Originally Posted by peragro (Post 1284201)

Let's not forget that with "oil for food" the sanctions were, in reality, transparent to Saddam and his cronies - money flowed in in great quantities for the oil that flowed out. The only thing the sanctions did was prevent medical aid and food from reaching those who could have used it.

Not to mention the intent on the part of Russia, China and France to do away with the sanctions entirely in order to facillitate trade with Iraq.

Libya, OTOH, was offered a great deal by the British with development of oil fields. Quaddafi could have easily lived under sanctions the rest of his life. In light of what happened to Hussein (i.e. there were greater threats than sanctions on the horizon) and the promise of mega-bucks from oil development and income, plus the attractivness of becoming part of the world again he made a smart choice.

Originally Posted by Old300D (Post 1284250)

Blah, blah, blah.

Originally Posted by dculkin (Post 1283670)

I would love to know the facts on which you base that conclusion, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide any facts. The man had no weapons. His military was a bad joke. His feeble attempts to thwart the enforcement of the no fly zone were entirely ineffective. He was capitulating to the inspectors and could have been forced to capitulate entirely without the need for an invasion. He threatened no nation but his own. He was contained, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1283816)

He did it because of what we did to Saddam.

On my side we have the fact that the sanctions against Libya had been in place for more than a decade and he didn't come around. But a couple of months after Saddam did the perp-walk, Libya caved.

What've you got for evidence?

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1283815)

12 UN Resolutions. What've you got?

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 1286571)

The much despised Chomsky points out that even Kuwait wanted to normalize relatioins with Iraq as their military was about 3 times stronger than Saddams.

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 1286587)

I've gone over this before. This nonsense about Khadaffi quaking in his boots at the sight of Saddam falling will not die, will probably never die.

Libya's coming in from the wilderness began in earnest in the late 90s and began to be formalized in spring '01. In this case, the sanctions worked, in large part because Khadaffi's son, by most accounts, has a lot more sense than his father and most other Arab leaders.

Flynt L. Leverett, formerly in Bush 2's admin: From February 2002 to March 2003 he served at the White House as senior director for Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council. Previously he served on the secretary of state's Policy Planning Staff, and for eight years was a senior analyst of Middle East and South Asia affairs at the Central Intelligence Agency.

Leverett has spoken out extensively on the nature of Libyas rapprochement with the civilized world. Here's a good one on the topic. Excerpt:

As President Bush made clear in his State of the Union address, he sees the striking developments in relations with Libya as the fruit of his strategy in the war on terrorism. The idea is that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's apparent decision to renounce weapons of mass destruction was a largely a result of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, which thus retroactively justifies the war in Iraq and holds out the prospect of similar progress with other states that support terrorists, seek weapons of mass destruction and brutalize their own people.

However, by linking shifts in Libya's behavior to the Iraq war, the president misrepresents the real lesson of the Libyan case. This confusion undermines our chances of getting countries like Iran and Syria to follow Libya's lead.

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 1286593)

We could have raised the pressure to enforce those sanctions in all sorts of ways that would have been way less costly than Operation Iraqi Liberation has been.

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1286857)

Yeah, 17 resolutions, that would've made Saddam quake. The UN scares folks ****less.

B

Originally Posted by dculkin (Post 1286939)

Well, something got Saddam to disarm. How do you explain that?

Originally Posted by peragro (Post 1287118)

I think you mentioned that above. He disarmed because he threatened no one - Except Americans, his neighbors, Kurds, Shiites, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and basically anyone else whom he thought he could threaten.

Originally Posted by dculkin (Post 1287136)

I was referring to meaningful threats. Saddam's threats were like the ones from the Monty Python character guarding the bridge. They cut off his arm and legs and he still kept saying, "I got you right where I want you."

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1286854)

I thought Chavez said he was dead.

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1286855)

Well, thats an opinion. Want me to go find one that counters it or can we not waste time citing multiple conflicting opinions?

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1286857)

Yeah, 17 resolutions, that would've made Saddam quake. The UN scares folks ****less.