Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Holden McGroin on December 19, 2003, 04:48:23 PM
-
renounces WMD's and will give them up...
wonder why...
-
They said he has been in secret negotiations for 8 months now...
Timing?
-
Talk about an evil dictator dropping out of the spotlight. One little attack and he wimps out.
MiniD
-
So who is going to send the weapons inspectors to check out our arsenals?
-
Gee, ummm, wonder how much influence our presence in the middle east had on this decision?
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!
-
Originally posted by ravells
So who is going to send the weapons inspectors to check out our arsenals?
No one, silly. Ours (The West) were created as a deterrent to the old Cold war when the Soviets built their supply up. Both the UK and the U.S. have strict rules that ours would not be used in a time of war unless used on us. Actually, they're storing thousands of barrels in the desert here, its quite a problem, and they want to get rid of it. Want some? ;)
-
Yes yes, we all think you're very smart dRippy, and here's your gold star...
(http://omega.med.yale.edu/~djd36/src/images/star_gold.gif)
Would you like a pat on the head too?
-
ohh I see stars!
-
SOB
It irks you to no end doesn't it? To the point you must post about it sarcastically. It sucks being right most of the time. :D
-
It irks you to no end doesn't it? To the point you must post about it sarcastically. It sucks being right most of the time.
He will djust hide the WMD in the sand like iraq did, invade the ragheads...
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Talk about an evil dictator dropping out of the spotlight. One little attack and he wimps out.
MiniD
Sam Kennison used to stick his arms out like he was a F-111 and yell, "Where's the little girl's room?!"
-
I think there is much more going on than we even have an inkling about...these are not coincedences.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
It irks you to no end doesn't it? To the point you must post about it sarcastically. It sucks being right most of the time. :D
Your need for approval and affirmation? It doesn't really irk me so much as it amuses me, hence the sarcasm.
-
SOB blows geriatric lamas...
-
Sometimes, but only after I get their consent. Llamas love me!
-
Obviously Bush missed the label 'Libya' on the map and thought the area was also a part of Iraq, since he was definately a bit lost on his crusade for WMD... terrori... erm.. I mean freedom. :D
Attacking Libya, now thats something I could've justified with all the reasons Bush has been hyping the Iraq war for: WMD, terrorists and 'freedom'.
-
When is the USA going to renounce WMD?
-
Never.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
renounces WMD's and will give them up...
wonder why...
Reagan gave him a reason to change with a "little" F111 raid that almost killed him. He lost his baby though. Since then, Libya seemed a bit quiet on the "terrorism" front.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
They said he has been in secret negotiations for 8 months now...
Timing?
Timing indeed. It coincided with the video of Saddam being drug out of a hole and getting his teeth examined.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
When is the USA going to renounce WMD?
As soon as France will, which means never.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Timing indeed. It coincided with the video of Saddam being drug out of a hole and getting his teeth examined.
Heh yeah Creamo. Whatever one might think about the US going to war, there are some SWEET consequences.
"D00dz. We'll $n|p3 y00 if you get outta line. Blame lag or whatever, you'll still be $n|p0r3D".
I'm enjoying the side effects very much. Who's next in line for explaining that they really aren't that bad after all?
I really like that now dictators and tyrants around the world feel vulnerable, coz if the Yankees so decide, they'll be taken care of :)
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Heh yeah Creamo. Whatever one might think about the US going to war, there are some SWEET consequences.
"D00dz. We'll $n|p3 y00 if you get outta line. Blame lag or whatever, you'll still be $n|p0r3D".
I'm enjoying the side effects very much. Who's next in line for explaining that they really aren't that bad after all?
I really like that now dictators and tyrants around the world feel vulnerable, coz if the Yankees so decide, they'll be taken care of :)
huh?:confused:
-
BBC News:
The UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, speaking on the BBC's Today programme, applauded what he called Colonel Gaddafi's "huge statesmanship and courage".
He said a team of experts which had paid visits to Libya in October and earlier this month had been given access to projects at more than 10 sites, including at least one involving uranium enrichment.
They had discovered that:
Libya had not acquired a nuclear weapons capability, but was close to developing one.
It had significant quantities of chemical agent and bombs designed to be filled with chemical agent.
There were research centres with the potential to support biological weapons-related work.
Facilities existed where missile research development work had been conducted.
