Libya disarms.
December 20, 2003 9:35 AM   Subscribe

Libya disarms. Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, said the Iraq war had nothing to do with the timing of Libya's negotiations. "We started the cooperation before even the invasion of Iraq," he told CNN. But he added: "It's a critical deal for Libya, because first of all we will get access to defensive weapons and no sanctions on Libyan arms imports any more. We will get access to the know-how and technology in sectors which were banned."
posted by skallas (61 comments total)
 
I guess Iraq had too much oil and too little WMD for such trivial things such as diplomacy and inspections. One wonders if Saddam could have been the disarmed Kadafi of '08 or so. (ignoring he disarmed in '91)

It all sounds so very pro-quid pro, which is probably the essence of all diplomacy.
posted by skallas at 9:38 AM on December 20, 2003


Ha! I always thought Gaddafi was crazy like a fox, and Saddam was, just...crazy.
posted by black8 at 9:54 AM on December 20, 2003


One small step for Libya...one slightly larger step towards a safer world.
posted by davidmsc at 10:02 AM on December 20, 2003


I guess Iraq had too much oil and too little WMD for such trivial things such as diplomacy and inspections.

So 1991 to 2003 are just a confused blur to you?
posted by Mick at 10:08 AM on December 20, 2003


I'll believe it when I see it. Odds are that after Sept. 11 and the toppling of the Taliban, they pondered "who's next" and started remembering Reagan's rocket up Gaddafi sr.'s ass. Gaddafi jr. is about as trustworthy as his dad, which is to say; he isn't.
posted by dagny at 10:27 AM on December 20, 2003


I'll gladly concede that this is the best evidence the Bush Administration's gotten that they are making the world safer (TM NeoCons) by scaring the despots/potential-international-threats who are smart enough to be scared. (Especially with the LATimes reporting in a sidebar that Syria may soon follow suit). Of course, Qaddhafi's not been a real factor in International Terrorism since Reagan dropped a bomb way too close to his bedroom in the '80s, and now he is free to enslave/kill his own people without fear that America will start a War of Liberation against him. (Sorry, couldn't resist a snark... Saturday Morning NewsFilter is too much like an animated cartoon)
posted by wendell at 10:28 AM on December 20, 2003


Another great victory for Bush and Blair. I guess this also puts severe hardship on the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, too. Plus, I guess he 'fessed up about all the efforts by the other dictators, including Saddam, to acquire nukes. Some 300 Iraqi nuke scientists working in Libya on the project, still being paid by one of Saddam's relatives.

But that doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, Saddam didn't have any WMDs, huh? No shit, er blood for oil! No justice! No peace! No democrats elected for two decades!
posted by kablam at 10:30 AM on December 20, 2003


"Libya should carry-out the commitments announced today," he said. "Libya should also fully engage in the war against terror."

I hope that preconditions which are as vague as this don't stop further progress in the disarmament process. I wonder also if this would have turned out as successful had the UK diplomats not been first approached.

No democrats elected for two decades!
Way to lose the plot, kablam...
posted by dash_slot- at 10:38 AM on December 20, 2003


But that doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, Saddam didn't have any WMDs, huh?

If you could halfway substantiate any of the made-up stuff in the first paragraph, this whole communication thing might work out better for you.

I guess this also puts severe hardship on the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, too.

Why?

Plus, I guess he 'fessed up about all the efforts by the other dictators, including Saddam, to acquire nukes.

Source?

Some 300 Iraqi nuke scientists working in Libya on the project, still being paid by one of Saddam's relatives.

What the hell are you talking about?

While you're making up rosy projections, there is an article linked up at the top of the page you may want to read. Ghaddafi came to the US, unilaterally, more than a year ago. The only people for whom this is related in any way to Iraq are the same people who believe that Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda and was an important part of the War on Terror. Congratulations, though, on letting your emotions get in the way of a thorough examinaition of the facts!

If Lybia had WMD, it's sweet that they're getting rid of them, but this doesn't fit any better into a comprehensive neocon approach to the world than does any of the other crap that people try to cram into it. I like how diplomacy can't work with such dishonest freedom-haters as France, but with someone as--Jack Straw's word here--"statesmanlike" as Ghadafi, it's all good.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:40 AM on December 20, 2003




I think that one of the key events inthis deal, looking back, was that Rivaldo outpolled Gaddaffi's other son as the worst footballer in Serie A.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:56 AM on December 20, 2003


That should have been quid pro quo.

