Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Libya Voluntarily Gives Up WMD

Libya Voluntarily Gives Up WMD
Thread Tools
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 06:24 PM
 
This is a breaking news story right now....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3335965.stm

Libya's leader Colonel Gaddafi has said his country sought to develop weapons of mass destruction capabilities but will dismantle this programme completely, Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced.

"This decision is an historic one and a courageous one and I applaud it," Mr Blair said.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 06:30 PM
 
Good.

Now let's see Blair follow suit.

-s*
     
lil'babykitten  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 06:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Good.

Now let's see Blair follow suit.

-s*
Indeed.

And Bush too.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 06:38 PM
 
Qaddafi (does anyone actually know how his name is spelled? Seems to be different every time you see it) seems to have changed a lot in the last couple of decades. Seems just like yesterday Ronnie Reagan blew up his house. I wonder what is prompting the change? Is it just that he doesn't want to see the 4th ID leaving Baghdad and rolling into Libya? Or has he genuinely seen the error of his ways and wants to put Libya in a position most advantages to his people.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 06:49 PM
 
Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Qaddafi (does anyone actually know how his name is spelled? Seems to be different every time you see it) seems to have changed a lot in the last couple of decades. Seems just like yesterday Ronnie Reagan blew up his house. I wonder what is prompting the change? Is it just that he doesn't want to see the 4th ID leaving Baghdad and rolling into Libya? Or has he genuinely seen the error of his ways and wants to put Libya in a position most advantages to his people.
Well, I doubt he's having a moment of "moral clarity". Rather, I think he's realizing that its simply not in Libya's interests at this time. I have no doubt that America's newfound militarism is part of that calculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if its simply not a reaction to mostly domestic and internal shifts within Libya.

Like in Iran, we see that left to their own devices, these kinds of regimes hardly survive long. You can only villify America and Israel so long before it just doesn't hold water with an increasingly dissatisfied population. That is, of course, unless you're suffering the brunt of brutal sanctions or some other interventionism that plays into the hands of "blame the west"-ers.

Eventually, the "Islamic revolution" peters out and people start questioning how it matters when they can just have peace and prosperity instead.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
lil'babykitten  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 06:53 PM
 
Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Qaddafi (does anyone actually know how his name is spelled? Seems to be different every time you see it) seems to have changed a lot in the last couple of decades. Seems just like yesterday Ronnie Reagan blew up his house. I wonder what is prompting the change? Is it just that he doesn't want to see the 4th ID leaving Baghdad and rolling into Libya? Or has he genuinely seen the error of his ways and wants to put Libya in a position most advantages to his people.
Spelling is Gaddafi

Arab perspective: He's a coward and a traitor who (has) shamed the Arab world once again.
I can sort of understand that.

I don't think he's doing it because 'he's seen the error of his ways' he has wanted to distance himself from the Arab world for a long time and this is the perfect way to do that. There is probably an element of his eagerness to avoid being in the same situation as Iraq is in now too...

Now that he is doing what the West no doubt regards as 'courageous' and 'historical' he's likely to benefit hugely, gaining international status too.
( Last edited by lil'babykitten; Dec 19, 2003 at 07:22 PM. )
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 06:57 PM
 
Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Qaddafi (does anyone actually know how his name is spelled? Seems to be different every time you see it) seems to have changed a lot in the last couple of decades. Seems just like yesterday Ronnie Reagan blew up his house. I wonder what is prompting the change? Is it just that he doesn't want to see the 4th ID leaving Baghdad and rolling into Libya? Or has he genuinely seen the error of his ways and wants to put Libya in a position most advantages to his people.
I was wondering the same thing. Different every time it's written.

Kind of like Usama and Osama have been used interchangably by US media.



I think it's a mix. Libya has a lot to gain by regaining US relations. Especially in a post 9/11 world. With US backing, your invincible. Pakistan was just short of being an "axis of evil" pre-9/11. It something Clinton was very concerned with as well. They helped us out in Afganistan, and gained some serious backing by the Bush Administration. Any attempt to overtake PM Combover in Pakistan will result in US action.

