Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Lybia to give up its WMD.

I'm surprised there isnt a thred about this already.

For those of you who dont know, Lybia has decided to let inspectors in and to give up its WMD plans. This is thought to be in exchange for the lifting of sanctions by the US.

Now this is obviously a good move, however the leadership isnt going to change, he's still going to keep doing the human rights violations he has for years, but they're lifting ALL sanctions.

Surely this is the kind of double standards that get the West into trouble?

Bush of course will hail this as a success in part brought about by Iraq, but is this not more to do with Gdaffi (sp?) greed? He has a HUGE potencial source of oil money but he cant get into the biggest market.
Could we have not done this with Saddam too? Linked the ending of the WMD program and some human rights to the lifting of sanctions?

And of course, as long as Israel has its illegal nukes why should we try and stop any other Arab country from obtaining one?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The administration's most recent PR platform and newly converted trained monkey. All's forgiven regardless of how completely Khadafi has for decades met the criteria of terrorist and terrorist sponsor.

    Now that he came willingly, all the dead can watch as deals are struck and their loss swept under the carpet.

    Bravo Bush, consistent as ever!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't get that move at all.
    Total disrespect for the families connected to the Lockerbie incident, and it just seems wrong to reward a terrorist.

    I do understand that with some you have to go the nice way, but to totally forgive and forget all like that is scary in my opinion.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whereas I'm not prepared to deny that Gaddafi has sponsored terrorism, there are massive doubts about Libya’s implication in Lockerbie. As a matter of fact anyone who cares to check the facts will see that it is highly improbable that Libya was implicated.

    There is a superb report by UK magazine Private Eye that examines the incident meticulously. It is not available online but those interested in the subject are advised to buy their Lockerbie special report publication. Because it shows very clearly (and this is with the evidence and information provided by the authorities) that a Palestinian terrorist group with Syrian connections was behind the attack. The Americans themselves initially pointed their finger at them. And then one day changed their story completely, blaming two Libyan agents who lived in Malta. The move coincided with negotiations taking place between the US and Syria at the time about other issues.

    The case against the Libyan men was risible. ALL the prosecution had was the testimony of a "star witness", a Maltese man whose identity was not disclosed who one day appeared out of thin air and swore he "remembered" the two Libyan men buying a suitcase from him- suitcase that was later found amongst the remains.

    This most flimsy of evidences would be thrown out of any normal court. In this case it was not so, but the fact that one man was convicted while the other wasn't goes only to reinforce the argument that the prosecution case was really worthless.

    Everything in the case points out to a massive cover-up and stitch up operation by the US for political reasons. That Gaddafi finally admitted culpability was most probably only motivated by his desire to end the sanctions that have crippled his country for many years.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    With regard to the WMDs issue, well the fewer of the things that are around the better. However this must be consistent, and if we really believe that countries shouldn't have WMDs, in particular in the Middle East, the next step for the West must be to make Israel give up its own arsenal.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    About as much chance of that sort of consistency being adhered to as expecting the US military industrial complex to give up its long running covert and illegal production and stockpiling of WMDs.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed. As far as I'm concerned the Libyans are voluntarily renouncing to their WMDs programme. It is certainly not up to the country with the biggest arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the world to tell others what they can or cannot arm themselves with.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Whereas I'm not prepared to deny that Gaddafi has sponsored terrorism, there are massive doubts about Libya’s implication in Lockerbie.
    the last time the yanks bombed libya was because there was absolutely no doubt ...icontrovertible proof had been obtained in fact ...that libya was behind the oklahoma bombing. the biggest terrorist atrocity on american soil ...until 9/11.
    and theres a lot to be admired about the colonel.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A good article on what the next step must be

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,1111567,00.html

    Chemical weapons, biological weapons, 200 nukes (more than Britain) and delivery systems including missiles.

    Can't blame Iran or others for wanting to arm themselves to be honest... :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *sigh*
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you think this will help Dubya get a second term, that, the economic figures in the US and the Sadam thing. I think its looking more like a one horse race, but as they say a weeks a long time in politics.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What's the sigh for Jacqs?

