Get out of Invasion Free Card

BlitzKrieg

IF anyone has seen the news today about tony blair talking with the lebonan leader col. 'the mad dog' Gadafy you might agree with me that the whole notion of War against terrorism has become a sort of get out of invasion free card. Any nation who agrees to help has all previous war crimes etc (including protecting terrorists and sponsering the IRA) forgotten. I dont know why but this makes me laugh.

-on the other hand Gadafy was planning to start phasing out his revolution towards democracy from 2003

flogen

It always has been IMO, perhaps from a different angle though... (if your not with us your against us etc etc).

tbh, this situation with Libya suits everyone, and thats why its happened. As you pointed out, Gaddafi had planned to do something along these lines anyway, but due to timing he is seen as a setting an example, this suits the US and UK, now they can say their pressure lead to this climb-down. Another plus for Libya is the huge revenue they are set to come into as the sanctions are lifted and the oil starts to flow (surely alot more money there than selling guns to the IRA). This again suits the Axis of Desiel, as theyre getting some oil and their companies are staying productive in the international markets.
One point also worth thinking about is this, Libya HAS WMD, and has admitted strong terrorist links, and so, by the US and UKs own rules must be dealt with, if they didnt stand down, and a war was the only outcome, Britain would be on its knees, as it has admitted that the Army wont recover until something like 2007 or 2008 after Iraq (also American troops would actually be in danger of being attacked by chemical weapons for once). Gaddafi also, Im sure, likes his life and his job, and wouldnt be too keen on giving it up, as mad as he may be, i think he knows that hes gotten away with it for long enough, and its either do or die, and he saw those piles of cash on the 'do' path and just couldnt resist

Flogen

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mr_angry

It worked well for Pakistan too. Military dictatorship, terrorists in the hills, and revelations that they were selling info on nuclear weapons to Libya and North Korea... all conveniently negated by the fact that they are an "ally" in the War on Terror. Its nice to see that all these things became apparent whilst the US were relying on their help, isn't it?

Lets face it, if it wasn't for their alliance against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, Pakistan would be perfect Axis of Evil material, and a sure candidate for termination.. *cough*.. I mean liberation.

bonkey

Originally posted by mr_angry
Lets face it, if it wasn't for their alliance against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, Pakistan would be perfect Axis of Evil material,

Well, it (Pakistan) was named as a "rogue state" round when all of this started.

vorbis

kinda funny to see people complaining about the US and UK solving problems peacefully with a country. Since they get blamed for either going to war or for using diplomacy, what other path to conflict resolution is left? :rolleyes:

BlitzKrieg

Originally posted by vorbis
kinda funny to see people complaining about the US and UK solving problems peacefully with a country. Since they get blamed for either going to war or for using diplomacy, what other path to conflict resolution is left? :rolleyes:

I'm not complaining i'm just confused as to why the coalition had no problem making peace with Libya for its war on terorism and yet without any thought of a peaceful resolution went to war against iraq (and handing over weapons which dont exist is not a peaceful solution). Saddam may be a complete a**hole but even he could see an advantage in getting the US of its back in exchange for supporting anti-terorist actions he wasnt himself Al quieda's (i'll never spell that right...sheesh) biggest fan.

sovtek

Originally posted by vorbis
kinda funny to see people complaining about the US and UK solving problems peacefully with a country. Since they get blamed for either going to war or for using diplomacy, what other path to conflict resolution is left? :rolleyes:

Because it's obvious that invading Iraq hadn't a thing to do with WMD and was all about controlling oil and strategic advantage (heard they are trying to lock in permanent bases with next government).
Libya probably wasn't attacked because it wasn't key to securing the ME for Israel and taking control of oil.
Now Libya had a real apparatus for WMD's and they actually have a terrorist network. That means they might could have defended themselves. Unlike Iraq (although that's turning out to be somewhat of a miscalculation).

vorbis

i'd be pretty sure that they could have invaded Libya if they wanted to. As far as I've heard, Gadafi had manly weapons of mass destruction programmes but little end product. I could be wrong though.

sovtek

Originally posted by vorbis
i'd be pretty sure that they could have invaded Libya if they wanted to. As far as I've heard, Gadafi had manly weapons of mass destruction programmes but little end product. I could be wrong though.

Actually I heard the same thing, and I'm quite sure that Libya could have been invaded. It was definetly bombed with ease the last time.
I was going on the official line about both Iraq and Libya as of late.
I don't think Gaddafi was a real threat to anyone next to Saddam. Like Saddam he used to be on "our" payroll.