IIRC they admitted culpability in some acts of terrorism and paid some retribution. He has been cooperating with western intelligence against AQ (or so its reported). No, I think some are trying too hard to be coy about what to do with a despot - ie the old if we attacked Iraq because he was a despot we have to attack every country that has a despot' silliness. We are the world community - didn't you get that email?
Well I meant my post facetiously, I would oppose all autocrats, but the reality is the world's policeman can't fight every battle. You have to pick and choose your battles by urgency, winnability, stategic value, propaganda value etc. You can see how well it's working in Iraq. How Kadafi Went From Foe to Ally 1998: Libya becomes the first country to issue an international arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden. 1999: Kadafi surrenders the two suspects in the Pan Am attack, and the U.N. suspends economic sanctions. 2001: A court convicts Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi of murder in the Lockerbie case. The second Libyan defendant is acquitted. Kadafi strongly condemns the Sept. 11 attacks, urging Libyans to donate blood for the victims. 2003: The U.N. lifts its weapons and travel embargoes against Libya after the government accepts responsibility for the 1988 airliner bombing. 2003: Libya renounces its nuclear program and hands over documents that help the CIA and European authorities unmask suspects in a nuclear black market. 2004: President Bush lifts most U.S. trade sanctions against the country.
The U.S. is the world community? I am afraid not many would share your view. As far as I know, the last empire who claimed to be the world got busted for good. Ask this man:
any proof that saddam worked with terrorists pre-Iraq war? were any US interests attacked? where's the wmds?
Well, your claims are not what is being talked about in this thread, nor are they actually accurate. First, I said one country voluntarily gave up their WMD program and one didn't. No one says Iraq never had a WMD program or that they voluntarily gave it up. Second, the majority of them don't say there are no ties between Iraq and terrorists. They say there were no ties between Al Quaeda and Iraq. That doesn't deny Saddam's connection to suicide bombers, or harboring and supporting Abu Nidal and others like him. Nor did Saddam ever renounce terrorism. So if you have an argument to make - make it - stop asking vague silly time consuming questions like you're trying to trap someone.
You guys should read the article about Qaddafi and Libya in last week's New Yorker. A lot of the comments from both sides in this thread are way, way off base.
good one.. you went from giving up WMDs to voluntarily giving up WMD programs if you think its time consuming, don't respond to it.. no one's intimidating or forcing you to respond..
I don't know why it needs to be repeated in every D&D thread, maybe I am on everyone's ignore list but SADDAM WAS PAYING THE FAMILIES OF SUICIDE BOMBERS IN PALESTINE. That means Iraq not only had ties to terrorists, they were actively sponsoring them, in full view of the public. Let's all get off the Iraq had no ties to terrorists merry-go-round once and for all.
Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator, but he never sponsored or supported terrorism and his wmd capabilities had been destroyed after the first Gulf War. Muammar Ghaddafi is also a secular dictator, but there is no real evidence he sponsored or supported terrorism and he didn't have any real wmd program either. Now why was one the victim of an illegal invasion and occupation and the other hugged? It's pretty simple. One has agreed to accomodate the West and take orders from Washington, while the other, who was sponsored and supported by the West, decided he wanted to make decisions on his own. Similiar to Manuel Noriega of Panama, who was on the US government's payroll, when a dictator doesn't follow orders from Washington, but instead issues his own, then he is demonized, his country invaded, and his regime overthrown. But if he 'behaves' and he's good for business, then the West has no problem with absolute dictatorial rule. So it doesn't matter how brutal the regime in Libya is and it doesn't matter how many people are kidnapped and executed by Tripoli on a daily basis, as long as they remain in Washington's corner, it's not an issue. The same way it didn't matter how many people Saddam Hussein brutally murdered while he was the West's buddy, but when he wasn't, those same countries that supported him while he committed his most egregious human rights violations, were using his past atrocities against him. Another monument to hyprocrisy.
There is little doubt Saddam supported suicide bombers or infamous terrorists like Abu Nidal. You are in a significant minority that doesn't see that as terrorism. Ghaddafi's intelligence agent was convicted of the Pan Am bombing and Libya accepted responsibility for the act, and there is significant evidence of other acts - I'm sure you don't think that's terrorism or not 'proof' but you'd be in an even SMALLER minority on that one. Saddam continued to propagate that he had WMD aspirations, he did have WMD at one point, he did not voluntarily give them up - Ghaddafi gave his up (you can substantiate your opinion that it wasn't 'real' if you'd like). Saddam never renounced terrorism, Ghaddafi has. They were both secular dictators. That's about the extent of it.