    Do you think Israel has an undeniable right to posses nuclear, biological and chemical weapons but other nations in the Middle East don't?

    Have you thought why other nations in the Middle East have and are trying to acquire their own weapons?

    Wouldn't you like to see a Middle East completely free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? Or is it only countries populated by dirty Arabs that must be disarmed?

    Remind me again why we invaded Iraq?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I took the sigh to be dispare at the thought of Isreal giving up their nukes, do you see it happening any time soon?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see it happening at all unless the US government stopped once and for all its unconditional support of Israel and started acting responsibly and objectively. If the US was so concerned about WMDs it would have 'encouraged' Israel to give up their own decades ago.

    But that is not going to happen, so at least I wish we stopped all this rubbish about axis of evil countries, WMDs, threats to the free world and assorted bullshit. If the Iranians, the Syrians, the North Koreans or the bloody Martians want to acquire their own arsenal it is not up to the US to say otherwise.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    If the US was so concerned about WMDs it would have 'encouraged' Israel to give up their own decades ago.

    Yes... Cause maybe the scuds Saddam would have been better at firing his scuds during the gulfwar, and no one would have to worry about reciprocation, should the US have done that.

    Woo! Soon enough we would be able to use the arab made maps who have wiped out Israel in Europe as well! :hyper:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Saddam was never going to use WMDs against Israel- since even if Israel had given up its own weapons the US would be more than happy to oblige on Israel's behalf if anyone had the temerity of use WMDs against it.

    But since Saddam is now gone anyway, surely you would not have any objections to Israel getting rid of its own weapons of mass destruction? Unless you believe the opposite, in which case you must also believe other nations in the region have the right to arm themselves with WMDs to ensure a balance of power and an effective deterrent.

    Because the thing is, you cannot have it both ways. Either all weapons go, or all nations are allowed to arm themselves with what they please without interference (let alone aggression) from the US or others.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not a socialist. Don't believe in equality when talking in material terms :)

    Which means, that no, I don't believe it's all or nothing. Just like I don't expect you to give a whole class of kids detention when it's 3 kids who cause all the havoc.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And what would make you think Israel is more deserving to have WMDs than Iran, Syria or Libya? There is only one country amongst those that to this very day continues to conduct illegal military operations on other sovereign nations- guess which one. I certainly would trust the Arab countries to own WMDs just as much as (in fact, more than) Israel.

    They have a right to protect their territorial integrity just as much as anyone else.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's useless for me to discuss with you. Cause we have very different perceptions of just about everything.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why should ANY nation have them, there is NO need what so ever for WMD, especially bio-weapons, they are cruel and can NEVER be used with any accuracy.

    ALL nations should be giving them up, whether we trust them or not.

    Personally I think this real focus on WMD is actually maybe making them more desirable.

    What other bargining counter can Syria, Iran and North Korea use so effectively. We should be focusing on the countries human rights records.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, no countries should have WMDs. But as the case isn't so, there are some I'd rather see with them, than others.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh, of course, but why focus on Irans illegal WMD and not Isreal, surely there has to be one rule for all, if they are illegal then they should be gotten rid of.
    Putting presure on one does not mean we cant put pressure on the other. The US gives billions a year to Isreal, they are in a very good position to put pressure on Isreal, it would be easy.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't believe Israel will use their's unless it comes to something extreme.
    Basically they are Israel's security if you ask me. Just a little reminder of what could happen if you "mess with us". Don't see anything wrong with that, in the given situation Israel is in.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But everyone knows that the US will always back up Israel, so if anyone did 'mess' with them there would be enough of the US's weapons to go around.
    Also do you really think that the nukes deter Israels big threats, terrorist groups.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
    Don't believe Israel will use their's unless it comes to something extreme.
    Basically they are Israel's security if you ask me. Just a little reminder of what could happen if you "mess with us". Don't see anything wrong with that, in the given situation Israel is in.
    You see, although I don't like nuclear weapons I understand that stance.

    What I don't understand is why you think that Iran or Syria would be any different.
Sign In or Register to comment.