Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on September 27, 2009, 11:43:32 AM
-
One wonders where the UN outrage is in this (not his expected whacky statements, but the confinement of two Swiss Nationals). Truly, there can be no more neutral country than Switzerland. I suppose you could argue the case that they violated diplomatic immunity procedures, but.... Oh heck -- WHY DOES ANYONE LISTEN TO THIS GUY?
---------------
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926053,00.html
Gaddafi's Oddest Idea: Abolish Switzerland
By Helena Bachmann / Geneva
In his rambling diatribe to the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday, Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi criticized the world body for being unfair to small nations. This comment struck a chord with the Swiss, since Gaddafi has been on a self-proclaimed mission to destroy their little country.
A few weeks ago, Gaddafi submitted a proposal to the U.N. to abolish Switzerland and divide it up along linguistic lines, giving parts of the country to Germany, France and Italy. Although the motion was thrown out because it violates the U.N. Charter stating that no member country can threaten the existence of another, some Swiss leaders are still concerned that Libya could use its year-long presidency of the U.N. General Assembly, which began on Sept. 15, to keep up his vitriolic attacks on their country. (See TIME's Exclusive Interview with Gaddafi on Obama, Israel and Iran)
Gaddafi's animosity toward Switzerland may seem bizarre — or maybe not, given the Libyan leader's all-female bodyguard squad and penchant for pitching Bedouin tents during state visits to other countries. Relations between Libya and Switzerland soured in July 2008 when Gaddafi's son Hannibal and his wife were arrested by police in Geneva for allegedly beating their two servants at a local hotel. Gaddafi was so enraged by his son's two-day detention, he immediately retaliated by shutting down local subsidiaries of Swiss companies Nestlé and ABB in Libya, arresting two Swiss businessmen for supposed visa irregularities, canceling most commercial flights between the two countries and withdrawing about $5 billion from his Swiss bank accounts. (Read: "Libya Flips Over Swiss Detention.")
Then came Gaddafi's suggestion that Switzerland be carved up like a wheel of Swiss cheese. During the G-8 summit in Italy in July, Gaddafi said Switzerland "is a world mafia and not a state," adding that the Italian-speaking part of the country should be returned to Italy, the German-speaking part given to Germany and the French-speaking part ceded to France. In an attempt to defuse the tensions between the countries, as well as to win the release of the two Swiss nationals being held in Libya, Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz traveled to Tripoli in August to apologize for Hannibal's arrest. The move was highly criticized in Switzerland, with repeated calls for his resignation. (See pictures of the rise of Gaddafi.)
The reaction among the Swiss public to Gaddafi's idea of splitting up the country has been a mix of outrage and incredulity. "Even though Gaddafi is a leader of a country and the current head of the African Union, he loses credibility when he comes up with outrageous comments like that," says Daniel Warner, a political scientist at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva. Others see irony in Gaddafi's comments. "It's a paradox that Gaddafi wants to dismantle Switzerland because, as he claims, it is not a homogenous country, while Libya is divided by a desert into two regions that hate each other," says Baptiste Hurni, a Socialist parliamentarian who blogs about Libya. (See the Top 10 U.N. General-Assembly Moments.)
Despite the fact Gaddafi is still holding two Swiss nationals, many Swiss have found much to laugh about in his statements. The newspapers abound with tongue-in-cheek comments from readers not only questioning Gaddafi's sanity but also wondering how Switzerland would be divided up if the Libyan leader's motion were to be taken seriously. "Who is going to get the Matterthorn?" one reader asks in the Lausanne daily Le Matin. "Linguistically it belongs to Germany but geographically it borders Italy." Another reader in Le Matin said he is "scandalized that Austria is not getting its fair share," while a Geneva resident wrote that he doesn't want his region to be annexed to France and asked about the possibility of linking it to French-speaking Quebec instead.
Most everyone agrees on one point: Libya should not be casting stones. "Is the U.N. going to listen to a longstanding democracy or to a longstanding dictatorship?" 19-year-old Eduard Hediger said in a recent Le Matin podcast. If Gaddafi's long-winded speech to the General Assembly is any indication, the U.N. may not have much of a choice in the matter.
-
You know, I could go on and on about what even having this idea tells us about Gaddafi, but then I realized Gaddafi was just a megalomaniac with a BDSM fetish and decided to let go of it.