San Francisco Chronicle
The Libyans had chemical weapons and medium-range missiles from North Korea and, at a minimum, a program to make uranium for nuclear weapons. U.S. intelligence agencies lack information that Libya had enriched the uranium to make a nuclear weapon or possessed biological weapons. For all the Libyan cooperation, officials acknowledged there still could be undisclosed weapons and programs.
So far, the United States has learned that Libya had:
* Tens of tons of mustard agent, a World War I-era chemical weapon, produced about 10 years ago.
* Aircraft bombs capable of dispersing the mustard agent in combat.
* A supply of Scud-C ballistic missiles made in North Korea. The weapons can hit targets 500 miles away.
CNN :"I think we have to learn what did they (Libya) have. They say that they will adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons.They are already party to that treaty and they have had inspections for years," said Blix, interviewed in Sweden.
-
"they have had inspections for years"
:lol :lol :lol
-
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.
OOPS, losing track of dates in my memory. So, was that PanAm bombing retaliation against the F111 bombing?
-
WE DID IT!!!!!!
Years and years of singing kumbaya and give peace a chance at candlelight antiwar and anti-WMD rallies and constantly blaming the wast and the USA for everything have convinced Gadhaffi to give up his weapons!!!!!
WE DID IT!!!!!
BTW: The violent deposition of the Taliban, Saddams regime and the increasing US diplomatic pressure and attention on Iran and North Korea by the EVIL Bush regime had no impact whatsover on this stunning change of heart by our dear peaceloving Col. Gadhaffi...
Signed:
Leftists, domestic commies (who always, convenitaly, asked for unilateral disarmement by west during the cold war), socialists, hollywood stars, residents and dwellers of Berkely California and others..
Oh yea gotta love Bushspeak:
"Otherwise Unwelcome Consequences" :)
-
Wow Grünherz, finally a post I sorta agree on and one that doesn't leave me with a desire to kick green hearts in the nuts!
Well done, Euro-trash-who-ran-away-to-the-ehvl-Amreekhans-boy! :D
Heh, your post was actually quite funny :). And not even a "Eurorutabagas" anywhere in there. You're slipping, friend :p
Oh yeah, since I'm a Euro-Macho-man:
DETH TO AMREEKHA! LONG LIVE ZE FOURZ REICH, CALLED THE EU! :aok
-
Yoho! :)
BTW: Please, please fix that avatar....
-
There, modified it.
Damn, you can really be a nagging b|tch, you know that? :D
And I had that avatar first! PTFFFH!
Have a great X-mas bud :)
-
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.
-
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. :lol
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!'.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
There, modified it.
Damn, you can really be a nagging b|tch, you know that? :D
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.unog.ch/disarm/distreat/npt.pdf)
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.
;)
-
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. :aok
-
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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3336139.stm)
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.
-
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.
-
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?
:rofl
-
Nice dodge on Libya there. Don't want to talk about it? I understand. After all, there's no way that watching the coalition assemble an invasion force... specifically over the issue of Iraqi WMD..... and then rolling up the Iraqi army like a cheap, worn-out carpet could have possibly influenced Muammar. You know that in your heart of hearts, don't you? :lol
Yep, terrorism level at the top now. I suppose your intimation will be that our invasion of Iraq caused this?
We've been in open warfare since 9/11. Anyone that thought it was "over" after Afghanistan or "over" after Iraq is/was a fool, IMO.
It's a clash of two heartfelt ideologies and it will probably go on for a long time yet. Certainly the rest of my life, I think.
In the end, freedom will win out over repression. And, to all but a blind few, the side promoting freedom of choice isn't the one slapping burkas on women, preventing them from going to school... well, you get the idea.
To all but a blind few.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I just saw a press conference on CNN where the Homeland Security folks said they have raised the security alert to orange. Highest number of confirmed intelligence yet suggests an attack on US soil is imminent.
Yes the truth will set you free ... let's hope not in a bad way.
No one ever said said the war on terror would be easy or without casualties. It's about time someone stepped up to take the war to them, and here we are. No thanks needed.
-
Unfortunately, so far I have been mostly right.
I get tired of a blue sky, sometimes, what color is it in your world?