Libya has a choice. Could stay alientated, and risk most definate future invasion if it continues to develop, or turn around.

He made the decision that was best for him personally.

Besides, Libya is a big weight in the Palestine/Israel conflict. This removes more firepower from the Palestininan side, making Israel look like a bigger bully, since Libya will be dismantling, whiel Israel is actively building up WMD.


It's an interesting move. It looks like the best move for Libya, because it could prove good in the long run... But int he short run, it forces everyone else to change their plans. Bush has to promote someone on the list of countries to attack, the middle east has to shift the power a bit...

I'm sure many won't be happy in the middle east over this. But in the long run, it's a good idea.
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 07:15 PM
 
Also quite interesting is that Libya came to the British to attempt to solve this, and negotiated with them.

But Bush will take the credit, rather than let Blair get what he deserves.

Blair's much better with International negotiations than Bush, it's embarassing to the US.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 07:17 PM
 
Libya is getting soft in its modern age. Next thing you know, Haliburton will be there.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 07:30 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, I doubt he's having a moment of "moral clarity". Rather, I think he's realizing that its simply not in Libya's interests at this time. I have no doubt that America's newfound militarism is part of that calculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if its simply not a reaction to mostly domestic and internal shifts within Libya.

Like in Iran, we see that left to their own devices, these kinds of regimes hardly survive long. You can only villify America and Israel so long before it just doesn't hold water with an increasingly dissatisfied population. That is, of course, unless you're suffering the brunt of brutal sanctions or some other interventionism that plays into the hands of "blame the west"-ers.

Eventually, the "Islamic revolution" peters out and people start questioning how it matters when they can just have peace and prosperity instead.
Actually, I didn't have a chance to finish that post, as I'm at work and got called away. The other possibilities I was going to mention where is this in some way going to benefit Gaddafi (Thanks Kitten) in some way. He always seemed a bit of a megalomaniac, and I always got the impression that what's best for Momar is far more important than what's best for Libya.

And it's interesting that you mention Iran. I was thinking along those same lines myself. Are the people just fed up with the way things are and ready to move on, thus giving Qaddafi the choice of change with the times or find himself overthrown? Either by his own people or a vast neo-con conspiracy (That's a joke and nothing more than good natured teasing, just so we're clear on that )?

You do hear about the situation in Iran, with student protests, and a mostly young population that seems eager for a change, but I can't even remember the last time I heard anything about the political climate in Libya.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 08:56 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, I doubt he's having a moment of "moral clarity". Rather, I think he's realizing that its simply not in Libya's interests at this time. I have no doubt that America's newfound militarism is part of that calculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if its simply not a reaction to mostly domestic and internal shifts within Libya.

Like in Iran, we see that left to their own devices, these kinds of regimes hardly survive long. You can only villify America and Israel so long before it just doesn't hold water with an increasingly dissatisfied population. That is, of course, unless you're suffering the brunt of brutal sanctions or some other interventionism that plays into the hands of "blame the west"-ers.

Eventually, the "Islamic revolution" peters out and people start questioning how it matters when they can just have peace and prosperity instead.
Right. he simply wants off the state sponsors of terrorism list and he wants the sanctions lifted. Libya has been playing very nice over the last couple of years. Gaddafi was one of the first to condemn the attacks on the US after 9/11 and has said he wants to fight international terrorism. Basically, he wants to come in from the cold.

This may be the first time in history that economic sanctions have worked. Well, economic sanctions coupled with a military spanking back in 1986.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2003, 10:16 PM
 
After we called his bluff, and layed the smack down in the 80's, I think Momar wised up.

Saddam should have learned from Momar. He's been on his best behavior for YEARS. It's not a recent thing, really.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 12:23 AM
 
Funny how nobody seems to do the right thing until American troops threaten to smack 'em around.

Words could not have accomplished this.

Thanks, Dubya, for helping to make our world safer.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 01:49 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Funny how nobody seems to do the right thing until American troops threaten to smack 'em around.

Words could not have accomplished this.