-
You know, I could go on and on about what even having this idea tells us about Gaddafi, but then I realized Gaddafi was just a megalomaniac with a BDSM fetish and decided to let go of it.
Anything known about him that one can mock him for, akin to Kim Jong Il's supposed 3-4 hole-in-ones per golf round?
-
You know, I could go on and on about what even having this idea tells us about Gaddafi, but then I realized Gaddafi was just a megalomaniac with a BDSM fetish and decided to let go of it.
Prude. :P
-
I was quite pleased to see the community in which Gadaffy, last week, was attempting to pitch his tent, told him to skedaddle.
-
Anything known about him that one can mock him for, akin to Kim Jong Il's supposed 3-4 hole-in-ones per golf round?
Gaddafy, armed with a modern military, tanks and aircraft, lost - as in, 'crushing defeat' - a war to a bunch of Chadians in pickup trucks.
-
Does anybody know the current political realities in his domain, vis'a'vis what might happen when he finally kicks?
-
I'm just wondering when they are going to award him the Nobel Peace Prize...
-
Why hasn't the DNC put him on a presidential ticket? He's perfect for them.
-
"Even though Gaddafi is a leader of a country and the current head of the African Union, he loses credibility when he comes up with outrageous comments like that," says Daniel Warner, a political scientist at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva.
The guys is completely missing the point that Gaddafi shouldn't have any credibility to start with. This just shows what state the UN is in these days.
-
Why hasn't the DNC put him on a presidential ticket? He's perfect for them.
He has those all important foreign policy credentials that many Democrats lack. :)
-
The guys is completely missing the point that Gaddafi shouldn't have any credibility to start with. This just shows what state the UN is in these days.
I would argue the whole concept of thE UN is inherently flawed.
-
Why did this scumbag Gaddafi recently crawl back out from under his rock where he's been hiding since 1986?
-
Why did this scumbag Gaddafi recently crawl back out from under his rock where he's been hiding since 1986?
Probably because there are no longer a couple of F16's waiting to drop a cluster bomb on his head...
-
It's ironic that the Scottish public were outraged by the release of the pan-am 103 bomber, yet there seems to be no public groundswell against the Bush/Obama policy of bringing Gaddafi in from the cold....
The political reality is, he's eager for friends so that when he dies, his thug son can keep running Libya.
He's a master terrorist and a clown who should be on trial, not giving speeches to the UN.
-
It's ironic that the Scottish public were outraged by the release of the pan-am 103 bomber, yet there seems to be no public groundswell against the Bush/Obama policy of bringing Gaddafi in from the cold....
When the leader of a country that was a sponsor of terrorism renounces terrorism, is the president supposed to say, "we don't like you. Go back to sponsoring terrorism"?
-
"Is the U.N. going to listen to a longstanding democracy or to a longstanding dictatorship?"
The dictatorship, silly.
The majority of countries are ruled by thugs, so their representatives in the UN will be more sympathetic to thugs.
I would argue the whole concept of thE UN is inherently flawed.
Agreed, but "flawed" understates it by several orders of magnitude.
It's ironic that the Scottish public were outraged by the release of the pan-am 103 bomber, yet there seems to be no public groundswell against the Bush/Obama policy of bringing Gaddafi in from the cold....
Actually, the Scots were indifferent. Not many of theirs died and the majority who died were Americans.
Well, he did give up his WMD program and we have seen no Lybian terrorism in the papers...
But, your larger point is one I agree with: he ought to be in prison or hanged from the neck until dead.
-
While he's decrying "the world mafia" he should look closer to home.
-
While he's decrying "the world mafia" he should look closer to home.
I saw yesterday in the London Times online that he met with Chavez and around 30 other leaders regarding the creation of a "Southern Hemisphere NATO". Pretty funny that right after they quoted him saying something about the "evil capitalists" and how they needed to do this to promote and protect socialism, they mentioned that he had his white limo flown in for the event. :)
-
Good that the swiss have nabbed that Polanski, btw.
-
Good that the swiss have nabbed that Polanski, btw.
That is a good thing. And yet, gobs of people in our country are upset that Polanski was caught and will likely face trial.