-
Yes, either you or I might die tomorrow morning. Hit by a bus, killed by a jealous lover.. you just never know, do you? ;)
The posters aren't as polarized as you think, IMO. I know, for example, that a lot of the US guys I disagree with here on this BBS would receive my instant support if they or theirs were threatened. We may argue and fight viciously between ourselves, but we also band together for the common good easily and quickly. 9/11 highlighted that aspect of our society as well.
I do think there's a clear split between those that, for whatever reason, can't bring themselves to see the US as anything other than stupid, evil, imperialistic or a combination of all three. There's some people here that would choke if they had to let a good word about the US slip out of their throats.
No longer friends? Well, my dad always said "tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who and what you are".
So, if folks that would rather champion and defend mass murderers and Islamic lunatics don't like us and are not our "friends" ...... if folks that can only point out the mistakes we've made while ignoring the good we do and excusing the atrocities committed by the people we now oppose...........well, that's a good thing in my book.
I wouldn't want have that sort of "friend".
I'm sure you think you've been mostly right. Heck, it took a multitude of posts to get you to admit you were totally wrong about Libya and the NPT and that's a clear cut black and white issue. So, I'm sure you think you're "mostly right" about anything else. Be advised...... you'd get disagreement there too. You might even get "ganged".
:rofl
Yeah, my countrymen are dying. You bet. I don't like it a bit.
And, whether YOU like to believe it or not, their sacrifice may well have been the key factor in removing WMD from Libya. Only a lunatic would think that's not a good thing.
And the Libyan change of heart my in turn cause Iran to re-think it's position. You realize the UN/IAEA has a sneaking suspicion that Iran is violating the NPT as well, don't you?
Bottom line is, my countrymen are trying. Pretty clear where their thumbs are and where their thumbs aren't.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The US has done a lot of things right, I'm just not sure if the US has done anything in this case (except being a part of the UN sanctions on Libya).
What BS... I know you are ignoring me, but damn GS your anti-US bias is really showing here...
What about the 9 months ( since late march, what a coincidence huh) of US/UK/Libya negotiations that closed this deal? Really GS you are really loosing it... No way, the USA did nothing right - it was all the mighty UN..
What a tard you seem to have become, why such an anti-US bent, saying we did nothing right with this Libya thingg, why such an extremen illogical and unreasonable stance... I'm not sure if I should even care anymore that i hurt our friendship because of my pain over srebrenica, should I care anymore GS?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well Iran have WMD, they used it during the war and has not been ordered to destroy it. Do they try to develop nukes? Most likely.
And so when the UN/IAEA and UN/SC finally pull their thumbs out and demand that Iran give up it's WMD where will you stand?
Don't bother, I already know.
and
Don't worry, if we have too, we'll do it again without you.
:p
-
GS...Read it and weep.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3338413.stm
Some reports suggest the negotiating position of the US and Britain was strengthened when materials destined for Libya's illegal weapons programmes were seized.
The previously undisclosed operation is understood to have been carried out under the Proliferation Security Initiative launched by the US in September with the aim of halting the flow of WMD.
No details have emerged of what was found, or where it came from.
-
S o w h a t ?
"Arabs push for Israel to disarm" only shows just how far from reality these guys really are.
Anyway, are you going to give the US some credit for this or are you going to keep side stepping? It hurts to be on the wrong side doesnt it?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
but he destroyed his and got whipped anyway.
I think you're a bit premature with this assessment. I'd expect nothing less from you, however. I have two reasons now to hope that Big Mustache gives up the location of his WMD.
I'll continue to sidestep
Please do. I'd hate to see you choke.
-
I'd love to gamble with you sometime, if that's the case. ;)
-
You're just proving you don't even know what "ad hominem" means.
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
No, quite obviously you don't.
-
Your problem is that I did not attack you personally. I simply pointed out a historical fact.
I mentioned the Dutch; if you're honest in your profile, you're from Norway.
So, take umbrage all you like, there's no way you can construe that as a personal attack and it doesn't "appeal to emotion".
It's historical fact that the Dutch failed miserably in their mission. In that linked article, Jagger states:
The UN Dutch battalion was even giving the Bosnian Serbs the fuel to drive the buses that brought the victims to the execution sites and the bulldozers which ploughed the corpses of their victims into the ground.
As for leaving the Blues on the shelf, the other historical fact is that NATO had to intervene to stop the slaughter there. Despite the UN troops in place, the UN could not bring itself to act.
So there's no "appeal to emotion" in that part either.
Now, I can understand why this is a very touchy subject for you.