I'm suprised we haven't had threads of outrage from a particular group of board surfers on this subject.
Today, my Prime Minister shook hands with a brutal dictator. Supporter and initiator of global terrorism; director of an attack that blew 270 British people out of the sky over Lockerbie; most likely guilty of the assasination of a British police officer some years before outside the Libyan embassy.. and all-round arsehole.
But today - he's being welcomed back to prosperity, peace, and healthy Western relations.
This man, whose country was once the epicentre for terrorism, grieved and devestated not only Britain but a miriad of North African countries.
But that, today, seems to have blown in the wind.
So what's the reaction?
I personally, am not sure. Here it is a mixture of anger, bewilderment and interest. And I can't deny it's fascinating to see where this relationship is going to lead.
So why? Why do it?
Is it truely going to be a positive step for peace and prosperity in the region? Is it to aid us in the supposed "war on terror"? Are we just siezing a chance to halt a countries WoMD progress? A quick way to gain an ally in the region? An ally on terrorism (Gadaffi has fought Al-Qaede ever since they attempted to topple his dictatorship and rid Libya of his political foothold)? Or the more obvious, liberal, tin-foil hat questioning that already Anglo-Dutch deals worth about £550m have sprung for the right to tap Libya's arse for gas?

I personally am not sure what to make of it. I'll have to go with the local feeling of fascination and interest. I find it remarkable - in a positive way - that Blair has initiated relations and has shaken the dictator's hand. It's a sign of moving on, a sign of better things to come for both countries. Gadaffi's comepensated victims, and agreed to investigations in to a number of Libya-orienated killings, specifically the police officer outside their embassy.

But it's hard to believe. If today were 15 years ago, I'd have no doubt Libya would be next to Iraq on the "list". Tripoli would probably have been in the good old Axis of Evil speech.
So yeah.. remarkable to see such a change.
For the best? I don't know.
A step forward? Definately.

But as I said, It's a shocker to have heard no cries of outrage from the "Muslims must die, exterminate all terrorists, nuke the arabs! camp.
What gives?
Come on. Give yer 2cp. And then maybe in a few pages we can have some good old Anti-US flames.
And maybe there can be some type of mud wrestling involved... with oil.. and.. *drifts off*

I wish ( I really meant it) that I could shout at you and call you terrible names but I agree../choke It's a fascinating deal going on over there. Who knows where it will lead. I don't think anyone has said "kill muslims". I think all "terrorists" must die. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes and they must meet their maker by way of US bombing/military action. DIE DIE DIE YOU NASTY EVIL KILLERS OF FREE AND INNOCENT PEOPLES EVERYWHERE!!!!! Wow, too many Cokes today.

We are the same country that is nice to Saudi Arabia and kiss their asses because if we did anything there, like say take it over like Iraq or Afganistan, we would cause a Jihad.

I think the Libyans watched what happened in Iraq very closely and have "seen the light", at least that is the impression they are trying to give.

I think Quaddafi's ego badly craves stroking and his prior "revolutionary" persona wasn't getting him the kind of attention he wanted. So now he is playing like he is the new Nelson Mandela and milking the "peacemaker" persona for all the attention he can get. And that's fine with me. It can't help but improve the standard of living in Libya, remove a source of irritation for the west and with increasing scrutiny from the rest of the world one can only hope the civil/human rights situation there will improve as well.

Who knows, maybe he will surprise us all and really clean up his act. It's worth pursuing.

Hmm, perhaps he has a case of "if you can't beat em, join em?".. Pakistan sure did help out with the Taliban.. Maybe, just maybe, some are starting to see that we can be a good ally, but a terrible enemy?

Ranei

Everyone is tolerant of Khadaffi for a minute because he did something rather significant.

He got scared and gave up the man who is by FAR the biggest proliferator of nuclear arms in the world. There were problems with a lack of evidence against this guy until Mohammar gave him up. Now, of course, Mohammar being who he is, he's making the most of it.

So instead of having the Mr. Arms Proliferator put to death, the U.S. cut a deal. Until this happened, Pakistan had steadfastly refused to let U.S. troops operate from their country. Task force 21 in Iraq loaded onto a few C-17's. "Yo, Mr. I-just-took-power-in-a-military-coup. We're gonna bring some planes over. Let 'em land, and we won't crucify you in the international press. You do want to stay in power, right?"

It also demonstrates to other nations the benefits of being back in the wider international community. The 'stick' has been severly demonstrated in Iraq and this shows the 'carrot'. For diplomats to do their work they have to have a viable threat but also a decent reward. Like all things political it will not be as straightforward as that, politics at home, deals, backhanders will all be there to muddy the waters. But in the short term if a country has given up its nuclear weapons program that has to be a positive step.

Gets Tony a few front pages I guess would be another view if I were a cynic.

And none of this would be happening if we were still on all-fours begging Saddam to be nice.

I personally am not sure what to make of it. I'll have to go with the local feeling of fascination and interest. I find it remarkable - in a positive way - that Blair has initiated relations and has shaken the dictator's hand. It's a sign of moving on, a sign of better things to come for both countries.

Couldn't agree more with you on this Halo.



Ibudin

First of all, I despise how all western media I have seen so far have treated this subject.

All about lockerbie, NOTHING about the thousands of political prisoners at home in Libya.

As if human rights applies only to "aryans".
I'm getting so damned tired of this kind of attitude.

If Quaddafi is honest about trying to reform, then that's great. However, I suspect that he meerely wish to be buddies with the west in exchange for us to ignore Amnesty reports and accnowledge his "right" to opress libyans. Don't let him off the hook that easily!

Good point Edeina.

I'll look for the article if you need it, but the other day Libya extended its hand to former Jews that fled from that country over the past 50 years. All of their property was effectively seized by the state when they did. Now Libya wants to offer land and compensation back to those who fled..

What's wrong with that? Nothing. Probably good for business.

But why not extend the same hand to the Palestinians? I think it's just indicative of how no one wants to help them, even their own kind.

Sounds great.

>>"But why not extend the same hand to the Palestinians? I think it's just indicative of how no one wants to help them, even their own kind. "

Amen to that.
Jordania made the original problem so much wose by closing it's border, and could change the situation so much for the better at ANY time. And the other countries could have done a lot as well. But they prefered to keep the palestinian people as a buffer against Israel. A buffer of human flesh.

And in the meantime, "radicals" in the west are busy supporting the bloodstained despot Arafat. Here in Sweden, many years ago, a report was made. It concluded that our government shoud stop supporting the dictator, helping the palestinians to achieve democracy instead. The covernment decided to make the report classified and bury it, and continue to support the tyrant. It just recently popped up again.