-
That is a good thing. And yet, gobs of people in our country are upset that Polanski was caught and will likely face trial.
you should reassure them that there wont be a trial, as he has already pled guilty
=D
-
When the leader of a country that was a sponsor of terrorism renounces terrorism, is the president supposed to say, "we don't like you. Go back to sponsoring terrorism"?
No - he's supposed to say "you're a criminal and we're not going to deal with you or guarantee your family's continued rule."
Supposedly we don't negotiate with terrorists, and I highly doubt Bin Laden could get the same deal by "renouncing terrorism", but here we are, hosting a man who has basically admitted to blowing up a civilian airliner at the UN.
How is it that Iraq had to be invaded and Saddam deposed over theoretical terrorism when a confirmed airline bomber can rejoin the US by just saying he won't do that anymore?
-
Good point. I retract my statement.
-
Under this logic, the US should have no relations with any country which ever committed acts of terrorism against them. Say, Israel.
-
Noted.
Fresh shipment of Caterpillar bulldozers enroute to play mop-up. =D
-
Under this logic, the US should have no relations with any country which ever committed acts of terrorism against them. Say, Israel.
My point is to illustrate that, although "being tough on terrorists" is purported to motivate many US policies, it isn't in fact a key motivation. If US international relations were about stopping and punishing terrorism, we wouldn't be letting this clown do his clown show in New York City.
Terrorism is often waived around as the justification for this or that policy, but it is rarely (if ever) the crucial factor in setting government policies. It can't be, because if it were, Gaddafi would have faced the same fate as Saddam.
-
Terrorism is often waived around as the justification for this or that policy, but it is rarely (if ever) the crucial factor in setting government policies. It can't be, because if it were, Gaddafi would have faced the same fate as Saddam.
I do believe that if Gaddafi had persisted in his old ways, eventually he would have received a similar fate as Saddam.
Keep in mind that the primary goal isn't so much to attack terrorism everywhere all at once, as you seem to think. It's to end terrorism, or come as close to ending it as practicable. As such, it doesn't so much matter what method (war, capture, diplomacy, threats, etc.) is used to end terrorism from a man like Gaddafi, what matters is that it is ended.
It certainly does appear that the methods employed against Gaddafi were successful, and this is undeniably a good thing. No?
-
I'm sure we could bring Bin Laden in from the cold too - probably Mullah Omar as well. They both have concrete demands that would be fairly easy to meet. There is absolutely no question that Saddam Hussein was open to the Gaddafi treatment.
So why did Gaddaffi get invited to New York after blowing up an airliner, when of the other three mentioned, only Bin Laden has committed an equally grave act of terrorism against the US?
If the method of terrorism ending didn't matter, we could easily buy every terrorist in the world just like we bought Gaddafi in a "we'll give you whatever you want as long as you give us what we want" trade. So this is clearly not an issue of method versus principle.
-
I'm sure we could bring Bin Laden in from the cold too - probably Mullah Omar as well. They both have concrete demands that would be fairly easy to meet. There is absolutely no question that Saddam Hussein was open to the Gaddafi treatment.
So why did Gaddaffi get invited to New York after blowing up an airliner, when of the other three mentioned, only Bin Laden has committed an equally grave act of terrorism against the US?
If the method of terrorism ending didn't matter, we could easily buy every terrorist in the world just like we bought Gaddafi in a "we'll give you whatever you want as long as you give us what we want" trade. So this is clearly not an issue of method versus principle.
Bin Laden aside--Gadaffi straightened up with a small show of force. A few fighters blown up here, a few bombs in a backyard there, and he behaves (except for his ridiculous speeches).
We invaded Iraq in 1991 and apparently that didn't do the trick.
-
My point is to illustrate that, although "being tough on terrorists" is purported to motivate many US policies, it isn't in fact a key motivation. If US international relations were about stopping and punishing terrorism, we wouldn't be letting this clown do his clown show in New York City.
Let's see, Wahhabism came from where now...?
Follow the madrassas, along with the money.
-
My point is to illustrate that, although "being tough on terrorists" is purported to motivate many US policies, it isn't in fact a key motivation. If US international relations were about stopping and punishing terrorism, we wouldn't be letting this clown do his clown show in New York City.
I would shade that. I think it is key, but it is not the entirety of US foreign policy, the fundamental goal of which ought to be the interests of American citizens.