Thanks, Dubya, for helping to make our world safer.
I agree. After seeing the Iraqi spanking, I'm sure Momar didn't want his mug on TV getting his teeth checked out. I'm sure the force brought to bear on Saddam was very soboring. Further, I see more M.E. nations following suit, with those who don't falling under very heavy scrutiny.

Every M.E. leader is looking at Iraq and saying, "damn, that may happen to us...". Good job Bush.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 07:14 AM
 
I don't think it had all that much to do with the ME or Iraq or whatever. It has a lot to do with the international sanctions placed on Libya in the early 90's after the Lockerbie evidence started and Libya refused to hand over the culprits (whether they were the culprits or whether it was state sanctioned is another thing altogether) Libya was quite cordned off from the world for a long time, and it seemed that Ghaddafi eventually opted for a non confrontational course. He handed over the Lockerbie suspects, intervened to mediate in the kidnappings in the Philipines and paid out damages for the Lockerbie and UTA bombings. For his troubles he got the sanctions lifted by all except the US, and could start looking forward to the Libyan oil industry getting off the ground again.

This latest effort is probably because he wants to officially get off the list of problem states that have been accused of developing WMD.

What his motivations are is anybody's guess. He is getting old and probably realises that the situation couldn't stay the same forever. He is taking his chances with economic development instead of political posturing. Internally, however, not much has changed in Libya, and probably won't until he decides to abdicate. I doubt that Libya has been under much threat of an attack or invasion by the US. There is only so much territory that the US can hold and I would think that the US would be more interested in Syria and Iran, where the recent acceptance of the extended Atomic Agency protocols were probably signed in part because of American threats.
weird wabbit
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 10:00 AM
 
So Libya apparently had an active WMD program and Iraq apparently didn't?.....and Iraq was the country that got invaded?

     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 10:01 AM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
This latest effort is probably because he wants to officially get off the list of problem states that have been accused of developing WMD.
No, it's the list of state sponsors of terrorism that is part of the Export Act of 1979. Obviously, you don't know the difference.
     
lil'babykitten  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 10:12 AM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
So Libya apparently had an active WMD program and Iraq apparently didn't?.....and Iraq was the country that got invaded?

No, silly. See Iraq was invaded for humanitarian reasons. It wasn't about WMD at all. No siree Bob.

Damn this world is so fvcked it's unbelievable.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 10:47 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, it's the list of state sponsors of terrorism that is part of the Export Act of 1979. Obviously, you don't know the difference.
Wow, Simey: You're seriously being a prick, there, AFAICS.

Are you talking about "official" lists?

Because, while Libya may "officially" be on some 1979 list of terrorism-sponsors that they've been trying to get off of with their Lockerbie-compensation etc., I fail to see the relevance of this list to their giving-up of WMD development - which is what this thread is about, last I checked the title.

And while there may not be an "official" list of countries developing WMD, you may remember that development of WMD *was* in fact the primary reason given for the invasion of Iraq - at least, until said weapons failed to turn up.

So it makes some sense to pre-empt a possible invasion by a president with an unpredictable agenda by coming forth and removing WMD from a list of possible justifications, no? Thus removing your country from the "list" of countries to which said justification might be applied, no?

Sheesh.

-s*
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 10:59 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Wow, Simey: You're seriously being a prick, there, AFAICS.

Are you talking about "official" lists?

Because, while Libya may "officially" be on some 1979 list of terrorism-sponsors that they've been trying to get off of with their Lockerbie-compensation etc., I fail to see the relevance of this list to their giving-up of WMD development - which is what this thread is about, last I checked the title.

And while there may not be an "official" list of countries developing WMD, you may remember that development of WMD *was* in fact the primary reason given for the invasion of Iraq - at least, until said weapons failed to turn up.

So it makes some sense to pre-empt a possible invasion by a president with an unpredictable agenda by coming forth and removing WMD from a list of possible justifications, no? Thus removing your country from the "list" of countries to which said justification might be applied, no?

Sheesh.

