All good friends together.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.newstatesm...leader-gaddafi-during

But when exactly did it all go wrong?

[Gromit]

Ichkeria,

I omitted Gadaffi giving up WMDs because it was laughable. He also never had any, so it was easy for him to renouce them.

The Libyan opposition were being helped long before the Arab Spring revolutions. The fact the the western allies did not show its had until the rebellion was well underway was more for diplomatic reasons. Key was getting a UN resolution to impose a non fly zone, so that NATO bombers could take out Gadaffi's forces. That meant pretending not to be involved, until the rebels were threatened by a massacre, and NATO and the west could legitimately get involved, rubber stamped by the UN.

[ichkeria]

Well, to that I would say two things:
firstly show me the evidence, and secondly, for my part, although I don't believe you, even if it is true I say: so what? The regime is so plainly despicable and evil that I would say that such conduct would be most excusable.

[Gromit]

Ichkeria

// The latter decision was so historic that the Prime Minister felt obliged to announce it to the nation on the 9pm News on BBC1 on a Friday night (19 December 2003) from his own constituency.  He told the nation:
 
“Libya has now declared its intention to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction completely.  … This courageous decision by Colonel Qadhafi is an historic one.  I applaud it. ”
 
What the Prime Minister didn’t tell the nation was that Libya hadn’t got any weapons of mass destruction, and never had. //

http://www.david-morr.../libya/libyan-wmd.htm

Now if you have conclusive proof they did pocess WMDs, then I look forward to seeing a link.

[ichkeria]

"Now if you have conclusive proof they did pocess WMDs, then I look forward to seeing a link. "

Recent history teaches us that looking for evidence of WMD leads only to trouble :-)

[ichkeria]

...in fact I think what was intended that Libya would no longer continue to proceed with its WMD programme, not that it would dismantle a WMD arsenal.
The point is anyway that Gaddafi seemed to change his tune and decided to court the west, doubtless dishonestly, but what exactly was the option for those he was sweet-talking? Tell him to go to hell?
I agree though that the Blair-hugs were probably a step too far (!)

[Gromit]

Ichketia

I would amend that slughtly to
// Recent history teaches us that looking for evidence of WMD [that don't exist] leads only to trouble. //

Evidence to real WMD are no trouble.

Gadaffi's regime had been sanctioned and stymied for years after Lockerbie. Gadaffi Had been trying to legitimise his regime and re-enter the fold, and Blair gave him the opportunity to do that. Much to the chargrin of the Americans, Blair decided to do his bit for the Scottish exploration business, and do deals with Gadaffi.

As it happens, Blair has ended up with egg on his face, so at least there has been one good result out of all of this

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// As it happens, Blair has ended up with egg on his face, so at least there has been one good result out of all of this ///

Frequently and at every opportunity you try to lampoon every aspect of the Tories, and now you are having a dig at your beloved Labour.

Just for the record, what Party or line of politics do you really support?

[ichkeria]

No one hates Tony Blair like some Labour people.
As a Labour person myself I tried to hate him many times but failed :-)
Actually, it is fascinating: Tony Blair argues, with some plausibility, that had Labour not ditched his policies it would have won the last election. And yet, for a politician who succeeded in bringing Labour into the centre ground and pinching so many Tory votes, he is reviled it seems almost as much as Thatcher.
Anyway, that's probably off the point and for a new topic.