run along dr quack...it's obvious that you have ran yourself into a corner and can't get out cause you are surrounded by facts.

have a nice day:)

run along dr quack...it's obvious that you have ran yourself into a corner and can't get out cause you are surrounded by facts. have a nice day:)

Sean

Then please show me the facts that Libya gave up their nuke program because of carrot negotiations and not because of hard-line sanctions/threats.

Then please show me the facts

Ron Suskind's "One Percent Doctrine" is sitting in front of me. it literally has scores of pages about that. sorry, i can't type em all out for ya,,,you'll have to buy the book or show me something that contradicts me at least.

suskind states that the program to get his regime to disarm began in 92 after the lockerbie crash. there was a bunch of progress in 98, then, in 2002, they got both the lockerbie stuff settled, and the disarmerment negotiations done.

Sean

I just got done readying the IAEA reports for 2003 and 2004 WWW Link">Link[link="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/libya/iaea0504.pdf"]WWW Link">Link[link="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/libya/iaea0804.pdf"]WWW Link">Link, a White house report: [link="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/libya/wh121903fs.html"]WWW Link">Link and a couple other reports from the EU and UN. None of them state that we have been nice to Libya. All have shown how Sanctions and isolation are what has worked. The US has taken step to restrict Libyan scientists from studying in foreign countries, block the sale of nuclear power plants, and enforce sanctions. Most reports show that Libya only gave up its program in order to rejoin the international community (i.e. remove sanctions), and ended its program after the invasion of Iraq for WMD. When have we given aid, or technology (as the Clinton administration did for North Korea)to Libya.

As for your book, start typing. I read the New York Times review of the book [link="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DC1E31F933A15755C0A9609C8B63"]WWW Link">Link and I don't see anything in the review about scores of pages relating to Libya. For me to go out and buy the book would silly, when it is you responsibility to provide the fact you have claimed to have.

What I did find was a review in the Washington Monthly that’s title is a little misleading.[link="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.suskind.html"]WWW Link Even this publication only states that the only thing given was for the US to send someone to talk with the Lockerbie family lawyers. Which looked like amounts of 2.6 Billion dollar payment were already settled, but the families was just dragging their feet. What else did Libya get? Nothing. If you want to say lowering sanction is a form of being nice, don't.

Suskind is just trying to rewrite and twist the final outcome to sound like it was some kind of being nice. He is also the only source for what you claim. The end fact is that years of sanction and presser worked, appeasement did not. The Libyans approached the US to cave in. Not the other way around.

Using this as an example to support your argument, had me laughing and shaking my head how anyone could twist facts that much.

None of them state that we have been nice to Libya. All have shown how Sanctions and isolation are what has worked.

i never said we were just nice to libya.

don't see anything in the review about scores of pages relating to Libya. For me to go out and buy the book would silly, when it is you responsibility to provide the fact you have claimed to have.

ok,,,the index of the book lists the following pages pertaining to libya...111, 44,46-47, 61, 121, 221-223, 228, 261,265-266 268-271,290, 297-298, 327. by my count, 21. also, on the lockerbie bombing specifically page 45 can be added in addition to some of the forementioned pages. there are some related subjects as well...do i really need to do this any further? if you "need" a correction, fine,,,"there are a score plus some."

as far as defending the point, i did. i summarized the years involved from the book. that's what i meant by "you'll have to buy the book" as i am not going to type everything out.

so what was your point there?

He is also the only source for what you claim.

no,,,it ws the source sitting right in front of me. there are others, but pal, i got other things to do than entertain you.

Using this as an example to support your argument, had me laughing and shaking my head how anyone could twist facts that much

that's your opinion to discount a pulitzer prize winner,,,fine.

This is a summery all subjects related to Libya in Ron Suskind’s “The Price of Loyalty”, Simon & Schuster, New York 2006. (since Sean refuses to do so)

Pg: 11, Some BS about Billy Carter being bribed by Libyans.

Pg: 44, About Libya’s involvement with the Pam Am bombing and sanctions being placed.

Pg: 46-47, The U.S. demanded actionable intelligence on the “War on Terror”, hefty reparations for the Pam Am families and destruction of weapons programs, in exchange for lifting of sanctions and ending the Libyan isolation. (All of which is Libya caving in for lifting of sanctions)

Pg: 61, Just talks about some of the intelligence Libya gave up to meet the above demands. Giving a long list of names and terrorist organization fronts.

Pg: 121, About Rumseld speaking before a subcommittee, discussing how terrorists were linked to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and “one or two other” countries. (nothing to do with this subject)

Pg: 221-223, Talks about individual Negotiations in 1992, 1998, and once after 9/11that were useless without Libya caving into the Lockerbie families settlement first. (Nothing there about being nice). They did cave in at the cost of $2.7Billion, more then $10 million per family. The last page is the opinion of the writer, which reads much like a novel with evil characters plotting away in the ovel office.

Pg: 228, More opinion from the author. Which he can not back up the claim that there was continuing negotiations for a decade. (Only three meetings that Libya refused to settle, are not continuing negotiations as the author tries to make it sound like)

Pg: 261, Talks about Libya buying an early-stage centrifuge equipment in 1997.

Pg: 265-266, Talks about how bad Libya was suffering under sanctions and the demand by the US for Libya to give up its weapons, cut ties with terrorist groups, and make a forceful public statement of its changed intentions and character (Where is being nice here?)

Pg: 268-271, Talks about how seizure of the transport BBC China carrying centrifuges, publicly exposed Libya’s Nuke program and placed even more pressure for Libya to cave in. Then Libya did start caving in by opens its facilities to US, British and IAEA inspectors as a result of the above seizure. While the author once again tries to make it sound like some sort of “saving face” was given to Libya; he does not provide what that was.

Pg: 290, There is nothing on this page related to Libya.

Pg: 297-298, Bush makes a State of the Union address, which the author tries to put words in Bush’s mouth. The author claims Bush made Libya proof that the Iraq invasion had borne fruit. When, in no part during Bush’s address, did he do so. Bush stated “Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better.” And “For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America.” (I.e. be resolute)

Pg: 327, Nothing but the author’s opinion dealing with other then Libya subjects.

Did you even read this book about the facts on the Libya cave in or did you just read the Author’s opinion about it?

Tell me Sean what did Libya get from this deal other then raising of sanctions? Those sanctions that could have been lifted ten years earlier. When was the US nice? Because your facts from this book only confirms that Libya caved in to all the US demands, without gaining anything. The only proof you have is the author’s opinion.

I’m just surprised that you paid $29.99 for this opinionated trash. I just took notes in the bookstore for free.

The sad thing is you have hidden behind your word and this book as proof that being nice to dictators works. Trying to make others sound as if they are in the wrong. When now that someone other then you has looked at your proof, you have no leg to stand on. It is sad thing that I had to do your research for you. You had not provided any proof out of your book, now I know why.