Gaddafi's Oddest Idea: Abolish Switzerland

[Gewehr98]

Noted.

Fresh shipment of Caterpillar bulldozers enroute to play mop-up.   

[De Selby]

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. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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?

[De Selby]

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.

[Jocassee]

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.

[longeyes]

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.

[roo_ster]

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]

Jamisjockey's oldest idea:  Abolish Lybia. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Sawdust]

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

[agricola]

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

[De Selby]

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?

[Monkeyleg]

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[De Selby]

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?

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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?  

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

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

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[De Selby]

:|

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?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

Hussein attacked the US hundreds of times? What?

[mtnbkr]

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

[MicroBalrog]

On this rationale, America must invade and destroy Israel for sponsoring terrorist acts against American targets in the 1950's.