Khadafi = Peacemaker

[Toad]

You're making the case that their nuke program was allowed by the NPT?

Didn't think so.


Associated Press:

Gadhafi initiated the talks and the subsequent onsite inspections in March after he agreed to settle the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, with cash payments and an admission of complicity. His overture for talks came days before the United States and Britain invaded Iraq

And it was pretty clear that the invasion was "on" before that.

But it's OK, I think we all understand your motivation and position. We understand the spin you feel you need to put on it.

[Toad]

First, ganging?

Is there some restriction on who or how many can reply? Like you get to post but no one (or only one) gets to post in rebuttal or disagreement?

Must be a Euro thing.

Article II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Let's see... Libya is/was a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty. They clearly were seeking and/or receiving assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices  

They admit as much. All the while they were undergoing periodic IAEA inspections under the UN sanctions.

Your point was?

[Dinger]

hate to burst your bubble, but for years Khaddafy has been angling to make his state the center of secular stability in Africa.  He seems to want to dominate Africa the way the US dominates the Americas. A good deal of his regional clout lies in not being "a friend of the US". But, like Mr. Hussein, he can't be identified with Islamic extremists.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
Actually this is wrong. Libya increased its support of terrorism after the bombing, only after extensive US and UN sanctions started to affect Libya did they back off.

The Lockerbie bombing for instance was two years after the US bombed and killed Gaddafi's baby daughter. So the 1986 bombing of Libya was a failure as it did not stop Libyan terrorism, but encouraged it.

That's like saying Clinton's cruise missile attack on the baby food factory resulted in the 9/11 attack on the US.

[Dowding]

Gee, ummm, wonder how much influence our presence in the middle east had on this decision?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, what you view as "stupid" will be recorded in military history as "brilliant".

From a strategic point of view, it was a brilliant move.

Establish a base in the middle east to ensure safe flow of the oil to the world.

Center the "fight on terrorism" in the Middle east, instead of on our home. Let the terrorists come to us in Iraq.

Let neighboring countries know that if you plan to support/finance terrorism in the future, *we* will know about it. Think of it as a neighborhood "Block watch".

Regardless of the initial motive, the humanitarian side of it has proven it was a just war.

Brilliant!

lol I think you should get two gold stars for such insight.
 
Talk about stating the obvious. Ever heard of Saudi Arabia? The strategic importance of having a Mid-East centre of operations is a well known fact... and when people have suggested the WMD angle for the invasion of Iraq was a smokescreen for establishment of influence in that country, moving away from the increasingly unreliable Saudi, they have been shouted down by the usual intellectually heavyweights with cries of 'Deth to Amreeka!'.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by StSanta
There, modified it.

Damn, you can really be a nagging b|tch, you know that?

And I had that avatar first! PTFFFH!

Have a great X-mas bud

Thanks!

Merry Christmas!

Say hi to my sister if you see her, she's in Copenhagen for the holidays.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
No ... it's like saying Clinton's cruise missile attack on the baby food factory didn't prevent the 9/11 attack on the US.

No, to use your exact word, it's like saying Clinton's attack ENCOURAGED it.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
It probably encouraged an escalation of terrorism yes. 9/11 on the other hand was probably planned long before the missile strike.

The fact still remains that Libyan terrorism increased after the bombing, and as such the bombing was a failure in deterring Libya from supporting (and committing) terrorism.

And so we've learned. Missile attacks won't stop terrorism. Gotta get in there and destroy 'em utterly including the governments that foster this hate.

[Toad]

Originally posted by GScholz
However your insults are not called for.

That isn't an insult; it's an observation. One I've made before, btw. It seems that non-US folks have this belief that "free speech" means that THEY get to voice their opinion but no one else can disagree or reply.

Well, they're half-right. They DO get to voice there opinion. However, SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE THAT CHOOSES TO DO SO.

It's not often real neat and organized and polite. But we're used to it; it's "our way". EVERYBODY gets to speak and disagreement is expected.

Now, "from whom"?

Let's first address this:

GScholz:The NPT is a treaty on not to spread the technology, not a ban on developing such weapons.

GScholz:Libya is not prohibited to make weapons on it's own as long as it does not spread the technology

in light of this quote from Article II of the NPT itself:

Article II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty[/color] undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.[/color]

Now, by his own admission, Gaddafi was developing nuclear weapons; Libya was enriching uranium as a step in their weapons manufacturing.

By their own admission.

Now, how do you get to their "right" to do so when it is in direct conflict with Article II of the NPT to which they are signatories?