Terrorism is often waived around as the justification for this or that policy, but it is rarely (if ever) the crucial factor in setting government policies. It can't be, because if it were, Gaddafi would have faced the same fate as Saddam.
You are correct in that MuGad deserves the same fate as Saddam. Sadly, we do not all get what we deserve.
MuGad alive & in power is an example to other terrorist-sponsoring, WMD-seeking scumbag rulers that if they give up the bigger evils, they can continue to live & mis-rule their country. US foreign policy, rightfully understood, is concerned primarily with the interests of American citizens. MuGad brutalizing his own folks is a minuscule threat to the USA. MuGad actively involvedin terrorism and seeking WMDs is a much larger threat.
If MuGad's people want to live in liberal parliamentary democracy, that is their responsibility.
Oh, and any argument made in favor of turning MuGad & his boys into grease spots appliesin spades to the mad Iranian dwarf, the Iranian mullahs, and thier supporters.
-
Jamisjockey's oldest idea: Abolish Lybia.
-
There is absolutely no question that Saddam Hussein was open to the Gaddafi treatment.
Hogwash. Saddam had more than a decade between Gulf War I and Gulf War II to remedy his ways. Instead he chose to be belligerent right up through the end. His choice, his loss.
Gadaffi played it a bit smarter. He apparently decided that living in peace was better than not living at all, so he ended his old terrorist ways. As a result he gets to continue running his little country, and we don't have to invest any blood and bombs to end his terrorism. You may not like the situation, but it's still a win for the good guys.
-
In an attempt to defuse the tensions between the countries, as well as to win the release of the two Swiss nationals being held in Libya, Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz traveled to Tripoli in August to apologize for Hannibal's arrest. The move was highly criticized in Switzerland, with repeated calls for his resignation.
Ah, apparently Messrs. Merz and Obama received their training in negotiation and international relations from the same place.
Sawdust
-
Not to kick off a debate unrelated to the thread, but there were serious questions about whether or not Libya actually was responsible for Lockerbie (and even more questions about whether or not al-Megrahi was a guilty man), detailed in the Wiki link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmed_Al_Megrahi#Second_appeal
-
Hogwash. Saddam had more than a decade between Gulf War I and Gulf War II to remedy his ways. Instead he chose to be belligerent right up through the end. His choice, his loss.
Gadaffi played it a bit smarter. He apparently decided that living in peace was better than not living at all, so he ended his old terrorist ways. As a result he gets to continue running his little country, and we don't have to invest any blood and bombs to end his terrorism. You may not like the situation, but it's still a win for the good guys.
What was saddam's act of terror again?
-
What was saddam's act of terror again?
Let's see. He tried to assassinate a US president. He kicked out inspectors in violation of a truce he'd agreed to. His planes violated no-fly zones, and challenged our fighters. He murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, tortured and imprisoned even more. He was working on (or he and the rest of the world thought he was working on) chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. He was sending money to the families of suicide bombers. He had already invaded one of our allies in the region, and was building up his military for what appeared to be another possible attack, or just threatening neighboring countries.
To top it off, he had terrible dress sense, and he dyed his hair.
-
Let's see. He tried to assassinate a US president. He kicked out inspectors in violation of a truce he'd agreed to. His planes violated no-fly zones, and challenged our fighters. He murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, tortured and imprisoned even more. He was working on (or he and the rest of the world thought he was working on) chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. He was sending money to the families of suicide bombers. He had already invaded one of our allies in the region, and was building up his military for what appeared to be another possible attack, or just threatening neighboring countries.
To top it off, he had terrible dress sense, and he dyed his hair.
Yeah, but at least he wasn't a neo-con.
-
What was saddam's act of terror again?
What relevance does that question have?
You lefties persist in thinking of the US military as a some sort of glorified international police force whose purpose is to punish wrong-doers around the world. This is why you're so confused about the disparate treatment of Gadaffi vs Saddam. You guys have got to quit conflating military matters and judicial matters, before it gets more of us killed.
The purpose of the US military (and of foreign policy generally) is to secure the interests of the United States. The purpose is NOT, I repeat NOT, to serve as some sort of justice-meting entity that equally and fairly prosecutes all wrong-doers. Think of the military in the right terms and you begin to understand why the US military was used in Iraq, and how that use was effective against Gaddafi, even thought the two men weren't treated the same way.
