http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/o.../22SAFI.html?th

quote:

I Remember Muammar By WILLIAM SAFIRE Published: December 22, 2003 Columnist Page: William Safire United States International Relations WASHINGTON As American tanks began to roll through Iraq to overthrow Saddam, Libya's longtime terrorist, Muammar Qaddafi, came up with a strategy to avoid being next on the regime-change list: pre-emptive surrender. Nobody calls it that, of course. Diplomats and doves want to treat the dictator's epiphany as the result of patient negotiation stretching back for decades. Some Republicans claim he was softened up by a bomb dropped his way in the Reagan years. But three years after that, his terrorists murdered 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am 103. Subsequent sanctions led to economic pain and the threat of a coup. After acknowledging Libyan responsibility, he has been trying to get U.S. oil companies back by promising to pay damages to the families of his victims. That was not what caused this tyrant suddenly to confess to buying and developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and to promise to reveal all to inspectors. He was transformed into a pussycat by the force of American arms in stopping the spread of mass-destruction weaponry. Why did Qaddafi have his spy chief, Musa Kussa, approach Britain's Tony Blair — not France, Germany or the milquetoast U.N — to get off George W. Bush's short list of rogue nations? The reason: Britain was America's primary ally in the war against Saddam and was the bridge to Washington. This shows that it pays to be a staunch friend of the U.S. in extending freedom and does not increase a nation's strategic importance to be America's political adversary. France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schröder may at last be taking this lesson to heart. Only because American antiterrorist resolve in Iraq was not lost on the ayatollahs of Iran, and because tens of millions of young Persians hunger for the democracy they can see in store for neighboring Arabs, were French and German diplomats able to elicit vague promises of W.M.D. restraint in Teheran. And because unemployed French and German workers were angry at Chirac and Schröder when the Pentagon announced that no Iraqi reconstruction jobs would come their way from U.S. taxpayer funds, those erstwhile foot-draggers last week rushed to embrace Bush envoy James Baker. The awful prospect of missing out on a chunk of our huge investment in rebuilding Iraq made them eager to consider forgiving billions in odious loans they had happily extended to Saddam's tyranny. Not all rogue nations have gotten the word. North Korea, the source of missiles to both Libya and Iraq, remains intransigent as China vainly tries to induce the U.S. to appease Pyongyang again. Syria, reported to be concealing billions of Saddam's money, claimed last week it shook $23 million out of Qaeda money smugglers, but won't let us interrogate them and wants to keep the proceeds in Syrian-occupied Lebanese banks. On the whole, however, the post-9/11 Bush foreign policy — to remove the global threat of terror enabled by regimes opposing freedom — is succeeding. Events are proving that we and our coalition allies were right to root out the sources of terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. As the skin-saving démarche of Qaddafi demonstrates, introducing freedom to countries long denied it has a powerful effect on the actions of regional neighbors. The euphoria of my fellow Wilsonian idealists, though understandable after this early winter of our discontent, is premature. Casualties will continue over there; Al Qaeda will likely attack us over here. Vladimir Putin, given a free pass by Bush and triumphant in Russian elections, will continue to ship nuclear fuel and scientific know-how to Iran, making it easier for those ayatollahs to break their promises to overly trusting Europeans. I remember Colonel Qaddafi's underground poison-gas factory — "Auschwitz in the Sand" — and wonder where he bought Libya's present stock of centrifuges. As a Syracuse University dropout and trustee, I visit the memorial on campus to the 35 college students aboard Pan Am 103 whose blood can never be washed from his hands. It may be, "for reasons of state" — like Musa Kussa's help in penetrating terrorist-protecting parts of Syrian and Saudi intelligence services — we should ultimately permit our investors to revive Libya's oil industry. But we should verify and never trust, and neither forget nor forgive Muammar Qaddafi.

Here's an article for everyone who thinks that a) War can never produce any good, and b) The US and UK didn't play a major part in Libya's decision. It pretty much makes it clear that the Iraq war was the reason Libya did what it did.

quote:

