Was gadhafi really a threat to National Security

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jem, Dec 19, 2003.

  1. jem


    I can't believe dumbya would secretly negotiate with a sovereign nation. He has no right to make the world and the U.S. safer. What makes him negotiate with a sovereign nation and have them admit to and then turn over their own WMD?

    I am outraged. He is just avenging his father. He is the dumbest human being on the Earth. I hope our people see through theses lies. We could then elect a guy like Gore or Dean who will make us respected around the world like we should be. Then and only then will we be safer.

    By the way I am amazed by this turn of events and can not wait to see the democrat spin. I mean WMD in Libya. This legitimizes virutally everything Bush and Blair have done.
  2. Hmmm.

    Didn't Saddam prove he was able to "hide" all his weapons of mass destruction, you know the ones that Bush and company said were definitely there, but we haven't found yet?

    Ever think that this may be just pre-emptive smoke from Momar, and he has in fact hidden his real weapons?

    Or do you trust that Momar is suddenly joining the free world?

  3. jem


    Perhaps he is going to turn over Saddam's weapons. Cmon rogue there is just about no way to not look at this as a good thing. They guy had WMD and now he is turning it over. Maybe he has more and we will have to get that too.
  4. I have found that when someone says "there is no way to look at this as bad" that they don't have their eyes fully open.

    Sure, on the surface of course it is good news.

    Try to remember despot leaders world wide have watched the Godfather movies...

    "My father taught me many things here - he taught me in this room. He taught me - keep your friends close but your enemies closer. Now if Hyman Roth sees that I interceded in this thing, in the Rosato Brothers' favor, he's going to think his relationship with me is still good...That's what I want him to think. I want him completely relaxed and confident in our friendship. Then I'll be able to find out who the traitor in my family was."

    .......Michael Corleone in Godfather II......

  5. haha. Good post Jem.

    Guys, the strategy is working.

    Having the Libyan radicalists come clean and admit their shady dealings is a major statement for the Bush strategy of getting these Islamic fundamentalist/terrorists to start thinking twice before going for it with the US. They all know it now: you f--- with us and you're going down. Black and white. No touchy-feely 'let's try and understand why they're trying to kill us' liberal BS -- which, from the raghead's point of view, translates to "yeah, you keep thinking about it. In the mean time, we'll blow up a few more of your buildings and airliners."

    Of course, there's no way Libya should be trusted, not with its current regime still in place. However, hopefully we can turn the situation in Libya around without having to launch a full scale war there. Not that I would have any qualms about taking them out and installing a more US friendly regime.
  6. jem


    Rogue you are using rhetorical devices. My favorite counter is that when you have the facts you argue the facts. When you have the law you argue the law and when you have neither you bang the table and make a lot of noise.

    Now I could put that in a nice story. But I spared you the details.
  7. Keep spinning. Just because he turns over WMD doesn't mean that implicitly we are now trusting him or are gullible as you imply. Eliminating / accounting for some WMD is better than eliminating no WMD, a point that I think even you would not disagree with. And I think some of the WMD may be traceable, like the anthrax as to its possible origins so we may find out more once we actually get the stuff. The real test will be how he reacts to UN WMD inspectors.

    As is the case with Saudi Arabia, a sneaky cooperative government is better than a sneaky uncooperative/defiant one.
  8. You may be right, time will tell.

    The timing of the announcement is interesting.

    What really took place in the "secret" negotiations?

    Does it matter?

    I think one of the main differences, at least from what I have seen from the left and the right, is that the left is questioning the principles of how the "war on terrorism" is being waged, and the possibility that the current administration is engaged in deceptive and misleading practices, if not outright lying, in order to achieve their goals and agenda.

    The right wing seems to take the position that if the end is good, the means are justified de facto.

    The danger I see however is while such an approach may breed fear in the enemy as they see a supreme militaristic authority act without need for due process, act with a vision of moral righteousness and a sense of impunity as a result of that self-righteousness, this behavior does not yield itself to trust or lasting relationships.

    If in fact the administration did knowingly and willingly lie to the American people about WMD in order to gain support for the war with Iraq, I have a problem with that on principle, and the end does not justify the means in my opinion.

    The mere fact that the administration wants to gloss over and minimize their means, tell us that it doesn't matter if we ever find WMD (or really if there ever were the WMD we were led to believe existed) and focus on the ever changing end (WMD/Liberation of Iraq/Justice for Saddam, etc.) is disturbing.

    Those with a sense of history who have seen this type of behavior before know the dangers when a government is not held accountable by its people for playing by the rules. When the people look the other way because of results, the message sent to leadership is that they are free to play the game by whatever means they deem necessary----as long as the end is justified.

    In the beginning, or when afraid, people are willing to look the other way as long as things improve. The problem is that when an authority is given this type of license, we no longer have the appropriate checks and balance system functional and in place to control the corruption that has eternally followed power of this magnitude to act without concern for the rules or the need for transparency.

    This retro-active behavior by the Bush administration, reminiscent of previous administrations who applied secrecy in the name of "security" and what is best for America, is a very slippery slope.

  9. I am outraged as well! What right did Ghadaffi have to hand them over in a peaceful way? He's an asshole, it's just not fair from him to prevent a preemptive liberation. If everyone would behave like that, where would we be then in a few years? It's quite scary to think about a world in which all conflicts are resolved by diplomats rather than the old way.

    Lets hope this nightmare won't come true, I am still confident that at least Kim truly is the maniac he pretends to be.
  10. There are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around about Bush's motives for the war in Iraq. Of course since the Democrats are out of power they are the ones floating the theories.

    But I disagree that Bush went into Iraq with the intent of deceiving the American public about WMD. That is the innuendo of the left, but Bush has shown to be remarkably consistent in his statements about the reasons for going in. The WMD may show up and they may not show up. My view as a conservative is that Bush acted like a policeman - he had probable cause delivered by the CIA. He connected the dots on the available intelligence: Saddam pays money to suicide bombers and other terrorists, Saddam hates the USA, Saddam tired to assasinate a sitting US President, Saddam has WMD, Saddam has successfully weaponized many of the WMD and tested them on Iranians and the Kurds. Therefore there is a high probability that Saddam will at some point enable WMD to be used against the USA either via terrorists or directly.

    That was his main premise. A different President might not have reached the conclusion that Bush reached based on the evidence but I won't fault Bush even if the WMD are ever proved to have been destroyed, because the threat of his WMD being used against Americans has been neutralized. Bush took all the evidence in and decided that he had probable cause that Saddam's WMD would be used against Americans. There were lots of other supporting reasons for going into Iraq from a humanitarian standpoint, that bolstered the need to go in. Bush was acting in the interest of the American people to eliminate a threat that could materialize at any time, which could not be defended against, and which could be much worse than 911.

    After 911 there was a mandate for this type of action, in particular caused (though unintentionally) by the Mcarthy-ist manner in which the Democrats attempted to lay the blame for 911 on the President by making it seem like he didn't do all he could have done to prevent it. Did the rhetoric of the Democrats unintentionally influence the developing policy of a sitting President towards war?
    #10     Dec 20, 2003