched with
its tasks in Afghanistan and Iraq, that another
operation of this kind would not be welcomed by the
US public, and that the presidential elections are
getting near.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

Can't anybody spell Libya right?!


This may not be the correct view: Lybia has offered to
accept inspections before. What's new is that Bush and
Blair accepted the Lybian proposals:

On 24 Dec 2003 11:52:09 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:

Tank Fixer wrote:

: What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?

This may not be the correct view: Lybia has offered to
accept inspections before. What's new is that Bush and
Blair accepted the Lybian proposals: Probably mainly
because they needed a success very much, although of
course better terms may have been negotiated now.

As for Khaddafi's motives, the economy of the country
is in ruins after years of sanctions; the oil industry
doesn't function any more. This situation is a threat
to the existence of the regime -- there has already
been an islamist rebellion -- and ultimately to the
survival of the "great guide" himself. This is a very
good time for Khadaffi to trade in an expensive and
probably useless WMD programme for an economic boost
and (horresco referens) the opportunity to be praised
as a "great statesman" by western leaders.

That Lybia feared an US invasion now is unlikely.
"Colonel" Khaddafi probably understands as well as
anyone that the US army is already overstretched with
its tasks in Afghanistan and Iraq, that another
operation of this kind would not be welcomed by the
US public, and that the presidential elections are
getting near.

You have no clue as to the feelings of the US
population, so stop pontificating about US politics.

Sanctions were an obvious and complete
failure in the case of Iraq, and a very strong
argument can be made that they were equally
useless in the case of Libya. The US air raids
(which the disgusting euroweinies denied
over fly permission to) are what changed Lybya's
behavior, and the imminent threat (at least as
perceived by Libya) of a coalition invasion
are what brought about the current negotiations.

Al Minyard

In article ,
"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:

That Lybia feared an US invasion now is unlikely.

So you're claiming it was just a huge coincidence, even though *all* of
the negotiations were betwen Libya, Britain, and the US, while excluding
everyone else...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Chad Irby wrote:

Tank Fixer wrote:

What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?

I'd have to go with "not getting the **** kicked out of them."

....again.

(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message om...
I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.

That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
convenience dictate.

Rob

John Keeney ) wrote:
: It is now on record that Libya earlier this year admitted to having WMD
: programs, invited in inspectors and will dismantle the programs:
: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm

: Is this the beginning of the useful changes in the middle east that
: some suggested would follow the "more active" approach taken
: in dealing with terrorist states?

Don't know about anybody else, but (1) I don't trust Khaddafi, and
(2) what would be the motivation for cleaning up his act--economics?
Is he afraid of being next on the "Axis of Evil"/invasion list?

Glenfiddich wrote in
:

On 24 Dec 2003 10:12:05 -0800, (Rob van Riel) wrote:

(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message
.com...
I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.

That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
convenience dictate.

Those 'bunker buster' nukes have been proposed for destroying and
sterilising buried stocks of germ warfare material.
For THAT purpose, their use is eminently sensible and logically
defensible.

The alternatives - allowing an enemy to deploy such weapons, or
acccidentally dispersing them with a conventional attack - are NOT
attractive.



If one conventionally bombs a target where such munitions are stored
without our knowledge,they still could be released.
That -could- have happened in Iraq.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On 24 Dec 2003 11:52:09 GMT, Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:
Tank Fixer wrote:

: What was Libya's incentive to negotiate and submit to inspections ?

This may not be the correct view: Lybia has offered to
accept inspections before. What's new is that Bush and
Blair accepted the Lybian proposals: Probably mainly
because they needed a success very much, although of
course better terms may have been negotiated now.

As for Khaddafi's motives, the economy of the country
is in ruins after years of sanctions; the oil industry
doesn't function any more.

Is that true? My understanding is that UK/European sanctions were
removed years ago. European couintries, particularly the UK, have a
lot of experience in oil extraction.

This situation is a threat
to the existence of the regime -- there has already
been an islamist rebellion -- and ultimately to the
survival of the "great guide" himself. This is a very
good time for Khadaffi to trade in an expensive and
probably useless WMD programme for an economic boost
and (horresco referens) the opportunity to be praised
as a "great statesman" by western leaders.

Sounds plausible.

Note that this is not a new development; Gaddafi has been trying to
get in the West's good books for a number of years, c.f. his payment
of reparations for Lockerbie and that other airplane incident
(whose details I forget right now).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).