Libya admits to terrorism.
taranaki
03-15-2003, 12:30 AM
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/073/nation/Settlement_reached_on_Lockerbie_plane_crash_Libya_ says+.shtml
The bombing of a Pan-Am flight over Scotand in 1988 has finally been acknowledged as the work of Libya.It was a direct attack on American civilians,one of the worst acts of terrorism of its age.And yet Gadaffi is still in power,American troops never rampaged through his country[admittedly they did try to assassinate him contrary to American policy by bombing him]and he's still believed to be training terrorists.....can so,meone please explain to me why there appears to be such inconsistency in American foreign policy at the moment?
The bombing of a Pan-Am flight over Scotand in 1988 has finally been acknowledged as the work of Libya.It was a direct attack on American civilians,one of the worst acts of terrorism of its age.And yet Gadaffi is still in power,American troops never rampaged through his country[admittedly they did try to assassinate him contrary to American policy by bombing him]and he's still believed to be training terrorists.....can so,meone please explain to me why there appears to be such inconsistency in American foreign policy at the moment?
GTi-VR6_A3
03-15-2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/073/nation/Settlement_reached_on_Lockerbie_plane_crash_Libya_ says+.shtml
The bombing of a Pan-Am flight over Scotand in 1988 has finally been acknowledged as the work of Libya.It was a direct attack on American civilians,one of the worst acts of terrorism of its age.And yet Gadaffi is still in power,American troops never rampaged through his country[admittedly they did try to assassinate him contrary to American policy by bombing him]and he's still believed to be training terrorists.....can so,meone please explain to me why there appears to be such inconsistency in American foreign policy at the moment?
i havnt heard about him training terrorists as of late. but i have heard he is trying to star the united states of africa. kind of like hte european union. seems like the bombing kinda switched him around he did loose his 18 month old daughter in it but who knows. havnt heard much about the guy lately though.
-GTi-VR6_A3
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/073/nation/Settlement_reached_on_Lockerbie_plane_crash_Libya_ says+.shtml
The bombing of a Pan-Am flight over Scotand in 1988 has finally been acknowledged as the work of Libya.It was a direct attack on American civilians,one of the worst acts of terrorism of its age.And yet Gadaffi is still in power,American troops never rampaged through his country[admittedly they did try to assassinate him contrary to American policy by bombing him]and he's still believed to be training terrorists.....can so,meone please explain to me why there appears to be such inconsistency in American foreign policy at the moment?
i havnt heard about him training terrorists as of late. but i have heard he is trying to star the united states of africa. kind of like hte european union. seems like the bombing kinda switched him around he did loose his 18 month old daughter in it but who knows. havnt heard much about the guy lately though.
-GTi-VR6_A3
GTStang
03-15-2003, 02:11 AM
We dropped bombs Gadaffi and killed members of his family back in the day. What has he done since? That's right he's been a good boy.... Well as much as you expect. See he got the message that's the difference
Fritz The Cat
03-15-2003, 06:23 AM
Lets not forget, he was one of the first people on the phone to tell Aerofart that he better straighten up and fly right. As mentioned above, the difference is he cleaned up his act, the current problem didn't.
Darth Cypher
03-16-2003, 09:00 AM
Exactly. War is the only language these people will ever understand.
Murco
03-18-2003, 02:52 PM
Libya can't be training terrorists! They are too busy heading the UN Human Rights Commission!!
Washington Post exerpt (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030120-032236-7593r.htm)
One more example of why the UN is irrelevent!!
Washington Post exerpt (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030120-032236-7593r.htm)
One more example of why the UN is irrelevent!!
taranaki
03-18-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Murco
Libya can't be training terrorists! They are too busy heading the UN Human Rights Commission!!
Washington Post exerpt (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030120-032236-7593r.htm)
One more example of why the UN is irrelevent!!
.........So,if the U.S.isn't in charge of the U.N.,it becomes irrelevant?
riiiiiiight.The U.N. is about diplomacy.Bush doesn't understand it,hasn't the patience and cunning to make it work,and probably can't spell it.
Libya can't be training terrorists! They are too busy heading the UN Human Rights Commission!!
Washington Post exerpt (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030120-032236-7593r.htm)
One more example of why the UN is irrelevent!!
.........So,if the U.S.isn't in charge of the U.N.,it becomes irrelevant?
riiiiiiight.The U.N. is about diplomacy.Bush doesn't understand it,hasn't the patience and cunning to make it work,and probably can't spell it.
Jimster
03-18-2003, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
.........So,if the U.S.isn't in charge of the U.N.,it becomes irrelevant?
riiiiiiight.The U.N. is about diplomacy.Bush doesn't understand it,hasn't the patience and cunning to make it work,and probably can't spell it.
EXACTLY- This is why I liked Clinton so much more than Bush- he was always a true diplomat- and after reading his speech at the NZ launch of the BMW 7 series- I have to say that he is one hell of an intellegent man- who would have had all the answers in this situation :(
.........So,if the U.S.isn't in charge of the U.N.,it becomes irrelevant?
riiiiiiight.The U.N. is about diplomacy.Bush doesn't understand it,hasn't the patience and cunning to make it work,and probably can't spell it.
EXACTLY- This is why I liked Clinton so much more than Bush- he was always a true diplomat- and after reading his speech at the NZ launch of the BMW 7 series- I have to say that he is one hell of an intellegent man- who would have had all the answers in this situation :(
igor@af
03-18-2003, 10:33 PM
I agree, ahh.... the Clinton years :)
GTi-VR6_A3
03-18-2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by igor@af
I agree, ahh.... the Clinton years :)
stupid term limits... i wish clinton was back. woulda made things so much easier.
-GTi-VR6_A3
I agree, ahh.... the Clinton years :)
stupid term limits... i wish clinton was back. woulda made things so much easier.
-GTi-VR6_A3
Murco
03-19-2003, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
.........So,if the U.S.isn't in charge of the U.N.,it becomes irrelevant?
riiiiiiight.The U.N. is about diplomacy.Bush doesn't understand it,hasn't the patience and cunning to make it work,and probably can't spell it.
The point was that LIBYA is overseeing the UN HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN!! Is that not an oxymoron?
And dipomacy failed in this instance to align some nations behind us. The goal was a coalition against Iraq but we're still going after Saddam.
.........So,if the U.S.isn't in charge of the U.N.,it becomes irrelevant?
riiiiiiight.The U.N. is about diplomacy.Bush doesn't understand it,hasn't the patience and cunning to make it work,and probably can't spell it.
The point was that LIBYA is overseeing the UN HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN!! Is that not an oxymoron?
And dipomacy failed in this instance to align some nations behind us. The goal was a coalition against Iraq but we're still going after Saddam.
Murco
03-19-2003, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by Jimster
EXACTLY- This is why I liked Clinton so much more than Bush- he was always a true diplomat- and after reading his speech at the NZ launch of the BMW 7 series- I have to say that he is one hell of an intellegent man-who would have had all the answers in this situation :(
Yeah, lie through your teeth, make a million promises, break them, and make more when your called on them!
Did you guys get so upset when he inilaterally bombed Kosovo?
EXACTLY- This is why I liked Clinton so much more than Bush- he was always a true diplomat- and after reading his speech at the NZ launch of the BMW 7 series- I have to say that he is one hell of an intellegent man-who would have had all the answers in this situation :(
Yeah, lie through your teeth, make a million promises, break them, and make more when your called on them!
Did you guys get so upset when he inilaterally bombed Kosovo?
Darth Cypher
03-19-2003, 08:08 AM
Everyone likes clinton however the one that didn't work anything with the UN like the Balkans and Desert Fox was the very one you all like. The one that tried to go through UN channels and try to disarm Iraq diplomatically is the very same person you all say disregards diplomacy. You all are making a lot of sense there.
inferno
03-20-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Everyone likes clinton however the one that didn't work anything with the UN like the Balkans and Desert Fox was the very one you all like. The one that tried to go through UN channels and try to disarm Iraq diplomatically is the very same person you all say disregards diplomacy. You all are making a lot of sense there.
Its more convenient that way.....no need to bring up points that show that Bush wanted to work this out through the UN if he could. One thing that I don't get, is if all of the UN nations were so opposed to the war, why not get a vote out asap and make Bush look even worse instead of stalling and France declaring that they will veto any resolution that suggests the use of force? To me that shows that there were doubts as to how a vote would go.
Everyone likes clinton however the one that didn't work anything with the UN like the Balkans and Desert Fox was the very one you all like. The one that tried to go through UN channels and try to disarm Iraq diplomatically is the very same person you all say disregards diplomacy. You all are making a lot of sense there.
Its more convenient that way.....no need to bring up points that show that Bush wanted to work this out through the UN if he could. One thing that I don't get, is if all of the UN nations were so opposed to the war, why not get a vote out asap and make Bush look even worse instead of stalling and France declaring that they will veto any resolution that suggests the use of force? To me that shows that there were doubts as to how a vote would go.
crab
03-20-2003, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by inferno
One thing that I don't get, is if all of the UN nations were so opposed to the war, why not get a vote out asap and make Bush look even worse instead of stalling and France declaring that they will veto any resolution that suggests the use of force?
Diplomacy and democracy.
One thing that I don't get, is if all of the UN nations were so opposed to the war, why not get a vote out asap and make Bush look even worse instead of stalling and France declaring that they will veto any resolution that suggests the use of force?
Diplomacy and democracy.
speediva
03-20-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Murco
Did you guys get so upset when he Unilaterally bombed Kosovo?
Yes. I was against his bombing of Kosovo just as I'm against this war now.
As for Libya, I'm not well-enough versed in what is going on in that situation to comment.
Did you guys get so upset when he Unilaterally bombed Kosovo?
Yes. I was against his bombing of Kosovo just as I'm against this war now.
As for Libya, I'm not well-enough versed in what is going on in that situation to comment.
inferno
03-20-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by crab
Diplomacy and democracy.
Interesting statement....so stating that you will veto a resolution regardless of the terms and time limits is diplomatic? And certain countries intentially stalling a UN vote despite their claims that they are in the majority is proper democratic practice? Please, since you felt the need to use those two words in response to what I said, why don't you explain in a little more detail. Thank you in advance. :)
Diplomacy and democracy.
Interesting statement....so stating that you will veto a resolution regardless of the terms and time limits is diplomatic? And certain countries intentially stalling a UN vote despite their claims that they are in the majority is proper democratic practice? Please, since you felt the need to use those two words in response to what I said, why don't you explain in a little more detail. Thank you in advance. :)
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025