Comments on: Prime Minister’s Visit to Libya

By: Derek

Derek — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:03:16 +0000

"taken significant steps towards eliminating WMD programs…."

Isn’t this very vague. I’d really like to know more about the extent to which Libya really had developed the WMD or posed a threat which has now been renounced through the carrot (talks) and stick (example of Iraq). I haven’t picked up much of the detail but what are the precise "steps" that Libya have taken. How much has the threat, now "resolved", been enhanced for political effect?

Having said this it still seems eminently better to lock and engage a country into a wider international community by talking and befriending rather than bombing or forever isolating. More drastic approaches may now have been short circumvented.

By: benjamin

benjamin — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:30:54 +0000

Of course, I may be very much mistaken, but isn’t making and keeping peace a very important factor in the security, physically and politically, of a nation. Should we make enemies by dwelling forever on the hurts a nation has given us, thus clinging desperately to an old enemy, or would it not be far better to make a friend. Now, obviously I do not offer any disrespect to the Lockerbie victims, or their families, but Colonel Gaddafi will soon be dead, for that is the limit of all mankind, but Libya, and Britain’s friendship, with it will last, if we both strive to keep it, for decades.

Benjamin

By: Ron F

Ron F — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:47:45 +0000

Tonight, if you listen carefully, you will hear the weapons merchants at BAe clapping along merrily, as Tony Blair dances on the graves of the Lockerbie victims.

By: Roger Huffadine

Roger Huffadine — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:36:40 +0000

History used to demand the gradual algorithm of

Terrorist - Freedom Fighter - Statesman

but now the World moves faster

Terrorist - Statesman

a little more acceleration and
TB will be shaking hands with Osama

anyone going to give me odds?

By: Chris Lightfoot

Chris Lightfoot — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:06:26 +0000

I was very amused by a comment in one of the papers (I can’t be bothered to find it now) on the revelation that we’ll be giving backer of terrorists and pursuer of "weapons of mass destruction" Colonel Gaddafi military aid. "Perhaps," the journalist wrote, "he’s hoping to make it to Brigadier."

Well, I lauged.

By: Lodjer

Lodjer — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:47:35 +0000

I expect so, and yes, jaw better than war.

But does this inconsistency not highlight that the reasons behind actions are not the ones we are given?

Iraq was attacked and Saddam deposed because of wmd - which he didn’t have.

And now Gadaffi and Libya are extended diplomatic normalcy (or something close) because of their "steps" regarding wmd.

This is Doublethink. I think.

By: Marek Ostrowski

Marek Ostrowski — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:38:21 +0000

Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war. And as for ’significant steps’, I think it’s fine to open up in stages as long as it’s seen as an ongoing process - I expect that the rug can be pulled very quickly if Gaddafy decides to stop playing nice.

By: Lodjer

Lodjer — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:09:23 +0000

"taken significant steps towards eliminating WMD programs." So they arent even reducing existing weapons, just not making new ones as quickly?

Oh fine then, never mind Lockerbie, well done Gadaffi!

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:36:00 +0000

So, we persuaded Gaddafi to give up his WMD (ahaha) so that BAE could sell him lots of new weapons? Well done, ethical foreign policy my arse