Anyway, I wonder if the UK/US are going to be more open with their diplomatic efforts in the near future as damage control for Iraq.

The US's bargaining position could very well be compromised if the neocons want to make sure that the neocon philosophy works by any means possible.
posted by skallas at 11:10 AM on December 20, 2003


it's a shame that the only way to get Libya to disarm was to invade Iraq.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:12 AM on December 20, 2003


Or perhaps, now is the time to cash out on your useless WMD stockpiles. So far the experts have only mentioned Libya's archaic mustard gas stockpiles, everything else has been more or less abandoned. Libya has been looking to leave the list of 'pariah' states for a while and with all the WMD hysteria going on with Iraq, they took Bush and Blair for some favors/cash. Just like N. Korea did and is still trying to do in its fuel oil for nuclear promises deals.
posted by skallas at 11:20 AM on December 20, 2003


While this is most definitely a good thing, when I heard it on the radio last night, I wondered "why doesn't Gaddafi have a rank like general, or supreme ruler?"
posted by drezdn at 11:40 AM on December 20, 2003


skallas, I was just about to compliment you on pro-quid pro. Very clever I thought. (quid means cash in the UK and this is being seen here as a deal with Britain rather than a US-UK thing)
posted by bonaldi at 11:45 AM on December 20, 2003


This has been in the works since long before the Iraq war. See this September 13, 1999 article - Trying to shed pariah status, Libya warms to West - The US may consider removing Libya from the list of sponsors of terrorism.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:46 AM on December 20, 2003


it's a shame that the only way to get Libya to disarm was to invade Iraq.

I'm sure it helped to speed the process along. This is just another example of the good things that have resulted from this war.
posted by WLW at 11:47 AM on December 20, 2003


Homunculus, thank you very much for that link.
I'd forgotten all about that.

I feel like every scandalous action that gets swept under the rug for this administration is just followed with another doozy, equally damning, and equally bewildering as to the complete lack of attention paid to it.
posted by Busithoth at 11:48 AM on December 20, 2003


said the Iraq war had nothing to do with the timing of Libya's negotiations. "We started the cooperation before even the invasion of Iraq," he told CNN.
posted by drezdn at 12:17 PM on December 20, 2003


Libya has been warming to the west before Bush W. was in office. They're the head of the UN's Human Rights Commission for some time now.

Blair probably deserves some for their negotiations over Lockerbie, but Bush and Reagan deserve none. That rocket Reagan sent to Libya did little to stop them from bombing the plane over Lockerbie.
posted by destro at 1:25 PM on December 20, 2003




I'm sure this is immediately going to be attacked as HateBushTiredClicheofAddingFilterToTheEndofTheWord, but I'm still a little mixed on the slight heavy hypocrisy in this.

Libya is a nation that sponsored terrorism (using civilian airplanes, no less), actively used chemical weapons in combat, and regardless of now disarming will still be led by a murderous dictator who rules a one-party state and oppresses his people. Exactly why was a Coalition of the Willing not required for this that was unavoidable in Iraq?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm thrilled to hear that Libya is disarming and I applaud the administration for its steps to get this done. I'm just curious as to why this couldn't have been done in Iraq. A couple hundred dead soldiers might be too, except, you know, they're dead.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:21 PM on December 20, 2003


I don't get it either, XQUZ, so I'm left with: no oil in Libya? no assasination attempt on daddy? (that's about it)
posted by amberglow at 5:32 PM on December 20, 2003


Just like N. Korea did and is still trying to do in its fuel oil for nuclear promises deals.

Well, I think you'll find that the DPRK gets most of its fuel oil from China (and fell quickly into line when China punitively shut off the flow for a couple of days earlier this year). Also, that the fuel-oil shipments promised (along with a number of other things that were not delivered) by America in the 1994 Agreed Framework were more of a carrot offered by Carter than a demand of the elder Kim.

Regardless, it is true that Kim KI has been leading the US Administration, whose N.Korea policy is a pathetic, dangerous shambles, around by the nose, along with the rest of us. As it has been for a decade at least, though, their threat and bluster has consistently been their customary tactic to try and secure a guarantee that they will be left alone, and that's it - a non-aggression agreement. It's odd for anyone who is paying attention to the situation how little this is mentioned.