Saddam provided headquarters, operating and training bases for terrorist organizations willing to attack his adversaries such as Iran, Turkey, and Israel. He paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel. He used chemical weapons on innocent civilians at least once, possible multiple times. He persistently attacked American and British forces enforcing the Gulf War I cease fire agreement. He attempted to assassinate a former US President. He was apparently pursuing more WMD. He was willing to brutally murder, rape, torture, and/or imprison people on a whim. Innocent life held no value to him.
Now, recall that the purpose of the US military is to protect the interests of the United States. We knew that Saddam had WMD. We knew that he was willing to use WMD against innocent people. We knew he was willing to use terrorists as proxies to attack his adversaries, and we knew he considered the US one of his adversaries to be attacked at any opportunity. Add it all up and you see that Saddam's government was a serious threat to the United States that needed to be effectively countered. Couple that with the strategic value of an allied, democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East, and the regime change effort in Iraq was a no-brainer.
-
You lefties persist in thinking of the US military as a some sort of glorified international police force whose purpose is to punish wrong-doers around the world. You guys have got to quit conflating military matters and judicial matters, before it gets more of us killed.
The purpose of the US military (and of foreign policy generally) is to secure the interests of the United States. The purpose is NOT, I repeat NOT, to serve as some sort of justice-meting entity that equally and fairly prosecutes all wrong-doers.
Exactly. Thank you for saying that. That needs to be posted on bill-boards across the country, until righties and lefties understand.
And that needs to have been done about eight years ago.
-
You look at the list of allegations against saddam, and it's hard to see something different from gaddafi's profile- except that gaddafi also bombed a us airliner.
The WMD claim is odd, considering that Libya was actually pursuing them at that time while iraq was not. If you remove from the list things that turned out to be falsehoods about saddam, it leaves the pan am bombing as the only terrorist act against America between the two leaders.
The issue isn't whether justice was done. The issue is this: why, if policy is driven by the need to crush terrorism, does one terrorist get paid while another terrorist who never attacked the US warranted a seven year long, multi-billion dollar war?
-
You look at the list of allegations against saddam, and it's hard to see something different from gaddafi's profile- except that gaddafi also bombed a us airliner.
The WMD claim is odd, considering that Libya was actually pursuing them at that time while iraq was not. If you remove from the list things that turned out to be falsehoods about saddam, it leaves the pan am bombing as the only terrorist act against America between the two leaders.
The issue isn't whether justice was done. The issue is this: why, if policy is driven by the need to crush terrorism, does one terrorist get paid while another terrorist who never attacked the US warranted a seven year long, multi-billion dollar war?
:|
We are talking about the same Saddam and Gadaffi here, right?
And isn't it time you gave up the strawman?
-
it leaves the pan am bombing as the only terrorist act against America between the two leaders.
You forgot the disco bombing in Germany:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1653848.stm
-
You forgot the disco bombing in Germany:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1653848.stm
Well, then Ghaddafi had two bombings on Saddam, not one.
-
:|
We are talking about the same Saddam and Gadaffi here, right?
And isn't it time you gave up the strawman?
I don't think we're talking about the same Saddam and Gadaffi - I'm talking about the Saddam who never committed a single act of terrorism against America and the Gadaffi who blew up a US airline and (I forgot) bombed a nightclub.
Which ones were you talking about?
-
Yup, that's the problem. I was talking about the Saddam Hussein who was the ruler of Iraq for many years until removed by US forces, the man who attacked the US hundreds of times throughout the 1990s, and who we made, ah, incapable of doing us ill ever again.
I think we agree on Gaddafi, though, the leader of Libya who was convinced not to do us ill ever again.
-
Hussein attacked the US hundreds of times? What?
-
Hussein attacked the US hundreds of times? What?
Yes, they "attacked us" by not rolling over and accepting our presence in their country.
Yes, we beat them in battle, but to claim their resistance to our presence IN THEIR COUNTRY (Wolverines!?) equals "attacking us" is disingenuous.
Chris
-
On this rationale, America must invade and destroy Israel for sponsoring terrorist acts against American targets in the 1950's. =D =D
-
Yes, they "attacked us" by not rolling over and accepting our presence in their country.