-s*
You need to look at Theolein's obnoxious post in the other thread to see why I made that comment. He has once again lost his temper and become abusive. At least this time he hasn't started hitting the F key. But he basically accused me of making things up and that is obnoxious. That's why I had to search for and post a huge article in the other thread from the Washington Post magazine. I guess Theo thinks if it doesn't get published in Zurich, it isn't news.

The export act list is the way the US classifies state sponsors of terrorism. That's the reason Libya is under sanctions. It was never because of its WMD program. Obviously, the US has been concerned about its WMD program, but a WMD program alone is not a reason to put a state under sanctions. Having WMD is not per se illegal. Supporting terrorism arguably is. In any case, it is sufficient to keep a state on the export act list.

Congress and several administration have set forth a number of conditions before the US will take Libya off the list. Until Libya is off the US list, the US won't allow the UN to lift Libya's sanctions that were put in place after Lockerbie. That's why Libya is so concerned, and that is why it is desparate to play ball. This WMD cooperation is part of Libya's wider campaign to come in from the cold and shake off its pariah status. It's a very good thing if it is genuine.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Dec 20, 2003 at 11:06 AM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 11:05 AM
 
That official sanctioned-state list, however, has absolutely nothing to do with their renouncing WMD, as you have just explained.

So there must be another reason why they are doing that.

Do you have a better suggestion than theo's - quite plausible - theory, or are you merely interested in knocking down arguments he wasn't making in your quest to personally assault him?

I'm sorry, Simey, I've really tried to stay out of whatever personal thing has been going on between the two of you in the past, but here, I really, really fail to see your point.

-s*
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 11:07 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That official sanctioned-state list, however, has absolutely nothing to do with their renouncing WMD, as you have just explained.
-s*
No, it has everything to do with this decision on WMD. Libya isn't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts, they are responding to pressure.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 11:12 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Do you have a better suggestion than theo's - quite plausible - theory, or are you merely interested in knocking down arguments he wasn't making in your quest to personally assault him?
Uh, what theory?

Oh, you mean that this is all because of the sanctions? He's right about that. But those sanctions are only in place at the present time because the US won't agree to lift them. The US won't agree to lift them because Libya hasn't agreed to all the US' conditions. Those conditions, if met, will take Libya off the export Act list of state sponsors of terrorism. Once that is done, the rest will follow.

Theolein's response wasn't wrong, it was just incomplete and slightly inaccurate. The list is on the Export Act, it isn't anywhere else.

As for my quest to personally assault Theolein, nothing could be further from the truth. I just don't like having someone fly off the handle at me, and I don't like being called (in effect) a liar. When I say I have read an article about something, my memory is usually pretty accurate. I don't make stuff up, even if I can't put my hands on the link at the present time. In this case, I said I had read something that conflicted with Theo's rather rigid beleifs about the Hatfill case, and he went bazerk. So I had to run a Westnews search to find the article. My memory was correct, but it was a hassle posting such a long article.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Dec 20, 2003 at 11:25 AM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 11:24 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Uh, what theory?

Oh, you mean that this is all because of the sanctions? He's right about that. But those sanctions are only in place at the present time because the US won't agree to lift them. The US won't agree to lift them because Libya hasn't agreed to all the US' conditions. Those conditions, if met, will take Libya off the export Act list of state sponsors of terrorism. Once that is done, the rest will follow.

Theolein's response wasn't wrong, it was just incomplete and slightly inaccurate. The list is on the Export Act, it isn't anywhere else.
You're amazing. Really.
Originally posted by theolein:
This latest effort is probably because he wants to officially get off the list of problem states that have been accused of developing WMD.
-s*
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 11:26 AM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You're amazing. Really.


-s*
There is no list of problem states over WMD. Libya isn't under sanctions because of WMD. It is under sanctions because of Lockerbie. It's a fact, you can check it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 12:31 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is no list of problem states over WMD. Libya isn't under sanctions because of WMD. It is under sanctions because of Lockerbie. It's a fact, you can check it.
Hence my post above about "official" lists (do you actually *read* others' posts anymore?).