Let's just clear that up first, ok?

[Toad]

No one's "ganging" you; there's just a lot of folks that disagree with you. You have a minority opinion. No need to be defensive about that. There's nothing wrong with being in the minority. It's just "free speech" in all it's grubby little glory. You're free to hold and voice any opinion you like. The rest of the world is free to disagree or agree.

Like I said, it's no insult, it's an observation after literally years of reading such posts on this BBS. And the smilie? I DO find it quite funny. Those that profess to know us Yanks so well continually misunderstand one of the key underpinnings of our society. One that just about any native understands intuitively almost from birth.

As to the rest, allow me to get a clear answer from you.

You now realize that Libya was violating the terms of the NPT that it was signatory to under Gaddafi?

That, while undergoing UN sanctioned IAEA inspections he lied to them and hid a nuke weapons development program that was clearly illegal under the terms of the NPT?

That Libya MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT allowed to have or develop nukes under the NPT?

We all agree on this key point?

[Toad]

You begin to remind me of Beet1e.

OK, here' the link to the actual NPT from the UN site:



TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

And here's Article II:

ARTICLE II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Now, to nail this down :

1. You agree that Libya is a signatory to the NPT?

2. You agree that Libya is a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty ?

3. You agree that Libya, by Gaddafi's admission was pursuing a nuclear weapons development program?

4. You agree that enriching uranium to make weapons is a violation of Article II?

5. You agree that Gaddafi, by his own admission, says Libya enriched uranium for weapons production?

6. You agree that Libya was in violation of Article II of the NPT despite the fact that UN sanctioned inspections by the IAEA had been ongoing for years?

Lastly, just to be perfectly clear, your reading of the NPT, particularly Article II shows that "the NPT prohibits the manufacture of nuclear weapons" by a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty such as Libya?


Now to your hurt feelings again:

Originally posted by GScholz ... AND I CAN STILL NOTE, COMPLAIN, GRIPE, WHINE AND OTHERWISE MAKE AN bellybutton OF MYSELF ABOUT BEING GANGED!!!

[/b]


See, we agree again! Isn't it wonderful? Do you feel less "ganged" now?

This is something probably every Yank on the BBS knows is your right and we would never try to stop you from doing so.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, seems like I managed to fend of the others with some fancy footwork.

Keep on believing that. Some of us (including Toad) know when it is pointless to argue.  

[Toad]

Yes, you do remind me of Beet1e.

Note this sentence is set off by semi-colons on each end. It therefore stands alone, meaning exactly what it says without caveats.

; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

It's clear the Article II prohibits the manufacture of nuclear weapons by a "non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty " such as Libya. There's no "shades of gray" here, it is black and white.



Libyan WMD: Tripoli's statement in full

The Libyan experts showed their (US and UK) counterparts the substances, equipment and programmes that could lead to production of internationally banned weapons.

These are centrifuging machine and equipment to carry chemical substances.

'Free will'

According to the talks held between the GSPLAJ, the USA and the UK, which are two permanent members of the (UN) Security Council that is responsible for the preservation of international peace and security, Libya has decided, with its own free will, to get rid of these substances, equipment and programmes and to be free from all internationally banned weapons.

That's what the "official" Libyan statement said.

This from the BBC as well:

Q: What is known about Libya's nuclear intentions?

A: Bush administration officials say Tripoli's most significant acknowledgement was that it had a programme intended to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons.

Give up. Even the Libyans admit they were doing wrong. No need to defend them.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Toad
Give up. Even the Libyans admit they were doing wrong. No need to defend them.

He can't do that Toad. It would be too close to admitting the US did something right.

[Toad]

LOL, that is TOOOOOOOO funny.

Yeah, the US, the UK and the rest of the coalition amass a huge invasion force on Iraq's borders. The build up starts in the Fall and really gets going in the first three months of the year.

Muammar, lying back one day on a beautiful Libyan March afternoon, being fed peeled grapes by his lovely attendants, suddenly sits up and says "Hey! Ya know what? We really don't need this WMD stuff... let's just call 'em up tell 'em we want to get rid of all of it."

Yah, yer right. He probably wasn't aware of the impending invasion at all. And he certainly didn't watch as the Coalition rolled up the mighty Iraqi army like a used, faded beach towel. He can't possibly have seen Big Mustache reduced to hiding like a rat in hole.

So.. sure........ no possible linkage.

In YOUR mind.



BTW, the truth will set you free. Don't you feel better now that you've finally admitted the obvious about Libya and the NPT?