Yes, we beat them in battle, but to claim their resistance to our presence IN THEIR COUNTRY (Wolverines!?) equals "attacking us" is disingenuous.
Chris
How on earth is that disingenuous? We were present in their country by Saddam's agreement. 'Twas part of the cease fire treaty Saddam agreed to, and then repeatedly violated. Our presence was key part of the bargain: he got to keep control of his country, and in exchange he would guarantee that the free world could enter limited parts of his country for the express purpose of protecting Kuwaitis and Kurds.
Those treaty violations alone are more than enough to justify the return to hostilities that eventually led to Saddam's overthrow and capture in 2003.
-
How on earth is that disingenuous? We were present in their country by Saddam's agreement. 'Twas part of the cease fire treaty Saddam agreed to, and then repeatedly violated. Our presence was key part of the bargain: he got to keep control of his country, and in exchange he would guarantee that the free world could enter limited parts of his country for the express purpose of protecting Kuwaitis and Kurds.
Those treaty violations alone are more than enough to justify the return to hostilities that eventually led to Saddam's overthrow and capture in 2003.
Whether the treaty violations are enough or not, they are clearly not terrorism in the same way that blowing up an airliner full of civilians is terrorism. Was this about terrorism, or treaties?
-
Whether the treaty violations are enough or not, they are clearly not terrorism in the same way that blowing up an airliner full of civilians is terrorism. Was this about terrorism, or treaties?
It's about attacking Iraq. Any justification will do and no justification is strong enough to go after other aggressor nations, including those who HAVE killed Americans outside the theater of war.
In the grand scheme of things, Iraq was a minor threat compared to the likes of Iran, North Korea, and maybe China and Russia. Iran is working on nukes, is in Iraq today (they weren't when Saddam was in power), NK has nukes, China owns us, and Russia is willing to work with the previous three to as a hedge against us.
But Iraq was a soft and convenient target.
Don't take this as misplaced love for Iraq and Saddam. Frankly, I don't care at all about them, but we wasted a lot of lives and money there when we could have been focusing our efforts elsewhere. I especially don't like the idea that we HAD to go into Iraq, while our anti-terrorism efforts regarding other nations amount to nothing but talk.
In the end, I think all we did was waste money and give Iran a reason to pursue nukes. Unintended consequences anyone?
Chris
-
In the end, I think all we did was waste money and give Iran a reason to pursue nukes. Unintended consequences anyone?
Chris
Oh man! If only we weren't in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be pursuing Nuclear Weapons!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4134614.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4134614.stm)
August 2002: Iranian exiles say that Tehran has built a vast uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water plant at Arak without informing the United Nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq)
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, (from March 20 to May 1, 2003) was led by the United States, backed by British forces and smaller contingents from Australia, Denmark, Poland and Spain. Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 20 to May 1.
Oh.... woops....
-
Yeah, those exiles are extremely reliable sources. Just look how well their claims about Saddam's WMD's turned out.
mtnbkr, I agree with your view here. You don't need to love Saddam to see something funny about it.
If we'd had a national debate about Iraq that focused on the actual reasons to go instead of terrorism (which obviously was not the motivating factor), I doubt the decision would've been made to go there.
-
Yeah, those exiles are extremely reliable sources. Just look how well their claims about Saddam's WMD's turned out.
Yeah... they were SOOO far off for Iran...
If you'd have clicked the link, it continues:
September 2002: Construction work begins on Iran's first nuclear reactor at the Bushehr power plant.
December 2002: The existence of sites at Natanz and Arak is confirmed by satellite photographs shown on US television. The US accuses Tehran of "across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction". Iran agrees to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA).
February 2003: Iranian President Mohammed Khatami reveals that Iran has unearthed uranium deposits and announces plans to develop a nuclear fuel cycle. IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei travels to Iran with a team of inspectors to begin probing Tehran's nuclear plans.
June 2003: Mr ElBaradei accuses Iran of not revealing the extent of its nuclear work, and urges leaders to sign up for more intrusive inspections.
August 2003: Traces of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium found at Natanz.
Yeah... it's all cause of Iraq they did this!
The Iranians didn't have any wicked desires prior to our invading their hated next-door neighbor!
-
Yeah... it's all cause of Iraq they did this!