Also, the consistently smart Billmon on the hyprocisy of the Libya situation.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:35 PM on December 20, 2003


oops...Libya has oil too...Currently, Libya has 12 oil fields with reserves of 1 billion barrels or more each, and two others with reserves of 500 million-1 billion barrels.
posted by amberglow at 5:59 PM on December 20, 2003


(Kim JI, sorry)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:18 PM on December 20, 2003


Let's assume you want to attack Libya. Granted, they have a pathetic army, and maybe their only significant weapons *might* be WMDs. However, they have friends.

The military goes to lengths to avoid combat "on two fronts", in this case, the more heavily armed and dangerous of the two, Iraq, would have been very capable of jeopardizing the US forces in the area. The threat alone would force the US to use far more forces just to watch its flanks and rear.

And, while Libya might be something of a pariah, Egypt, Syria, and even Iran might have risen to its defense, unlike Iraq. Even the Saudis would frown on an abrupt invasion of Libya. Remember that, in past, Quaddafi tried to unify much of the Arab world, and is remembered fondly for it.

In other words, in picking your battles, it is wise to also remember what your *next* fight might be.

But for now, it's important to hope that the west jumps on the opportunity, and maybe makes the extra effort to persuade Quaddafi that some Perestroika and Glasnost could do Libya wonders.

A western-leaning group of Egypt, Iraq and Libya would make a formidable powerhouse in reforming, liberalizing and modernizing the entire middle east.
posted by kablam at 6:52 PM on December 20, 2003


and that's it - a non-aggression agreement. It's odd for anyone who is paying attention to the situation how little this is mentioned.

It's too bad that those on the rip-roaring psychedelic left don't realize that the fate of North Korea is entirely in the hands of a rabid megalomaniacal dictator. Interesting to see who's rallying 'round the psycopath. "Non-aggression" here is a drab metaphor for "concesssion" and "appeasement" thanks to the miserable communist sympathizer, concessionist, and Nobel Prize winner, Kim Dae Jung.

The sole losing aggessor in the Korean War is not owed a scintilla of concession from either the United States or South Korea.

It is their desperation and assured downfall that leads them to predictably hysterical and desperate acts.

To wit, and more to the point:

Iran.
posted by hama7 at 6:53 PM on December 20, 2003


the rip-roaring psychedelic left

See, this explains why every time I lick the blotter ballet at the voting booth, I hear 2000 Light Years From Home. All this time, I thought it was just me - what a relief!
posted by trondant at 7:12 PM on December 20, 2003


It's too bad that those on the rip-roaring psychedelic left don't realize that the fate of North Korea is entirely in the hands of a rabid megalomaniacal dictator.

Although I do not engage in such dimwitted reductionism as to talk about 'the left' or 'the right' or 'liberals' or *giggle* communists, I will note that it's too bad that hama7 does not realize that America and its policies have as much to do with the current situation on the Korean peninsula as anyone.

Not to say that Kim Jong Il does not deserve to be slow-roasted over an open fire while hanbok-clad beauties relentlessly crush his testicles with pliers and sing songs of joy and harmony. He does, and more.

Interesting to see who's rallying 'round the psycopath.

Which psychopath do you mean, George Bush? Yeah, it is interesting, and disconcerting. Still, painting someone (like myself) who is able to entertain shades of grey in an assessment of a political reality as a supporter of despots is a cheap and laughably stupid gambit, hama7. Although it seems to be working for your Beloved Leaders, so why not, eh?

It is their desperation and assured downfall that leads them to predictably hysterical and desperate acts.

Wow. Insightful commentary. May I subscribe to your newsletter?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:18 PM on December 20, 2003


(Sorry for veering offtopic. Don't feed the trolls, I know.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:20 PM on December 20, 2003


Just a little thing for people to remember, particularly people who can't excape from the "it's us or them" / "there's no shades of grey" / "this is a war with cartoon-like notions of right and wrong".

Libya is not equivalent to Iraq. Iraq is not equivalent to Iran. Iraq is not equivalent to Syria. Libya is not equivalent to North Korea. North Korea is not equivalent to Cuba. Cuba is not equivalent to Sudan. Sudan is not equivalent to Zimbabwe.

There's no domino effect here people. These are completely different countries with different power structures, different places in the world, different cultures, and posing different threats. I really doubt we'll see dozens of other countries (hey, wouldn't it be nice if no-one had WMDs? There's a thought!) following Libya's example so easily. While the attack on Iraq may have softened some countries, I have no doubt it has hardened others, and I think some serious diplomacy and negotiation will be required to see similar results elsewhere.

So, what exactly should we do about those darned North Koreans? Wait until they just give up their guns like Libya? We'll be waiting a long time. Open a can of whoop-ass on them? I doubt the populations of Seoul and Tokyo will be happy about that. Or, here's an idea, talk to them,negotiate and wear them down! Sounds like the safest option to me.
posted by Jimbob at 8:03 PM on December 20, 2003


Hama7 - If i be one of the "the rip-roaring psychedelic left
"
( tasty ad-hominem ! - Good writing ) well - in fact, I posted a thread almost a year ago on the topic of North Korea's Nuclear Threat.

You posted some good links, we had a few sharp exchanges....strangely, the thread ended with Paris_Paramus and I discussing toilet installation in our respective bathrooms.

Left, right, these ideologues' minds all end up in the sewer......
posted by troutfishing at 8:10 PM on December 20, 2003


ahhh....now i get it: a possible rationale, from the BBC: US oil companies are keen to get back into the north African state where they once produced more than a million barrels per day, and where the energy department estimates output could reach two million barrels per day within five years. Companies like Marathon and ConocoPhilips are understood to still have extensive assets in Libya, which have been frozen since 1986. (I guess US oil companies didn't have enough assets in Iraq before--it would have prevented the war, and I wonder if Libya was discussed at Cheney's energy meetings)
posted by amberglow at 8:12 PM on December 20, 2003


America and its policies have as much to do with the current situation on the Korean peninsula as anyone.

Sure. The Korean peninsula?

able to entertain shades of grey

Bravo! I applaud your progressive, "centrist", and sophisticated comments.

More to the point:

Iran

Iran

Iran.

All the best.

Or, here's an idea, talk to them, negotiate and wear them down! Sounds like the safest option to me.

No option. Dictators do not respond to talk, or anything else. On second thought: What??
posted by hama7 at 8:16 PM on December 20, 2003


tasty ad-hominem ! - Good writing

Nothing personal intended. Simply stated: capitulation with regard to dictatorial regimes and equivocation in the face of tyranny is viewed as weakness by the enemy.

The North Korean regime is as bleak as it is horrid.

Back on topic:

Iran.
posted by hama7 at 8:59 PM on December 20, 2003


in fact, I posted a thread almost a year ago on the topic of North Korea's Nuclear Threat.

What a great time was had by many! Thanks for the reminder, troutfishing.
posted by hama7 at 9:19 PM on December 20, 2003


amberglow (and many others) make it sounds like going after a country for its oil is a bad thing.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have most of the oil controlled by private companies in a capitalistic countries than the OPEC. At least in the former we would end up with some sort of oligopolistic competition.

OPEC is a cartel, people - they get together and control supply in order to charge unjustifiably high prices and make abnormally high profits. If OPEC were not actually a bunch of unscrupulous governments, but instead were companies within a the border of a single sovereign country, they would've been broken up and had their leaders arrested looooong ago.

But since we don't have any official "world police", the best thing to happen is to have these OPEC member countries "broken up" and have control of their oil handed over to a competitive marketplace, where the supply of it would be more efficiently distributed.
posted by VeGiTo at 11:04 PM on December 20, 2003


amberglow (and many others) make it sounds like going after a country for its oil is a bad thing.

I guess it depends on whether or not you live in the country that we are "going after."
posted by mcsweetie at 6:38 AM on December 21, 2003


and have control of their oil handed over to a competitive marketplace,

As we all know, multinational energy companies have, to a man, demonstrated their maturity, restraint, prudence, aversion to rapacious profit-taking, and public accountability. And uh, they love the trees too.
posted by trondant at 6:58 AM on December 21, 2003


As a pleasant aside, though both Saddam and Quadaffi are dictators, it's interesting to note how their eccentric personalities manifested themselves.

For example, Saddam's grand engineering projects were all geared to violence, aggression and war. Every spare dollar, and then some, were used for any mundane or exotic weapons he could get. His world was a vicious paranoid fantasy, in many ways made reality by his followers. In some ways he was like a James Bond villain.

But Quadaffi, while sometimes violent and unpredictable, put his energies into grand schemes. At one time he desired to become 'Sheik al Islam'--the great ruler of all Moslems, perhaps re-creating and expanding upon the United Arab Republic (Egypt, Syria and almost Yemen's experiment in anti-communist unification).
His current astounding pet project is the "Great Man-Made River Project"

Interesting how very different dictators can be.
posted by kablam at 7:37 AM on December 21, 2003


amberglow (and many others) make it sounds like going after a country for its oil is a bad thing.
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have most of the oil controlled by private companies in a capitalistic countries than the OPEC. At least in the former we would end up with some sort of oligopolistic competition.

First of all, the oil doesn't belong to us--we just need it. But I'm not really surprised by business decisions determining foreign policy--it's been going on for decades, and after all, "The business of America is business", no? The problem comes when we go to war because of it, and not because of a direct threat or attack on us.
posted by amberglow at 8:36 AM on December 21, 2003


As we all know, multinational energy companies have, to a man, demonstrated their maturity, restraint, prudence, aversion to rapacious profit-taking, and public accountability.

Yeah but none of these are required in order to show an improvement over OPEC governments (even public accountability - we're improving on that, but I'm sure even the worse public company is more transparent than a middle-east totalitarian regime).

The only requirement that is essensial is that these companies don't collaborate among themselves like the OPEC countries do, in which case no matter how greedy they are, market forces will ensure that they sell their product at at least a semi-competitive price.
posted by VeGiTo at 8:45 AM on December 21, 2003


One more thing, saying "the oil doesn't belong to us" is like saying "Windows doesn't belong to us" therefore we should let Microsof price-gouge and be anti-competive all they want, and we have no right to interfere, and anti-trust laws are completely without merit.

If you think anti-trust laws have merit to stand on their own, then it should be applicable on the world-stage as well. The only problems is that the closest thing we have to a "world police" for enforcing them is not a supranational entity, it is the American military.
posted by VeGiTo at 8:51 AM on December 21, 2003


Kablam --

I believe that Saddam also pan-arab ambitions, trying to unite the various countries under a single ruler.

What I think is interesting about these guys is that they've articulated their points of view pretty well via creative outlets, such as books and films and whatnot. One of Gaddafi's books of short stories has been translated into english... and it provides an interesting view into the mind of a modern dictator.

Saddam, also, apparently has written a series of books and starred in at least one film.

I'm not sure anyone's mentioned this, but Libya has been making an effort to rejoin the international community for awhile now. They've settled with the Lockerbie plaintiffs... (although not to everyone's satisfaction, of course.) His son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, is becoming quite the darling of the european smart set, having recently exibited some of his painting outside of the middle east.
posted by ph00dz at 10:24 AM on December 21, 2003


ph00dz: The 'Sheik al Islam' idea has long been popular among the Arabs. Several of the Mahdis had pretensions along those lines, and going way back, it was only the Indo-European Moslems (mostly Shiite) that violently stood in the way of such unification movements.
Quadaffi had more success than most with the idea because he pitched it as mutually advantageous, rather than through force of arms. Islam is unfortunately plagued with a traditional "might makes right" attitude, the prophet having neglected to spell out what "makes a good government." If you are the boss, it is because Allah smiles on you. So, while everybody *wants* to be 'Sheik al Islam', they know that everybody *else* wants to be it, too.
My estimation at this point is that Quadaffi is once again trying to set up a "triangulation" (a favored philosophy of his), between acting the good guy for what the west will give and being pestiferous up to the point of the west doing something about it.
Though it would serve his nation well, I doubt that he will openly embraced the western way. He is probably too distrustful to do that. So if he is brought into equanimity with the US and Europe, it will be only very gradually. Unless, of course, he does so as one of his great eccentric "wild hares."
posted by kablam at 10:49 AM on December 21, 2003


VeGiTo, you can't treat oil like Windows. Oil isn't created--it's a natural resource--countries are allowed to do what they want with their resources (sell them, sit on them, whatever). Windows is a product, created by a company--products and companies are regulated by laws. Until oil is put on the market it's not a product, legally, i don't think--If some countries are lucky enough to have lots of oil, that in no way means we can regulate what they do with it (until it's on the market when we can choose whether or not to buy it), nor should we invade to get control of it (unless we're evil).
posted by amberglow at 11:24 AM on December 21, 2003


The only requirement that is essensial is that these companies don't collaborate among themselves

I think there's an unspoken (not to mention unwarranted) belief in an invisible hand at work here. Expecting energy companies to play nice is just silly. If there was a law they didn't like, they'd just buy one that suited them better.
posted by trondant at 11:55 AM on December 21, 2003


amberglow: that is the most twisted logic I've read today.

By sheer luck the OPEC countries are endowed with very oil-rich lands, therefore they have he right to price gouge us. Windows is created through hard-work by some very smart people, therefore it must be regulated and shared with everybody.

You're basically saying that you deserve anything you're born with, but anything that you actually earned throught hard work should be taken away.
posted by VeGiTo at 2:31 PM on December 21, 2003


I think we owe all of this to the foresight and benificence of one man...
posted by jonmc at 5:16 PM on December 21, 2003


VeGiTo: twisted???
Should diamonds be regulated like Microsoft products? should timber? should water? should air? Where do you draw the line? Some things exist, and have always been there, but weren't valued--when do those things become a product to be regulated? Who decides? How much are those things worth?
posted by amberglow at 8:20 PM on December 21, 2003


VeGiTo, you're saying that on this meritocracy known as Earth that if you're born into wealth of some sort but aren't deserving of it, it can just be taken away from you?

Awesome.

So, at heart you're really a Maoist? I never would've guessed it. You should start coming to the meetings, man. Have we taught you the handshake yet?
posted by trondant at 4:05 AM on December 22, 2003


boogie nights.
posted by quonsar at 4:27 AM on December 22, 2003


trondant: I believe that people born into wealth should deserve it as much as people who created it. Therefore if you think anti-trust laws apply to Microsoft, then it should apply to OPEC. Our lack of a supranational law enforcement is a problem of execution, not a problem of principle.

So I have to either endorse cartels and monopolists or otherwise I'm a Maoist, huh? I guess there's no point explaining anything to false dichotomic fuckwit like you.
posted by VeGiTo at 7:41 AM on December 22, 2003


By sheer luck the OPEC countries are endowed with very oil-rich lands, therefore they have he right to price gouge us. Windows is created through hard-work by some very smart people, therefore it must be regulated and shared with everybody.

...Therefore if you think anti-trust laws apply to Microsoft, then it should apply to OPEC.

That's ridiculous. OPEC, corrupt as it is, exists because other countries developed fossil-fuel-based technology, and at least for America's case, recent legislation shows a complete lack of interest in developing alternative sources.

Skipping the blatantly obvious difference in that Windows is a commercial man-made product and oil is a natural resource- god DAMN those Norwegians and their corner on the Sea Bass market!- you're somehow shaping the concept of monopolies as though Microsoft is bad merely because it's huge and produces a lot of something. Which is, of course, both what pro-monoploy pundits want you to believe and is in no way what monopolies are about.

To compare the "monopolistic actions" of OPEC to those of Microsoft is to imply that OPEC actively sought to eliminate alternative energy sources from the retail market by means which countered free enterprise. When OPEC tries to shatter the Solar Power industry by offering free solar panels with every barrel of Unleaded, you've got an analogy there.

Until then, maybe you should wonder why congress wouldn't even pass a bill to limit fuel consumption in cars over a twelve-year period. The United States has very little clout in complaining how hard it is for them to get the oil they so desperatey legislate the requirement to need.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:45 AM on December 22, 2003


XQUZ, there you go, being logical again. Cut it out before you ruin li'l VeGiTo's innocent dreams of world empire and unchecked resource exploitation.
posted by clever sheep at 9:07 AM on December 22, 2003


Yeah, really. I mean, I've almost got him sold on that Maoism thingee. Gimme another week and VeGiTostan will be a Workers' Paradise. Reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, imperialist running dogs and false-dichotomic fuckwits will be no more!
posted by trondant at 9:41 AM on December 22, 2003


Yay you guys for choosing to relentlessly defend member countries of OPEC - they're a bunch of virtuous folk indeed. You guys choose your company very wisely. I'm sorry that I just can't seem to get myself in bed with OPEC, so I'll leave you guys with the pleasure. Out.
posted by VeGiTo at 12:16 PM on December 22, 2003


One more thing before I go: XQUZYPHYR is once again saying that anything a country created should be shared and regulated.. But any natural resource handed to you by sheer luck, you can cornered it all you want and horde it from the rest of the world. GODDAM those innovators! Trying to create things out of nowhere... How sinful! They certainly deserve worse than those whose lands are simply blessed by God with abundant raw resources.

Logical? If you say so...
posted by VeGiTo at 12:29 PM on December 22, 2003


Yay you guys for choosing to relentlessly defend member countries of OPEC - they're a bunch of virtuous folk indeed.

Of course, we all already know you're lying your ass off here, but you know, condescending allusions to patriotism being the last refuge of morons whose arguments were defeated, or something like that.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:09 PM on December 22, 2003


« Older Echoes of Incense: A Pilgrimage in Japan   |   Graffiti Archeaology Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments