Should Kadhafi Be Pardoned and Given a Second Chance?

[Mercator]

First the US and then the EU, there seems to be almost unanimous consensus that Libia and Kadhafi should be pardoned. Lifting of economic sanctions and now even lifting of the arms embargo.

Kadahfi is the guy who actually supported international terrorism. What kind of distorted logic is behind this. How is it possible that a monster like him can escape justice and why? Maybe we should also ask Bin Laden politely to promise to be a good boy in the future?

 

[GENIERE]

I'm forced to agree with Mercator. I'm inclined to believe Kadhafi has not suddenly "seen the light" but has altered his agenda as a means of assuring his survival. He has accomplished that by word and action. As repugnant as he is, I hope only the Libyan citizen will benefit from the lifting of sanctions. To my knowledge, Libya is governed by a military dictatorship; a truly enlightened leader would allow democracy to prevail

 

[enigma]

Still, so long as he (or other regimes) honestly change their tune, I'm all for lifting sanctions when the alternative is yet another war to oust them.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in one thread, the US is being blasted for imposing (UN) sanctions on a dictator who wasn't cooperating and in another thread, the US is being criticized for lowering the sanctions on another dictator who is cooperating.

We truly are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Where in this thread has the US been blasted, Russ? Isn't your complaint just a straw man argument?

 

[Mercator]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in one thread, the US is being blasted for imposing (UN) sanctions on a dictator who wasn't cooperating and in another thread, the US is being criticized for lowering the sanctions on another dictator who is cooperating.

We truly are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Do I really have to explain you the difference between sanctions and an invasion? Plus let me make it clear to you, that I am not a pacifist. I supported the action in Afghanistan. I am amazed about what little is done about NK, Iran and Saudi, to name a few. I don't blame the US for that, but the UN, with Europe in front. But Iraq was and is the wrong target. Even Kadhafi was and probably still is an active supporter of terrorism. That does not mean we had to invade Libya. The sanctions were working though. When was the last time that you heard of Libyan terrorism? The sanctions were also working in Iraq, but there the US decided to invade. Wrong. And the escalation if violence and hate in Iraq proves it every day, objectively Bin Laden must be a happy man now that you made Iraq into a huge terrorist recruiting ground. Why is Kadhafi a good terrorist and Saddam a bad one?
I can see a few reasons that all have to do with "realpolitik" but in the light of Lockerbie and other proven terrorist acts by this man I found it sickening that Tony Blair went to visit him in his tent. And now they even want to sell this dictator arms again? Wake me up, I'm having a nightmare. Does it have to happen all over again and again that we arm the dictators and agitators for short term political goals so that they later can attack our society, as happened with Bin Laden, Saddam and so many others before?
Yes, poor people of Libya, I also wish them luck and prosperity. Do you think that will happen by selling arms to their savage dictator? Or do you think they are having a party with this man? Do you honestly believe that their lives now, or in the future under Kadhafi will be less brutal than under Saddam? Let them bite the sour apple now and get rid of this guy or within a few years YOU will AGAIN have to do something against him.

 

[JohnDubYa]

The sanctions were also working in Iraq, but there the US decided to invade. Wrong.

Okay, now you have me confused. What do you mean by "wrong"?

 

[russ_watters]

Where in this thread has the US been blasted, Russ? Isn't your complaint just a straw man argument? [emphasis added]

Not if you reread what I wrote and read it correctly this time...

edit: perhaps that was your point. If so, I disagree. People say different things in different threads all the time in an effort to have their cake and eat it too. And regardless of Mercator's particular views, we are taking criticism from a lot of people for both actions.

Do I really have to explain you the difference between sanctions and an invasion?

What does the invasion have to do with this? People are saying we were wrong for having sanctions against Iraq but that we shouldn't drop the sanctions against Lybia.

The sanctions were also working in Iraq...

Well that's nice, but in another thread, omin is saying that we used those sanctions in an effort to murder a million people as part of a campaign of genocide. Yes, that's a little nuts, but plenty of other people have blamed the US for civilian deaths under Saddam's regime.

Why is Kadhafi a good terrorist and Saddam a bad one?

Because the sanctions were working in Lybia and not in Iraq. Its not like we just randomly decided to drop the sanctions against Lybia - It hasn't made a lot of press, but for the past year, Khadafi has been falling all over himself to meet our demands for dropping the sanctions (perhaps he thought he was next after Iraq if he didn't start playing ball?). Hussein, on the other hand, violated the terms of the '91 peace agreement pretty much every single day for the past 12 years.

...but in the light of Lockerbie and other proven terrorist acts by this man I found it sickening that Tony Blair went to visit him in his tent.

Again, you probably missed it because it didn't get much press, but Lockerbie was the subject of much discussion for the past year. Resolving that (that is, Khadaff's cooperation in resolving that) is a large part of the reason the sanctions are being dropped.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Not if you reread what I wrote and read it correctly this time...

Here's what you wrote

Maybe I'm missing something here, but in one thread, the US is being blasted for imposing (UN) sanctions on a dictator who wasn't cooperating and in another thread, the US is being criticized for lowering the sanctions on another dictator who is cooperating.

We truly are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Show the threads.

 

[Mercator]

John and Russ, first let's agree that our differences are mainly concerning the means, not the target nor the principles. Please don't take me for an American basher, though sometimes I overreacted to the invasion of Iraq which I oppose, not for some cloudy political reasons, but very pragmaticaly because I believe it does not defend the interest of the US and the rest of the free world. What Omin is saying is not what I am saying.

It's better to keep Iraq out of this. My view there is clear. Let me put it this way: when Kadhafi suddenly showed remorse and pledged to stop supporting terrorism and become a good world citizen, I could still accept this. His motives are clear: he did not want to end up like Saddam. So far so good, it maybe "realpolitik" from the west to prefer a contained former terrorist dictator than to take other measures against his country, though I don't think I could shake hands with a man who coldbloodedly killed so many western people out of sheer hate.

Economic sanctions are lifted, to relieve the situation of the people in Libya. OK, I can follow.

But now the EU wants to lift the WEAPONS EMBARGO for Libya. QUE? Can anybody explain to me what these weapons will do good for the population under this cruel dictator? Can anybody honestly say that there is any other reason here than to again do a favor to the European weapons industry? I sincerely hope that the US does not follow this madness, because IF you do, I guarantee that later you will have to clean up the mess again, since Europe is good in arms trade but not in coming up for itself.

OK, I can't control: I have to get back on the Iraq topic, because it's so closely linked. Did you ever consider that it might have been better to sanction the European countries that were breaking the embargos on Iraq, than to spill blood in Iraq? ( Of course that would imply sanctions on American companies too, doing the same)

Don't you think, with hindsight, that the US has made a huge diplomatic blunder? It could have been like this: the Bush administration reckognizes the mistakes made in the past, i.e. to regard Saddam as an ally against the Islamic radicalism in the region. They warn everyone, inside the US , as well as outside that the embargo to Iraq will be strictly imposed, and all means will be used to correct the situation, stopping short of an invasion, but leaving THE THREAT of it. I can tell, you, I am in shipping, and the last few months before the invasion, the suspect cargoes suddenly stopped going to the ME, and the US who was the biggest user of "illegal" oil shipped out through Syria, stopped these imports (for verification, just consult your own countries' oil statistics) Saddam, who was already on his knees, would be biting in the sand after a few months. French and others would have had no "moral high ground" over the US, like most people in the world now believe, but exposed as the opportunists that they are. Iraq would not have become a recruiting ground for Islamic terrorism as it is now. I firmly believe that it would have taken less time and lives and would have left the US much stronger (and wiser) than it appears now. That's why I wrote "wrong". John.

 

[Smurf]

Mercator one thing about your post bothered me a great deal:

though I don't think I could shake hands with a man who coldbloodedly killed so many western people out of sheer hate.

but if it was just non-western people it'd be ok?