The Iranians didn't have any wicked desires prior to our invading their hated next-door neighbor!
Are you suggesting that Iran attacked Iraq? If so, history disagrees with you.
-
Are you suggesting that Iran attacked Iraq? If so, history disagrees with you.
No, I'm suggested they hated Iraq and wanted Nuclear weapons. I'm arguing that saying our invading Iraq is a non sequitor.
-
Oh man! If only we weren't in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be pursuing Nuclear Weapons!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4134614.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4134614.stm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq)
Oh.... woops....
The writing was on the wall for an invasion of Iraq in 2002, the same year construction started.
Do you not think that our activity in Iraq had any accelerating effect on Iran's goals?
Let's not also ignore the fact that Iran is now active in Iraq, something they were not prior to our invasion (at least not as significantly).
In the end, invading Iraq did nothing beneficial, but it did cost us money and lives. It was pointless. Iran is still pursuing nukes, and is as belligerent as ever. Iraq isn't "attacking" us as a nation, but plenty of Iraqis are killing our soldiers. How many of our soldiers died in Iraq prior to 2003? How many have died this year? What was accomplished?
I'm not opposed to pummeling an enemy, but we chose Iraq because it was a soft target, not because they were a real threat. Our hope was to set an example, but all it did was harden their resolve.
Chris
-
Iran's nuclear ambitions pre-dated OIF, by a couple decades.
That's all I'm going to say about that.
-
Iran's nuclear ambitions pre-dated OIF, by a couple decades.
:O
Shocking.
-
:O
Shocking.
And yet, we're in Iraq.
Looks like our money and lives would have been better spent elsewhere, but that would be real work, wouldn't it?
Oh yeah, we are fighting Iran...in Iraq. Can't take the fight home to them though, so they're left with a base with which to recover while we deal with the local and foreign fighters.
Once again, our actions in Iraq don't seem to have placated or even slowed Iran's nuclear ambitions at all. But Saddam isn't "attacking" us anymore. :D
Chris
-
And yet, we're in Iraq.
Looks like our money and lives would have been better spent elsewhere, but that would be real work, wouldn't it?
Oh yeah, we are fighting Iran...in Iraq. Can't take the fight home to them though, so they're left with a base with which to recover while we deal with the local and foreign fighters.
Once again, our actions in Iraq don't seem to have placated or even slowed Iran's nuclear ambitions at all. But Saddam isn't "attacking" us anymore. :D
Chris
Because Iraq wasn't a terrorist supporting state with designs on nuclear weapons as well.
I'm all for knocking out Iran as well.
How is thinking that ending Iraq's nuclear ambitions was a good idea automatically mean I think we shouldn't end Iran's as well? Obviously they didn't get the message from Iraq (instead they looked at how we bungled North Korea). They need to be sent a STRONGER message.
-
Because Iraq wasn't a terrorist supporting state with designs on nuclear weapons as well.
I don't have the insight that Gewehr98 has, but based on what has been released to the public, Iraq wasn't accomplishing much with their effort.
I'm all for knocking out Iran as well.
At least you're consistent. :)
How is thinking that ending Iraq's nuclear ambitions was a good idea automatically mean I think we shouldn't end Iran's as well? Obviously they didn't get the message from Iraq (instead they looked at how we bungled North Korea). They need to be sent a STRONGER message.
And that's the problem. Historically, people in this region don't respond to force, they respond to being killed. They also don't appreciate outsiders in their land. Those two combined seem to draw otherwise uninterested parties to the fight. It looks to me like squeezing a balloon, you control one portion, but it just bulges out somewhere else.
Dan Carlin made what I thought were some very good points about the whole War on Terror and how we approach the ME: http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive#Show-158---Geopolitical-Pneumonia
Of course, we'd have to swallow our pride in order to do it that way, but I wonder if the results might make it worthwhile.
Chris
-
We kinda boogered up Iraq's enrichment capability during Gulf War I. Israel did a number on their breeder reactor program, too.
I've got pictures of their shattered/destroyed calutrons somewhere, I should dig them up for giggles.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/Calutron.html
I have no doubts that Israel will take matters into their own hands with respect to the Iranian nuclear weapons program, when the time is right. I also don't doubt that Washington D.C. will have little to no effect in dissuading them from accomplishing said task. They've already been practicing for the event. :O
-
And that's the problem. Historically, people in this region don't respond to force, they respond to being killed.