Bill Sammon Washington Times 22 Dec 2003 Libya's decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction is making it harder for Democrats such as Howard Dean to disparage President Bush's war against Iraq, which prompted Libya's move. Mr. Dean, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been uncharacteristically silent about Mr. Bush's bombshell announcement on Friday that Libya has agreed unconditionally to relinquish its chemical-, biological- and nuclear-weapons programs. Although Mr. Bush pointed out that the disarmament offer coincided with the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March, a Dean spokesman yesterday downplayed any causal relationship. "Look, the agreement with the Libyans is good news and an important step forward in the effort to combat weapons of mass destruction," conceded Dean spokesman Jay Carson. "But the agreement is the result of years of diplomacy and sanctions, conducted in concert with the international community, which Governor Dean believes is the most effective means of pursuing that goal," he added. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi made it clear that his decision to disarm was prompted by Operation Iraqi Freedom. "I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid," Mr. Gadhafi told Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, according to a Berlusconi spokesman who was quoted in yesterday's Telegraph of London. "I haven't seen that quote," Mr. Carson said. "It's tough for me to respond to something I haven't seen." Mr. Dean has staked his candidacy on the notion that it was wrong to wage war against Iraq, even though Operation Iraqi Freedom was supported by 70 percent of the American public. Support remains nearly that high in the wake of postwar developments, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein and Libya's decision to disarm. Although U.S. forces have not found Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- which the president cited as one of the main reasons for deposing Saddam -- the decision by Libya to surrender its weapons complicates Mr. Dean's recent assertions that America is no safer since Saddam's capture or even since September 11. "You have Howard Dean saying that our nation and our world are not safer with Saddam Hussein in custody," said Christine Iverson, press secretary for the Republican National Committee. "You have [Senator] Joe Lieberman, who says that our nation and our world are safer. "I mean, those are radically divergent views on a very central foreign-policy question," she added. "The Democrats continue to undermine their own position by failing to agree on even the most basic foreign-policy questions." Libya's disarmament also appears to undermine statements by other Democratic hopefuls, including Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Shortly after Saddam was captured last week, Mr. Edwards criticized the president's policy on weapons of mass destruction. "This administration's approach to protecting America from weapons of mass destruction can be summed up simply: Wait until our enemies gather strength, and then use force to stop them," Mr. Edwards said. "We should be exercising every option we have to stop the spread of deadly weapons before war becomes our only option." Mr. Bush said the Libya agreement was made possible by nine months of "quiet diplomacy," which prompted criticism from Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat. "Ironically, this significant advance represents a complete U-turn in the Bush administration's overall foreign policy," Mr. Kerry said. "An administration that scorns multilateralism and boasts about a rigid doctrine of military pre-emption has almost in spite of itself demonstrated the enormous potential for improving our national security through diplomacy. "If the president can put aside his go-it-alone unilateralism to engage with a longtime enemy like Gadhafi, why are the ideologues in this administration so hesitant to negotiate with North Korea to end their nuclear-weapons programs?" he added. "Why not rally the United Nations and NATO to forge a new cooperative effort to combat proliferation around the globe?" Other Democrats also treated Libya's disarmament as an opportunity to criticize the president. "Libya's certainly good news, but we've got a long way to go before we can feel we've really made the American people safe in a time of terrorism," Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri said on "Fox News Sunday." "There are failures that are still bedeviling us on a number of other fronts. "We've got North Korea apparently going ahead and making nuclear weapons," he added. "And we still don't have the international help in Iraq that we should have gotten a long time ago."

Libya is turning around. First they take blame & pay the families of Victims from that Pan Am hijacked airplane in 1988. Then they see Iraq & what happened. Then Moammar Gadhafi saw in 8 Months Saddam Hussain go from a gazilion dollar, 25 palace, 700k army, brutal torturing Dictator turn into a rat living in a hole with bugs & snakes. Gadhafi doesnt wanna have the same fate as Saddam so he is making efforts to shed a differnt light of his Regime & country. Which Gadhafi will also benefit from trade sanctions lifted by the UN for his moves & will boost Libya's struggling economy. Now if only North Korea started to smarten up things would be a heck of alot better.

___________________
. . .. . .. . . . .. . .

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun Now if only North Korea started to smarten up things would be a heck of alot better.

sadly, they already have nukes and aren't obliged to listen to anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey sadly, they already have nukes and aren't obliged to listen to anyone.

An exact representation of what is wrong with the world, here is a man in Kim Jong-Il that has a nuclear program while his population starves. Ironically they primarily depend on U.S. Food Aid, along with China. The same U.S. that is so nefarious. Why aren't there any protesters demonstrating against Kim Jong-Il and what is happening to the North Korean people. This isn't U.S propoganda, the North Koreans who have managed to escape to the South and not returned by China to North Korean prison camps tell their stories daily, but of course who is listening. Where is HRW, Amnesty International, Koffi Annan's criticisms on behalf of the U.N. for the North Korean regime. Still waiting for that day.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras