The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So Libya is getting rid of all of its weapons of mass destruction - and not a shot fired. Great.
But let me see if I've got this right:
Libya had weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorism and has attacked western interests in the past. Our response: diplomacy, economic and military incentives, friendlier relations with Gaddaffy. Result: fewer WMDs in the world and less hostility between a 'rogue' state and the West.
Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, had no links to terrorism, never attacked the West and didn't have the capability to do so in the future. Our response: pull weapons inspectors out of Iraq so that it could be bombed at huge human and material cost. Result: war, thousands of dead, a ruined country, a lawless haven for terrorists, a fistful of contracts for Haliburton, a world where international law is now optional: and one captured dictator.
Why were we bullied into war by lies/bad intelligence and told that there was no alternative? Because there WAS an alternative and Blair was pursuing it in Libya at the same time as he was appearing ashen-faced on television to tell us that every peaceful alternative had been exhausted in Iraq.
But let me see if I've got this right:
Libya had weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorism and has attacked western interests in the past. Our response: diplomacy, economic and military incentives, friendlier relations with Gaddaffy. Result: fewer WMDs in the world and less hostility between a 'rogue' state and the West.
Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, had no links to terrorism, never attacked the West and didn't have the capability to do so in the future. Our response: pull weapons inspectors out of Iraq so that it could be bombed at huge human and material cost. Result: war, thousands of dead, a ruined country, a lawless haven for terrorists, a fistful of contracts for Haliburton, a world where international law is now optional: and one captured dictator.
Why were we bullied into war by lies/bad intelligence and told that there was no alternative? Because there WAS an alternative and Blair was pursuing it in Libya at the same time as he was appearing ashen-faced on television to tell us that every peaceful alternative had been exhausted in Iraq.
So Libya is getting rid of all of its weapons of mass destruction - and not a shot fired. Great.
But let me see if I've got this right:
Libya had weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorism and has attacked western interests in the past. Our response: diplomacy, economic and military incentives, friendlier relations with Gaddaffy. Result: fewer WMDs in the world and less hostility between a 'rogue' state and the West.
Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, had no links to terrorism, never attacked the West and didn't have the capability to do so in the future. Our response: pull weapons inspectors out of Iraq so that it could be bombed at huge human and material cost. Result: war, thousands of dead, a ruined country, a lawless haven for terrorists, a fistful of contracts for Haliburton, a world where international law is now optional: and one captured dictator.
Why were we bullied into war by lies/bad intelligence and told that there was no alternative? Because there WAS an alternative and Blair was pursuing it in Libya at the same time as he was appearing ashen-faced on television to tell us that every peaceful alternative had been exhausted in Iraq.
But let me see if I've got this right:
Libya had weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorism and has attacked western interests in the past. Our response: diplomacy, economic and military incentives, friendlier relations with Gaddaffy. Result: fewer WMDs in the world and less hostility between a 'rogue' state and the West.
Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, had no links to terrorism, never attacked the West and didn't have the capability to do so in the future. Our response: pull weapons inspectors out of Iraq so that it could be bombed at huge human and material cost. Result: war, thousands of dead, a ruined country, a lawless haven for terrorists, a fistful of contracts for Haliburton, a world where international law is now optional: and one captured dictator.
Why were we bullied into war by lies/bad intelligence and told that there was no alternative? Because there WAS an alternative and Blair was pursuing it in Libya at the same time as he was appearing ashen-faced on television to tell us that every peaceful alternative had been exhausted in Iraq.
Heh, if you can't see the difference then I'm not wasting effort explaining.
It's because the Libyan leader did his "naughty dictator" stuff in the 70s and 80s as opposed to Saddam doing his in the 80s and 90s. Our countries would have forgiven and forgotten about Saddam in a few years had this war not started.
FHLANAO wrote:
> Heh, if you can't see the difference then I'm not wasting effort
> explaining.
Please, if you can tell me why we had to disarm a man without WMDs by force but disarmed a man WITH WMDs through diplomacy then I'm happy to listen.
> Heh, if you can't see the difference then I'm not wasting effort
> explaining.
Please, if you can tell me why we had to disarm a man without WMDs by force but disarmed a man WITH WMDs through diplomacy then I'm happy to listen.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Please, if you can tell me why we had to disarm a man without WMDs by
> force but disarmed a man WITH WMDs through diplomacy then I'm happy
> to listen.
Because the coaltion didn't have the nuts to take on anybody with the ability to actually fight back.
Far safer to beat up the skinny kid - and he's got more lunch money...
> Please, if you can tell me why we had to disarm a man without WMDs by
> force but disarmed a man WITH WMDs through diplomacy then I'm happy
> to listen.
Because the coaltion didn't have the nuts to take on anybody with the ability to actually fight back.
Far safer to beat up the skinny kid - and he's got more lunch money...
I daresay Libya was slightly more receptive toward diplomacy now, having seen the destruction of Iraq.
I'm sure that's true. But Saddam was slightly more receptive to more diplomacy when the US/UK were threatening to invade: the trouble was that we'd lost interest in diplomacy and, despite having the weapons inspectors in Iraq, went to war anyway. It just seems like Bush and Blair had decided in advance what was going to happen to Libya and Iraq, and weren't going to get knocked off course whatever happened. After all, how many bomber jacket photo opportunities does a peaceful surrender of WMDs provide?