Gaddafi, anyone?
-
Gaddafi, anyone?
Out of how many ME despots?
Besides, if Wikipedia is correct, he was already making overtones to Clinton two years prior to 9/11:
Gaddafi also appeared to be attempting to improve his image in the West. Two years prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, Libya pledged its commitment to fighting Al-Qaeda and offered to open up its weapons programme to international inspection. The Clinton administration did not pursue the offer at the time since Libya's weapons program was not then regarded as a threat, and the matter of handing over the Lockerbie bombing suspects took priority...Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by US forces in 2003, Gaddafi announced that his nation had an active weapons of mass destruction program, but was willing to allow international inspectors into his country to observe and dismantle them. US President George W. Bush and other supporters of the Iraq War portrayed Gaddafi's announcement as a direct consequence of the Iraq War by stating that Gaddafi acted out of fear for the future of his own regime if he continued to keep and conceal his weapons. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, a supporter of the Iraq War, was quoted as saying that Gaddafi had privately phoned him, admitting as much. Many foreign policy experts, however, contend that Gaddafi's announcement was merely a continuation of his prior attempts at normalizing relations with the West and getting the sanctions removed. To support this, they point to the fact that Libya had already made similar offers starting four years prior to it finally being accepted.
Threat of force probably lit a fire under him, but he was trying to "come clean" well before OIF. Does that really count as a victory?
Chris
-
Out of how many ME despots?
Let's see...
The Saudis respond to force. They respond more easily to money, which is even better.
The Egyptians and Jordanians seem to have taken the hint that Israel is not a pushover nation, and have therefore learned to live in peace together.
The Syrians and Lebanese have both shown that they'll leave you alone for a while after you kick their ass. They occasionally need a reminder, though. Short memories, I guess.
Libya, obviously.
So there's half a dozen, right off the top of my head.
Besides, if Wikipedia is correct, he was already making overtones to Clinton two years prior to 9/11:
Threat of force probably lit a fire under him, but he was trying to "come clean" well before OIF. Does that really count as a victory?
I'll take substance over overtones, myself. Results, not talk. Results didn't occur until after we initiated the use of force.
And why wouldn't it count as a victory? It's a good thing for America and for the world. Would you somehow prefer that Gaddafi keep causing trouble for everyone?
(Same goes for the elimination of Saddam - good for us and for the wider world. Definitely a win.)
-
The Saudis respond to force. They respond more easily to money, which is even better.
The Egyptians and Jordanians seem to have taken the hint that Israel is not a pushover nation, and have therefore learned to live in peace together.
The Syrians and Lebanese have both shown that they'll leave you alone for a while after you kick their ass. They occasionally need a reminder, though. Short memories, I guess.
And yet that entire region continues to be a problem. That is my point. You pacify one group, and the troublemakers spring up elsewhere. Sure, SA might be our "ally", but their Wahhabi terrorists continue to fight elsewhere. Working from memory, I believe Syria was a haven for Iraq's fighters and what was left of their "weapons of mass destruction", hardly an ally or even pacified enemy.
Nor have our attempts done anything to discourage the current rogues (Iran and NK).
I'll take substance over overtones, myself. Results, not talk. Results didn't occur until after we initiated the use of force.
Maybe you missed the part where his attempts were rebuked by Clinton. He tried and we said "we're not interested".
And why wouldn't it count as a victory? It's a good thing for America and for the world. Would you somehow prefer that Gaddafi keep causing trouble for everyone?
I was questioning whether it was a victory for the WoT considering he had been trying to come clean since before there was a WoT.
(Same goes for the elimination of Saddam - good for us and for the wider world. Definitely a win.)
I didn't say eliminating was a bad thing (actually, I said I didn't care one way or another about his fate or even the fate of his people), I'm questioning whether or not it was a good use of American money and lives.
Look at it another way, if we do have to take action against Iran or NK, do you think we as a nation are going to be willing to pursue it after years of muddling around Iraq. Will other nations be supportive (yeah yeah, I know we're supposed to go it alone, but we don't live in a vacuum)? We burned a lot of capital (men, machines, money, goodwill) on Iraq, capital that could be more useful elsewhere.
Chris