Perhaps you could provide some references or links to articles that reasonablyOriginally Posted by husaberg
(i) show the former and (ii) show the linkage to the latter ?
Hardcore Biker
Perhaps you could provide some references or links to articles that reasonably
(i) show the former and (ii) show the linkage to the latter ?
Anorak
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-libya-got-list
https://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/6268
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/16/w...-am-plane.html
https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/libya/nuclear/Despite the dryness of the language and the distant tone of the admission, the letter nonetheless represented the first official acknowledgment that the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was involved in the bombing, one of the most notorious acts of terrorism in modern times.
The United Nations sanctions, first imposed in 1993, were suspended after the two suspects were turned over to the court.
After the late-afternoon session today in Mr. Wehbe's Security Council office, Mr. Parry came out to tell reporters that the Libyan letter ''sets out very clearly their view -- now shared by the British and American governments -- that Libya has met the conditions set out by the Security Council'' for the lifting of the sanctions.
He then said he expected to introduce a resolution to lift the sanctions as early as Monday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...sdJ_story.htmlOn 19 December 2003, the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Libya) agreed to eliminate all materials, equipment, and programs aimed at the production of nuclear or other internationally proscribed weapons. Libya's then leader Colonel Mu'ammar Qadhafi admitted that, in contravention of its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Libya had pursued a nuclear weaponsprogram. In 2004, the United States and the United Kingdomdismantled Libya's nuclear weapons infrastructure with oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
even your old friend russia today said thisBut by 2003, Gaddafi was on his way to a major reorientation of his relations with the West, particularly the United States. He was among the first Arab leaders to condemn the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Osama bin Laden was an old foe, and Libya had issued an international arrest warrant for the al-Qaeda leader in March 1998, several months before the group’s first major assault on the United States: the embassy bombings in East Africa.
ibya soon announced that it was abandoning a secret program to develop nuclear weapons, and it destroyed chemical munitions. The George W. Bush administration lifted sanctions, and foreign investment and international leaders, including Britain’s Tony Blair and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, made their way to Libya.
Once despised as a sponsor of world terrorism, President Ronald Reagan dubbed him the “Mad Dog of the Middle East.”
But years later, Muammar Gaddafi’s friendship with the Western world blossomed.
“Ties between the United States and Libya have taken a remarkable and positive turn in recent years,” once said Senator John McCain.
Then in 2009, McCain tweeted, “late evening with Col. Gaddafi at his "ranch" in Libya – interesting meeting with an interesting man.”
Less than a decade ago, Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice announced the US was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had no qualms doing business with Gaddafi and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi got cozy with him at a United Nations Summit in Rome.
Just faidin away!
Hook line and sinker! - but hey, your still free to obey - suppose that's got to be a plus of sorts.
Anorak
Hardcore Biker
Thanks for the reply.
1. Demonisation
It is quite easy for countries to end up being "demonised by the West" these days,
so that is a fairly low bar to jump.[ Some Western newspaper articles are wont to
say "demonised by the World", but that is more than just a little presumptuous.]
Accusations are easy and cheap to make. Proof takes a little more time and effort,
and not often forthcoming.
"Demonisation" (typically by the West) has generally occurred when a particular
country or regime has chosen to follow a path of independent thinking and action -
not follow instructions from those in the West that would seek to either control
it or to exploit it for gain.
Kim, Xi, Putin and the Iranian regime are all very familiar with this standard
propaganda approach. Not to forget the late Fidel Castro.
2. State Sponsor of Support / Freedom Movements
It had been said that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...reedom_Fighter
so the fact that Libya ended up on the list of US designated "state sponsors
of terrorism" is notable, but hardly significant.
The US may well claim itself to be "exceptional", but it cannot (despite all
its protestations) be said to "hold the moral high ground" re state sponsored
terrorism. Especially given it's very own actions over the past 50-60 years.
Vietnam, Central America, Iran and Iraq in the 70's, 80's and 90's all readily
come to mind. And let's not forget current US support of Saudi Arabia and its
military operations against the Houthis in Yemen.
The US adding its own name to the list (preferably at the top) would at least
recognise the hypocrisy inherent in it ever maintaining such a list.
It should be no surprise that Gaddafi was a supporter of various independence
movements around the world. Including the PLO in the Middle East and the ANC
in South Africa.
The second article you supplied refers to the period when Gaddafi was supporting
native African resistance to white apartheid when it was active in South Africa.
And when the ANC was formerly legalised in SA, Mandela visited Gaddafi in 1990
to thank him for his efforts and support.
So, two sides to this story, and it all depends from which side of the fence you
are looking.
3. Nuclear Program
Your point ?
Little different to the behaviour of a number of other countries around the world in
recent times.
And had the Libyan nuclear weapons development program ever progressed to any
significant extent (which it didn't) where it possessed nuclear weapons, the western
powers would have been very reluctant to instigate and support Gaddafi's overthrow
in 2011. Kim in Korea has demonstrated that point to the world quite adequately.
If you're ever going to discuss nuclear compliance, please do let me know when Israel
(the sole nuclear power in the Middle East) decides to declare its own nuclear weapons
holdings and to submit itself to IAEA supervision. And then I might start paying some
attention. Same rules for all players seems only fair.
4. Pan Am Flight 103 / International Sanctions
If we follow the Western press again, then Libya is definitely the villain (and Gaddafi's
own action in this whole saga didn't help his cause at all).
But like most stories, there is often another version. And what you wish to believe in
this case is completely up to you.
This is probably the most complicated to explain. I'll try and provide a little background
and then a short summary. See points (a) to (f) below.
If that's not enough, then feel free to read the three articles at the end of this section.
Summary:
(a) Gaddafi overthrew King Idris in 1969, and with subsequent nationalisation
of Libya's oil resources (to the detriment of certain western oil companies),
Gaddafi was then on the outer with western powers. And the ongoing operation
of his oil fields was still dependent upon western oil company expertise.
Similarly, the Shah of Iran was deposed in 1979 and the Ayatollahs then came into
power in Iran. Again, a similar outcome regarding oil field ownership and operation.
Net result: Unhappy western powers (US, UK, France, Italy) and some unhappy
western oil companies.
(b) The US prompted (supported) Saddam Hussein into making war against Iran.
This occurred over the period 1980-1988, but ended in a stalemate (with heavy
loss of life to both sides). And with the Ayatollahs still in power in Iran.
(c) In 1988, the US guided missile cruiser Vincennes brought down a civilian
Iranian airliner in the Gulf (Iran Flight 655) killing all 290 persons on board.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vi...Air_Flight_655
Needless to say, there was difference of opinion whether an "operational error" had
actually occurred. The Iranians were still understandably upset.
(d) Later in 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was brought down over Lockerbie in Scotland.
After a period of time, accusation was made by the West that the Gaddafi regime
was "responsible", and after some effort, UN sanctions were then imposed against
Libya in 1993.
However, there was doubt that the Gaddafi regime was responsible, and belief
that the Iranians had instead sub-contracted a Lebanon-based group (PFLP-GC)
to plant a bomb on the Pan Am flight in retribution.
The quality of the "case" against the Libyan regime is discussed in the second
of the three links below.
(e) Years passed, and both Libya's oil operations fell into disrepair and the
Libyan population suffered due to the effect of UN sanctions. By 1999-2000,
Libya's financial and social situation was becoming dire.
(f) By 2003, Gaddafi was willing to "accept responsibility" for Pan Am 103,
to extradite several Libyan staff to be jailed, and to pay some financial
compensation to the families of the people who died on Pan Am 103.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080711...2006/66244.htm
In return, UN sanctions against Libya would then be lifted.
And western oil companies were then able to return to Libya to take up oil
leases (and earn profits) again.
======
The following three links posted on CounterPunch explain the situation in much
more detail. But you'll need to read all three articles, then assemble the relevant
pieces from each article and join the dots yourself:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08...ibya-as-demon/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2010/07/23/the-frame-up/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04...afi-has-to-go/
5. Gaddafi Downfall
By 2009, Libyan oil production and sales had started to rebound.
But Gaddafi had become involved with several pan African initiatives, which were in
conflict with some European interests. He had also agreed to purchase of Russian
armaments (which did not endear him to the West).
By 2011, China had also expressed strong interest in acquiring some Libyan oil leases,
which caused concern to the US.
You can read a good summary on the Gaddafi downfall for yourself in the following
article:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10...ddafis-murder/
And while I can't currently find the relevant link, I recall reading that the Libyan
gold confiscated is currently residing in a US Federal Reserve vault. Good luck to
Libya ever recovering their gold stock in the future.
Anorak
Demonetization.... its pretty easy to demonize someone where their regime has rules where if a citizen speaks against them there are locked up or killed you overlook that
You compare actions to the US but ignore Russia and China and Iran, this is a comon theme with your posts.
So Who gets arrested or killed for saying anything against the US leaders from their own country.
Can you say its the same for iran Russia or China
You claim it was about getting the Libyian oil but conveniently forget they trade embargoed it so how could it be that they really wanted it that bad.
You conveniently overlook that tensions and war in the middle east increases oil cost not lowers it.
Or overlook Gadiffis interest in Africa included breaching the trade embargo with Zimbabwe.
You appear to pick and choose only what suits a predetermined outcome of a conspiracy theory.
Hardcore Biker
https://www.rt.com/news/442449-istan...it-highlights/
Of course, I fully expect the announcement of the removal of any German
and French special forces and air forces from Syria in due course, as a sign
of their good faith and commitment. I will however resist holding my breath
at this stage. They may be a little pre-occupied by more pressing military
matters at the moment:
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20181...is-inf-europe/
Hardcore Biker
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
Well, they will not be seeing the Russian aircraft carrier off the coast in the future.
But a new class of submarine has been created.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Hardcore Biker
https://russia-insider.com/en/breaki...-syria/ri25729
I'll wait for the "Pentagon clarification" in two days time, just in case
Donald hasn't "mis-spoken" again (or been mis-quoted).
They didn't put any timeframe on it, so I suppose that gives them
plenty of leeway.
Wonder where the US troops will be off to now ? Ukraine in Winter ?
Suppose some snow would be a pleasant change after all that sand.
Just faidin away!
President Trump said, “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50803.htm
The world awaits trembling as to who will be selected as their next protectorate?- Tui moment anyone?
Just faidin away!
Good Riddance to General Mattis and the Rest of Washington’s Mad Dogs of War? - https://original.antiwar.com/david_s...d-dogs-of-war/ -
Just faidin away!
Russian MoD: Israeli Air Force Used Landing Of Two Civilian Planes As Cover For Airstrikes:- https://southfront.org/russian-mod-i...or-airstrikes/ -
Just faidin away!
Donald about to discover who really is POTUS? - https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-...self-in-syria/
Anorak
Odd that gets your attention rather than the US government being in its 6 day of a shutdown over Trumps demand that the US pay for his border wall.Donald about to discover who really is POTUS? - https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-...self-in-syria/
In subsequent tweets Thursday, Trump accused Democrats of “obstruction” in blocking money for the wall. He also contended that the party wants an “Open Southern Border” — which Democratic leaders have repeatedly said they do not want.
Meanwhile, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a Thursday statement that Trump “does not want the government to remain shut down, but he will not sign a proposal that does not first prioritize our county’s safety and security.”The closure may drag into the new year. House Democrats have promised to pass a short-term spending bill to reopen the government, without wall money, when they take control of the chamber on Jan. 3. But Trump could threaten to veto itMinority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who will likely become speaker in January, is “calling the shots.”
Democrats appear uncertain about exactly how the president wants to spend that $5 billion. While Trump as a candidate called for a concrete barrier funded by Mexico, his demands have shifted. He has recently called for a wall, a “steel slat” barrier or a fence
“First of all, the fact ... that he says, ‘We’re going to build a wall with cement, and Mexico’s going to pay for it’ while he’s already backed off of the cement – now he’s down to, I think, a beaded curtain or something, I’m not sure where he is,” she told the newspaper.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks