Oct

24

The fatal bullet may have been fired by a Libyan rebel but it was NATO (ie, US planes and technology) that attacked Qadaffi's convoy leading to his capture and killing. Since when do the usually objective members of SpecList think it wise and appropriate policy for the US to go around assassinating leaders of countries we have not declared war against? And how would we feel if the situation were reversed, if Iran were working to assassinate our President instead of just the Saudi ambassador, or if it had been established at the time that Castro's Cuba was behind Oswald's assassination of John Kennedy?

Second, after Qadaffi was shaken by the violent US removal of Saddam Hussein, it was clear Qadaffi and the US made a deal that Qadaffi would give up his nuclear weapons program and refrain from causing trouble in neighboring countries, and the US in turn would not attack Libya and Qadaffi. Do we want the US to be known as a country that reneges on such highly mutually advantageous types of agreements?

In retrospect Qadaffi would have been wiser to complete his nuclear weapons program. Then, like North Korea and possibly Iran, he would have been far more immune from US attack.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

4 Comments so far

  1. michael bonderer on October 24, 2011 9:32 am

    But ostensibly this was a NATO-led action that State would argue wasn’t a party to any such agreement.

  2. Ed on October 24, 2011 9:41 am

    Dan, the second part of your comment is what most bothers me about this action. It did appear that Q was cooperating with the USA when he “laid down its arms” and gave up the nuclear program. And how do we return the favor? He is dead. Not sure how we plan to entice others to cooperate with us in the future. All round seems like highly foolish maneuvering.

  3. Steve on October 24, 2011 10:15 am

    “Qadaffi and the US made a deal that Qadaffi would give up his nuclear weapons program and the US in turn would not attack Libya and Qadaffi”

    There is no honor among thieves. It is a mystery, why people believe what a politician says? And much more a mystery why an actual politician well acquainted with their duplicitous nature would trust them?

  4. michael bonderer on October 24, 2011 11:43 am

    Actually, i would take issue with your characterization “..go around assasinating”, after 103, we should have done this years ago!

Archives

Resources & Links

Search