I'm sure you are correct that there is no official, published list of such states.

However: Original stated reason for invading Iraq was a program for the development of WMD (and presence thereof). If you qualify states by "WMD development programs", you end up with a LIST.

Dammit, Simey - what are you, a lawyer or something!?

     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 12:37 PM
 
get a grip, folks.

Instead of calling Simey names, maybe you should improve your debating skills.

To lose is not a big deal. To lose and act like a whiner IS.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 12:50 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Uh, what theory?

Oh, you mean that this is all because of the sanctions? He's right about that. But those sanctions are only in place at the present time because the US won't agree to lift them. The US won't agree to lift them because Libya hasn't agreed to all the US' conditions. Those conditions, if met, will take Libya off the export Act list of state sponsors of terrorism. Once that is done, the rest will follow.

Theolein's response wasn't wrong, it was just incomplete and slightly inaccurate. The list is on the Export Act, it isn't anywhere else.

As for my quest to personally assault Theolein, nothing could be further from the truth. I just don't like having someone fly off the handle at me, and I don't like being called (in effect) a liar. When I say I have read an article about something, my memory is usually pretty accurate. I don't make stuff up, even if I can't put my hands on the link at the present time. In this case, I said I had read something that conflicted with Theo's rather rigid beleifs about the Hatfill case, and he went bazerk. So I had to run a Westnews search to find the article. My memory was correct, but it was a hassle posting such a long article.
I put you on my ignore list this morning and had a good laugh when I came home this evening to see around 8 "This person is on your ignore list" posts by you.

The sad thing is that you still don't understand or get it. You think it's perfectly ok to make false statements and accusations about someone else and then lose control of your bladder when that someone, in this case me, calls you on it repeatedly, and points out that Stefan Hatfill was not actually the subject of the posts, which you seem incapable of understanding, even when it is repeatedly posted to you.

To summarise: If you dish it out, then it's a good idea to be able to take it as well. It's also a good idea to attribute those posts and attitudes to people who actually made them, not people you think made them.
weird wabbit
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 12:55 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
get a grip, folks.

Instead of calling Simey names, maybe you should improve your debating skills.

To lose is not a big deal. To lose and act like a whiner IS.
Spliffdaddy, it is one thing to lose a point.

It is another thing to concede a point that one WASN'T EVEN MAKING.

I have no idea why Simey insists on some sort of legal document, contract, or official list.

Nobody was referring to one until he claimed so.

But then, you know all about deliberately misreading others' posts in order to claim ***smackdown***s on points nobody was making.

Good for your pitiful ego, but not much else.

-s*
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 01:10 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
So Libya apparently had an active WMD program and Iraq apparently didn't?.....and Iraq was the country that got invaded?
Read the Kay report...Iraq's WMD program was undeniably ongoing. The lack of toxin barrels (or our inability to find such) does not all of a sudden classify Iraq's WMD program as inactive or non-existent.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 01:11 PM
 
"To summarise: If you dish it out, then it's a good idea to be able to take it as well."

who said that?



for fvck's sake...

edit:

I don't have anyone on my ignore list. I'm a big boy and I can handle reading whatever words are formed by pixels on my monitor.

Besides, nobody ever adds a member to their ignore list unless they keep losing the debate to them. It is the same as admitting defeat.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 01:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Besides, nobody ever adds a member to their ignore list unless they keep losing the debate to them. It is the same as admitting defeat.
Yeah, yeah...and America's "Number One for a reason".

...sure thing, Spliffy.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 01:27 PM
 
don't fret. I'm working on a software application that will convert your huge unwieldy 'ignore list' into a searchable database managed by MySQL.

I'm writing it for OS9. Is that what you Mac-users are running nowadays?

no. wait. you've got that cat thing going on, right?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 01:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
don't fret. I'm working on a software application that will convert your huge unwieldy 'ignore list' into a searchable database managed by MySQL.
You may note that you're not on my ignore list now, are you.

Not that you'd ever be wrong about anything, no no...don't worry, Spliffy: I'm sure you're still "Number one"...at something.

