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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Yama" wrote:
Perhaps in some weird parallel universe.

No, in this one. In the parallele universe, Libya paid attention to the
international community, and stopped back in 1990 or so. In this one,
they kep up their programs, with zero interference (and, apparently,
zero knowledge) on the part of the rest of the world, until March of
this year. Guess what else was happening in March 2003...

Y'know, world does not revolve around your real and imaginary WMD fears.
Libyan efforts to restore trade and diplomatic relationship with West have
been going on for 15 years, and WMD is just small part of that, to appease
their potentially most important oil buyer - USA. So, you claim that nothing
happened until March 2003 is blatantly false.

I guess I have to excuse you that you haven't paid attention to that
process: after all, there wasn't anything going "boom", so you probably
didn't notice. It's no fun if it doesn't involve people dying!

But of course, the Bush-ists are rushing to claim credit from something
which was started by previous governments...

The issue that I am raising is not that the US has undeclared active WMD
programs but the double standards used by the US in dealing with other
countries. There is a presumtion of guilt when dealing with states that the
US does not like, and a presumption of innocence when dealing with US
friends. The history of the last 50 years does not justify any such
presumptions. The international oversight process (through organisations
such as IAEA) should apply equally to all states, and when the US funds new
development into low yield tactical nuclear weapons (as is happening now) it
should have the same challenges as when North Korea is developing nuclear
weapons for a deterent program.

David



Let me ask you this. Would *you* be okay with the idea of North Korea
or Iran having nukes? Or maybe Syria? Pretty much all of the
countries who have them (with the possible exception of India and
Pakistan) are responsible, stable nations. What do you do when an
ayatolla gets a wild hair up his ass and lets a terrorist group steal
a nuke (plausible denyability and all that)? Would you choose a
stable world or an instable one? If the major powers all scrapped
their nukes how do you know some other country isn't going to build
them anyway? International inspections? What if the country tells
the UN to kiss off? Sanctions? We saw how well they hurt Saddam. Do
you think no nukes would mean less war and if so how do you justify
that view?

Y'know, world does not revolve around your real and imaginary WMD fears.
Libyan efforts to restore trade and diplomatic relationship with West have
been going on for 15 years, and WMD is just small part of that, to appease
their potentially most important oil

True,western embargo was also hurting the maintenance of oil production
equipment badly,I guess.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Y'know, world does not revolve around your real and imaginary WMD fears.
Libyan efforts to restore trade and diplomatic relationship with West
have
been going on for 15 years, and WMD is just small part of that, to
appease
their potentially most important oil

True,western embargo was also hurting the maintenance of oil production
equipment badly,I guess.

Not that much. The UN sanctions mainly affected travel to and
from Libya and arms sales. That meant most visitors had to fly to Malta and
catch the ferry.

While the US wouldnt sell Libya oil production equipment
or allow its citizens to work there no such ban was imposed
in Europe. European companies had no problems selling
oil field/refinery equipment to Libya or buying its oil.

Keith

In article ,
"Yama" wrote:

Y'know, world does not revolve around your real and imaginary WMD fears.

"Real and imaginary."

Like the "real and imaginary programs that Libya just decided to give
up, right as we invaded Iraq, after years and years of failed UN
diplomatic moves.

Libyan efforts to restore trade and diplomatic relationship with West have
been going on for 15 years,

....and failing, with minor exceptions like giving up two terrorists who
blew up a plane and paying some reparations for that *one* attack.

and WMD is just small part of that, to appease their potentially most
important oil buyer - USA. So, you claim that nothing happened until
March 2003 is blatantly false.

Really? Fifteen years of *failures* and suddenly they give up their
programs, not to the UN, but to Britain and the US. One of the biggest
coincidences, *ever*.

I guess I have to excuse you that you haven't paid attention to that
process: after all, there wasn't anything going "boom", so you probably
didn't notice. It's no fun if it doesn't involve people dying!

I'm sorry, but you're hallucinating.

Since you fervently believe in and can document that "process," you can
tell us exactly what international political moves by everyone else
suddenly made Libya decide to give in, right?


But of course, the Bush-ists are rushing to claim credit from something
which was started by previous governments...

Except that the "process" started in March, when Libya came to Britain
and the US to *start* negotiations.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

The issue that I am raising is not that the US has undeclared active WMD
programs but the double standards used by the US in dealing with other
countries. There is a presumtion of guilt when dealing with states that
the
US does not like, and a presumption of innocence when dealing with US
friends. The history of the last 50 years does not justify any such
presumptions. The international oversight process (through organisations
such as IAEA) should apply equally to all states, and when the US funds
new
development into low yield tactical nuclear weapons (as is happening now)
it
should have the same challenges as when North Korea is developing nuclear
weapons for a deterent program.

David



Let me ask you this. Would *you* be okay with the idea of North Korea
or Iran having nukes? Or maybe Syria? Pretty much all of the
countries who have them (with the possible exception of India and
Pakistan) are responsible, stable nations. What do you do when an
ayatolla gets a wild hair up his ass and lets a terrorist group steal
a nuke (plausible denyability and all that)? Would you choose a
stable world or an instable one? If the major powers all scrapped
their nukes how do you know some other country isn't going to build
them anyway? International inspections? What if the country tells
the UN to kiss off? Sanctions? We saw how well they hurt Saddam. Do
you think no nukes would mean less war and if so how do you justify
that view?

My arguement is that I do not believe that in the current world (post
Mutually Assured Destruction) no WMD's have any warfighting credibility. In
terms of the international inspections the act of telling the IAEA to stop
inspections is the trigger for more severe international pressure (whatever
that may involve).

The stability of the current nuclear powers is an interesting note. The
Isreali gov't appears to have a policy of first use based on "percieved"
threat, while the US gov't is actively doing R&D on more "usable"
battlefield nuclear weapons. This is interesting when it is combined with
the new US policy of starting wars on the belief that the "other guy" might
be a threat to the USA in the near future!

I am more concerned of the approach taken by a super power who is reasonably
convinced (by things like the ABM system) that it can pre-emptively use
WMD's against minor pwers with little or no danger of a counter strike, than
I am by minor powers who fully understand that their first use of their
WMD's would lead to their inevitable distruction.

I believe that leaders of many states (e.g. North Korea) are very very evil,
and should not be supported in any way at all - I just do not believe that
they are stupid. Stupid evil dictators get killed off very quickly.

David

In article ,
"David Nicholls" wrote:

I am more concerned of the approach taken by a super power who is
reasonably convinced (by things like the ABM system) that it can
pre-emptively use WMD's against minor pwers with little or no danger
of a counter strike, than I am by minor powers who fully understand
that their first use of their WMD's would lead to their inevitable
distruction.

Yeah, we really do need to worry about Russia again. They have the only
fielded ABM system on the planet right now, a nationalistic government
and a lot of nukes.

If I were in one of the former Soviet states, I'd make fun of the more
powerful countries, like, oh, the US. Funny how that's actually
happening, isn't it?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Blair Maynard wrote:
"Nick Pedley" wrote in message
...
"tadaa" 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!!!

David
(from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
operational nuclear weapons program)

Didn't Sweden do that too?


This website might answer some questions. Certainly they could have
built one and had plans to be able to do so quickly if needed. It seems
they never actually built a bomb.

Are you forgetting the Volvo 244?

Hey, watch it. the 244's a great car. Takes a lickin' and keeps on
tickin'. Mine has 234,000 miles on it and is still going strong.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

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 ?


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

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."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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