 

[Mercator]

No, it just happens that he killed westerners. If he bombed a plane with elephants I would stand for the elephants.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Don't you think, with hindsight, that the US has made a huge diplomatic blunder? It could have been like this: the Bush administration reckognizes the mistakes made in the past, i.e. to regard Saddam as an ally against the Islamic radicalism in the region. They warn everyone, inside the US , as well as outside that the embargo to Iraq will be strictly imposed, and all means will be used to correct the situation, stopping short of an invasion, but leaving THE THREAT of it.

We already were strictly imposing the embargo, and Saddam simply got richer. The embargo also killed tens of thousands ever year.

It seems you are advocating an empty threat policy. Threats are of little use unless you plan on acting on them. And if you ever did, then the world would complain like they are now.

I like the fact that Bush hammered the point home, "When we say we will take action, we mean it."

I can tell, you, I am in shipping, and the last few months before the invasion, the suspect cargoes suddenly stopped going to the ME, and the US who was the biggest user of "illegal" oil shipped out through Syria, stopped these imports (for verification, just consult your own countries' oil statistics) [cite your own support, I don't go on wild goose chases Saddam, who was already on his knees, would be biting in the sand after a few months.

We heard this same argument when the embargo was first placed on him.

Even if it worked, Saddam would have simply applied more pressure on the UN by heightening the ill effects of the embargo. We would have heard story after story about how our new embargo was killing hundreds of thousands of children in the Middle East. And do you think that Arabs wouldn't have hated us over it? Saddam played them like a fiddle, and he would have used a crippling embargo to show the world that the US loves to starve Arab children. And he would have had an eager Leftist audience in the US.

And the point is moot -- the UN would not have went along with this idea in the first place.

French and others would have had no "moral high ground" over the US, like most people in the world now believe, but exposed as the opportunists that they are.

I think this is the main difference in our views -- I don't give a rat's ass about France. Why is it that our foreign policy must always take into account what the French think? Never mind if the policy is correct. Never mind if it eases sanctions, or gives people a chance to live freely. No, France doesn't like it, so we must second guess our decision.

Saddam would have killed a million people as proof that the blockade (which is what your embargo actually mirrors) was aimed at starving the innocent. You vastly underestimate him. With his horrendous human rights violations he was in no position to give in. He had only one option -- fight the embargo using any means possible. Take a glance at a few photos of the Ukraine during Stalin's tyranny to see what would have happened. And it would have been OUR fault.

 

[Smurf]

No, it just happens that he killed westerners. If he bombed a plane with elephants I would stand for the elephants.

fair enough

 

[Mercator]

OK, John, let me come back on this tomorrow. I don't give a Fokker plane about the French either. Hell, big European powers invaded my country once too often in history to support one of them. I am a Flemish Geus. My forefathers were among the ranks to create a new world in the Americas. The only thing I don't want to see is the failure of the American dream. I understand the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. I just don't think it was wise ,tamade (thats a Chinese curse) and you may not care about the French, nor the Islamic extremists, but de facto, outside the US you are making a case for them, don't you see?

 

[JohnDubYa]

OK, John, let me come back on this tomorrow. I don't give a Fokker plane about the French either.

Then quit mentioning them as if they do matter.

[/quote]

I just don't think it was wise ,tamade (thats a Chinese curse) and you may not care about the French, nor the Islamic extremists, but de facto, outside the US you are making a case for them, don't you see?

They didn't need a US invasion to make a case before 9/11, did they?

 

[Smurf]

Am I the only one not following this argument?

 

[Mercator]

Then quit mentioning them as if they do matter.

They didn't need a US invasion to make a case before 9/11, did they?[/QUOTE]
I did not mention the French. I mentioned "French and others" one time. If you cannot stand the sound of the word French, then copver your ears. In general, stop whining about other people and have a good look at yourself.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Yeah, yeah, whatever.