Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (12446)	4/5/2004 9:28:16 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Gadaffi started to negotiate with the British and the Europeans before the Iraq war. His goals were to re enter the world community. The nuclear weapons and WMD resulted from the revelation of Mr. Khan, the Pakistani scientist. When Libya was confronted with specific data from Dr. Khan, Mr. Gadaffi had no other choice. After all, unlike Saddam, he did possess WMDs. Here is the simple scoop. When Saddam was confronted with data, he denied it since he did not have any WMDs. Bush did not trust that and marched the military in and found the same thing. In Libya, Gadaffi had WMDs. he too like Saddam told the truth, which in this case is that he had it. What Gadaffi did does not justify what Bush did in Iraq.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (12446)	4/11/2004 9:41:41 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

The Iraq War did not Force Gadaffi's Hand The Financial Times, March 9, 2004 Martin S. Indyk, Director, Saban Center for Middle East Policy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Embarrassed by the failure to find Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, President George W. Bush is trying to find another WMD-related justification for his pre-emptive war on Iraq. Bush administration spokesmen have been quick to portray Libya's December decision to abandon WMD programmes as the direct result of the US invasion of Iraq or, as Mr. Bush himself put it in his State of the Union address: "Nine months of intense negotiations succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not." In diplomacy, noted the president, "words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America" (applause). The implication is clear. Get rid of one dictator because of his supposed WMD programmes and others will be so afraid that they will voluntarily abandon their weapons programmes. Therefore, even if no WMDs were found in Iraq, we still made the world a safer place. The perfect comeback. In Muammer Gadaffi's case, this proposition is questionable. In fact, Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD programmes more than four years ago, at the outset of secret negotiations with US officials. In May 1999, their offer was officially conveyed to the US government at the peak of the "12 years of diplomacy with Iraq" that Mr. Bush now disparages. Back then, Libya was facing a deepening economic crisis produced by disastrous economic policies and mismanagement of its oil revenues. United Nations and US sanctions that prevented Libya importing oilfield technology made it impossible for Mr. Gadaffi to expand oil production. The only way out was to seek rapprochement with Washington. contd...http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm