U.S. to Renew Diplomatic Ties With Libya

[Jim]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060515/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_libya

The move announced Monday culminates a process that began three years ago, when Gadhafi surprised the world by agreeing to dismantle his country's weapons of mass destruction programs.

 

"As a direct result of those decisions we have witnessed the beginning of that country's re-emergence into the mainstream of the international community. Today marks the opening of a new era in U.S.-Libya relations that will benefit Americans and Libyans alike," Rice said.

 

Gadhafi was once known here as perhaps the most dangerous man in the Middle East. President Reagan ordered air attacks against Libya in 1981 and 1986, the latter because of suspected Libyan sponsorship of a terrorist attack at a West Berlin disco frequented by American soldiers. Two Americans died there. . . .

 

Since 2003, however, Libya has been held up as a model by the administration for the way aspiring nuclear weapons powers should behave.

 

The American attack on Iraq made Gadhafi wonder whether he would be next. In December 2003, he agreed to surrender his weapons of mass destruction facilities and agreed to allow them to be shipped for storage in the United States.

 

Rep. Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, said the administration's decisions were fully warranted.

 

"Libya has thoroughly altered its behavior by abolishing its program to develop weapons of mass destruction and ending its support for terrorism," Lantos said

[john5746]

Great.

 

Too bad Reagan didn't invade and spend billions there to set up a democracy many years ago.

[Phi for All]

This is what diplomacy is all about. If Libya prospers in the next few years while more volatile neighbors struggle to keep pace it sends a better message than bombs, imo. I'd rather be attractive than intimidating, although I guess a bit of both doesn't hurt.

 

Jim, don't forget to always give us your take on the news item in the OP to sort of set the tone for the thread. Otherwise we're not discussing the article, we're just republishing it, which gets us a heinie slap.

[Jim]

This is what diplomacy is all about. If Libya prospers in the next few years while more volatile neighbors struggle to keep pace it sends a better message than bombs' date=' imo. I'd rather be attractive than intimidating, although I guess a bit of both doesn't hurt.

 

Jim, don't forget to always give us your take on the news item in the OP to sort of set the tone for the thread. Otherwise we're not discussing the article, we're just republishing it, which gets us a heinie slap. [/quote']

 

Heh, sorry. I thought it would be pretty obvious given my prior posts. I was letting the facts of the article make my previous points.

 

But since you insist.....

 

My take is that we can debate the conditions in Iraq all day long but there is no doubt about what happened in Libya. Libya's reaction to Gulf War II makes the entire effort worthwhile independent of what happens in Iraq. Libya came to us in March 2003 just as Gulf War II was commencing. As this article opines, the message to other countries such as Libya was clear - If the US perceives that you have WMDs, then you better not be what we consider a rogue nation.

 

As I've posted before, Libya's nuclear program was much more advanced than previously thought. I've read one article saying that Libya was on a 3-6 year track in 2003. This means that they could today have a nuke but for Gulf War II.

 

As this article points out, there was a time when Libya's ruler was considered the most dangerous man in the Middle East. Libya, however, saw the writing on the wall. If they had WMDs and from any source WMDs were used in an American city, the US response would not be merely to seek sanctions. Gulf War II changed the entire calculation from the point of view of countries such as Libya and the result is easy to see today.

[Jim]

AP timeline of "Events related to U.S. relations with Libya" which omits that in 3/03 Libya approached the US to volunteer to dismantle its WMDs.

 

You've just got to laugh... I guess.

[john5746]

Libya's reaction to Gulf War II makes the entire effort worthwhile independent of what happens in Iraq. Libya came to us in March 2003 just as Gulf War II was commencing.

 

Another Viewpoint

 

 

I could make the argument that carrying the momentum that America had with Afghanistan would have made a more peaceful situation in the Middle East today.

[Jim]

Another Viewpoint

 

 

I could make the argument that carrying the momentum that America had with Afghanistan would have made a more peaceful situation in the Middle East today.

 

Perhaps Bush's resolution to take out the Taliban would have been sufficient to make the point; however, that would only be a guess.

 

Khadafi's son's point that negotiations predated 3/03 when Libya unlaterally threw in the towel. However, I do not see progress made prior to 2003 which would eclipse the pretty obvious conclusion that it was Bush's policies which resulted in a former bad boy of the Middle East entering the community of nations. Bush sure gets credit for all of the negative; I think he's fully earned this one in the W column.

[zyncod]

My take is that we can debate the conditions in Iraq all day long but there is no doubt about what happened in Libya. Libya's reaction to Gulf War II makes the entire effort worthwhile independent of what happens in Iraq. Libya came to us in March 2003 just as Gulf War II was commencing. As this article opines, the message to other countries such as Libya was clear - If the US perceives that you have WMDs, then you better not be what we consider a rogue nation.

 

Or if the US perceives that you have oil. I'm going to plead ignorance in terms of Libya's "WMD-related programs," but if they had nuclear weapons or a path to such, that would make them a much better target than Iraq, given that we apparently had to attack some Middle Eastern nation. And given that there are between 30000-200000 dead in Iraq as a direct result of our actions (Pentagon - Lancet), I would say that you have to think long and hard about how Libya's "WMD program" would impact the world before conflating Libya with Iraq.

[Pangloss]

Or if the US perceives that you have oil.

 

Yeah, cuz only the US is interested in oil, and only the US would ever do something so horrible as invade a foreign country just for oil! And they do it all the time, too!

[Jim]

Yeah, cuz only the US is interested in oil, and only the US would ever do something so horrible as invade a foreign country just for oil! And they do it all the time, too!

 

 

I wonder if our friends to the North are getting nervous?

[john5746]

I wonder if our friends to the North[/url'] are getting nervous?

 

Wouldn't it be ironic if China invades America to protect their interests in Canadian oil someday? We already have plenty of WMD, it is possible that our government could decline and become more ambivalent to the "winners" of the global economy. If I had any english skills, I would write a novel.

[Jim]

Wouldn't it be ironic if China invades America to protect their interests in Canadian oil someday? We already have plenty of WMD, it is possible that our government could decline and become more ambivalent to the "winners" of the global economy. If I had any english skills, I would write a novel.

 

Heh, anything is possible. There is no reason to expect America to be the dominant superpower fifty years from now and I can easily imagine some kind of disruptive tech allowing an invasion to become thinkable. America is like Microsoft but China may be Google.