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

On 24 Dec 2003 07:19:07 -0800, abdul rahim wrote:
Can't anybody spell Libya right?!

Aparently not, at least I'm never seen anyone spell it "right"
before :-)

--
"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).

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:01:41 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman wrote:
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,

He's as trustworthy as any other politician -- you can trust him to
keep doing something as long as it's in his own interests to do so.

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?

Probably, but there's more to it than that; Gaddafi's been trying to
repair relations with the west since before Bush was in power.


--
"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).

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

Merlin Dorfman wrote:

(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?

Probably, but there's more to it than that; Gaddafi's been trying to
repair relations with the west since before Bush was in power.

No, Libya just didn't want to get the **** kicked out of them. Plain
and simple.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/04/wun04.xm
l

"A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been
telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do
whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I
was afraid."

Which goes to show that, even though Gaddafi is an asshole, he's not
completely stupid.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:04:23 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

Merlin Dorfman wrote:

(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?

Probably, but there's more to it than that; Gaddafi's been trying to
repair relations with the west since before Bush was in power.

No, Libya just didn't want to get the **** kicked out of them. Plain
and simple.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/04/wun04.xm
l

"A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been
telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do
whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I
was afraid."

Which goes to show that, even though Gaddafi is an asshole, he's not
completely stupid.

The fact remains that, as I said, Libya made efforts to resolve the
Lockerbie situation in the 1990s, before Bush was in power. This is
a known and well-attested fact. That you chose to ignore it, because
it doesn't fit in with your world-view, shows you to be foolish.

--
"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).

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

The fact remains that, as I said, Libya made efforts to resolve the
Lockerbie situation in the 1990s, before Bush was in power.

....because it was costing them much more, in dollar terms, than it was
worth. They gave up a couple of minor players and some cash. Note,
however, that they never even *mentioned* their WMD programs until
Gaddafi got scared for his own ass.

This is a known and well-attested fact. That you chose to ignore it,
because it doesn't fit in with your world-view, shows you to be
foolish.

No, I chose to ignore it because it had nothing to do with Libya giving
up their WMD program, despite your wishes and dreams.

Libya, once again, gave up their WMDs so Gaddafi wouldn't end up
climbing up out of a hole, looking into the barrels of US rifles.

I know it hurts your worldview that dictators can act in their own
interests without the blessing of the UN, but that's what happened here.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
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.

Your use of the term "sterilising" should remind us of just how
deceitful all of the players in this matter have been.


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.

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are US soldiers
dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration," surely
it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost so many of its
soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.


"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
(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

"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.


"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
(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




Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their WMD
programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and our triad of
effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear inventory was NOT used
to "bully" anyone into compliance with the Non-Proliferation treaty.
(we certainly have not nuked anyone since Japan in WW2)

Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force have
some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
Scott Ferrin writes:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls"
wrote:



David


"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
example!!!


The US, UK and Russia have all deactivated and are destroying their
Chemical &
Biological weapons.


In terms of the US removing their chemical weapons program they have stopped
the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced the
change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that the
US was above suspicison!

Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
years it was ALWAYS in the local news.

Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
if things go bad. It's also not someplace that's going to be too
adversely affected, either. Some parts are still a bit hot after a
Thor IRBM taking part in Operation Starfish (The high altitude Nuke
shots that pointed out the potential of high altitude EMP effects)
blew up on the pad.

The way they're doing it is pretty interesting. A super
high-temperature/high pressure furnace that breaks up all those nasty
molecules, and then consumes itself when it's finished, to avoid
residual contamination.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.
Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
outcast, which would be very bad for business.


Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their WMD
programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and our triad of
effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear inventory was NOT used
to "bully" anyone into compliance with the Non-Proliferation treaty.
(we certainly have not nuked anyone since Japan in WW2)

And for just how many of those long years has the current
administration been in power? Even compared to the very limited period
of time we're talking about here, not very long. 3 years out of 60, if
memory serves. Also note that for most of those 60 years, there was a
factor counterbalancing US power and pressure. Also note that threat
of power does not require use of power, so the absense of nukes used
in anger is meaningless. As for noone having been nuked since WWII,
that too is not strictly correct, as testing of these systems has left
large areas uninhabitable, and killed considerable numbers of people,
not to mention other living beings.

Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force have
some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

Which has nothing to do with what I said earlier. The US have never
been shy about throwing their conventional weight around before, only
the agenda has changed.

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.

Maybe, but that is far from established. Certainly it has not been
contradicted so far.

Rob