I gotta go Nr.2 now, so please excuse me.

-spheric*
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 02:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
....I'm working on a software application that will convert your huge unwieldy 'ignore list' into a searchable database managed by MySQL...
Using an open-source database?

How communist of you.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 03:06 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
don't fret. I'm working on a software application that will convert your huge unwieldy 'ignore list' into a searchable database managed by MySQL.

I'm writing it for OS9. Is that what you Mac-users are running nowadays?

no. wait. you've got that cat thing going on, right?
Spliff, I was not the one that started the taunting and name calling. Simey was the one that started that game this time around.

As for that application of yours, why not write it in VBA of JScript for WSH, then everyone can have some fun and at the same time claim real points while w00ting " 1 0wnz j00, 5ux0r" as they root the machine for fun and profit. Then there'll really be something to lose around this place.
weird wabbit
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 04:32 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
and points out that Stefan Hatfill was not actually the subject of the posts, which you seem incapable of understanding, even when it is repeatedly posted to you.
Actually, you were the one who brought Hatfill and the anthrax attacks up, in response to a question about why people are determined to dismiss any possibility that Iraq could have been involved with terrorism. Your dogmatically insisted that he did it, and the FBI knew it. Then I asked you on what basis you come to that conclusion because all the recent articles I have seen indicate that the Hatfill investigation had gone nowhere in 2 years. For example, the pond that you touted as evidence contained no evidence.

That's really about it. It's a shame that you aren't going to look at the recent Washington Post article I posted. It's the one you didn't seem to think existed. I'm afraid it casts a lot of doubt on your 2 year old theory.

Basically, Theo, you just hate to be contradicted when you have made up your mind about something. Then you get "very very angry" and all hell breaks loose.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 06:46 PM
 
BTW, Bush was just said in the news with words to the effect that "the message of the Iraq war has been understood".



Seems theo's assessment that the list of countries developing WMD are getting a little nervous after Iraq is correct.

-s*
     
lil'babykitten  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2003, 06:53 PM
 
What in the living fvck? This thread got so off topic I started looking for the one I started, not realising this was it!

But anyway, what Spheric said...and theo?
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2003, 01:56 AM
 
Well, I was both right and wrong. The UN sanctions against Libya were in fact lifted in September of this year. I wasn't aware of that. However, the US sanctions were left in place in order to pressure Libya to end it's WMD program. It's because of those American sanctions that Libya has ended its WMD program.

As the New York Times put it:

Over the past five years, by turning over two suspects for trial, acknowledging its complicity in the Lockerbie bombing and paying compensation to victims' families, Libya finally managed to persuade the United Nations Security Council to lift the international sanctions that had shadowed its economy and its international reputation for more than a decade. Those sanctions were lifted in September. This page recommended lifting American sanctions as well, but President Bush left them in place pending further steps, most notably Libya's decision to end its unconventional weapons programs. It is now clear that he was right to do so. The added American pressure worked just as intended.
New York Times, 12/20/2003.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2003, 02:14 AM
 
Dammit, once in blue moon there comes along a thread in this stupid political forum that I actually want to take part in and have a rational conversation, and you guys kick it right in to the trash, business as usual. Get back on topic please.

The reason that I have so much interest in this is because I went to both Syracuse University and Oswego State University, both of which had students that were killed on that particular Pan Am flight, and I still live in the area. Although it's been long forgotten and relegated to the back of people's minds elsewhere, it's still a sore spot with a lot of people here.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2003, 02:20 AM
 
Excuse me, but how is it off-topic? This thread has not veered much from the topic at hand: Libya's decision to end its WMD program. The only disagreements have been about exactly why. Otherwise I think the thread would simply be a chorus of people saying "this is good news." Which it is, of course.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2003, 02:48 AM
 
I was refering to what ever this little personal spat is that's going on between you, sh and theo. Let by-gones be by-gones and start anew, or something. I guess I'm just sick of seeing everyone at each others virtual throats.

So, unless Hatfill is/was a Libyan agent, leave him out of this thread.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:05 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,