"It is difficult to understand the actions of the US government."
June 2, 2006 4:24 PM   Subscribe

The Swiss are investigating an international smuggling ring suspected of providing nuclear program components to Libya. There's just one problem. Meanwhile, the United States is opening full diplomatic relations with Libya and removing it from its list of nations that sponsor terrorism.
posted by EarBucket (16 comments total)
I'm shocked the US would consort with evildoers!
posted by birdherder at 4:29 PM on June 2, 2006

Could there be, I don't know, some kind of energy deal involved?
posted by Artw at 4:47 PM on June 2, 2006

If you can't assassinate 'em, join 'em.
posted by Cranberry at 4:52 PM on June 2, 2006

Billy Carter , ahead of his time.
posted by nickyskye at 5:03 PM on June 2, 2006

Nice try there EarBucket.

1. The article states that the Libyan authorities COOPERATED with the Swiss investigation: " Albright told a US House of Representatives committee that the Libyan authorities had "greatly assisted" Switzerland in its legal requests, allowing a visit to Tripoli to interview witnesses last month." It is the US authorities that are not, yet your post implies that because of this investigation the US should not remove Libya from the US Govt's list of state sponsors of terrorism. The Libyan govt renounced its nuclear ambitions (as have South Africa and Brazil) ... this investigation looks into possible proliferation that ended in 2003. This post has been posted by an ignoramus whose prejudice overrides his or her ability to read English.

2. Anyone, how do we get this misleading post deleted? It is specious and underhanded. Besides, what, if any connection is there between terrorism and nuclear proliferation? The two are entirely distinct. When India or Pakistan declared themselves nuclear states, they were not accused of being state sponsors of terrorism by the US govt!?

3. As stated above, there is no per se connection between a govt that sponsors terrorism and a country's right or lack thereof to gain nuclear technology or weapons. If Libya is not a signatory to the NPT, then it can acquire nuclear weapons under the color of international law. If it is a signatory, it has every right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
posted by Azaadistani at 5:10 PM on June 2, 2006

So the Swiss are looking for Doc Brown now?

“The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I *do* rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of *your* enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil.” - Yuri Orlov
posted by Smedleyman at 5:14 PM on June 2, 2006

The Libyans are indeed said to have cooperated. To my mind, that makes the American obfuscation that much harder to understand. Note that I didn't suggest that the Libyan government is currently trying to procure nuclear technology. More likely, the US government is impeding an international investigation so as not to embarass the Libyan government and hamper their attempts at opening relations--a move that's widely viewed as hypocritical in the Middle East, by the way.
posted by EarBucket at 5:17 PM on June 2, 2006

I don't think Libya is the country the United States is trying to protect here. This is more likely about Pakistan, our close ally in the War on Terror and home of the infamous A.Q. Khan.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:29 PM on June 2, 2006

posted by homunculus at 5:29 PM on June 2, 2006

Democracy Now interviewed David Albright and a spokesperson for the Swiss Attorney General about this today.
posted by homunculus at 5:33 PM on June 2, 2006

Mr. roboto is right on.

AQ Kahn under "house arrest" for selling nukes. Jeebus. Gotta love that Pakistani sense of justice and alliance.

In a few years we'll find out Bin Laden had been "grounded" to Musharaff's treehouse fort and could only come out to watch cartoons and do his homework the whole time we were looking for him. "We let him go to the movies if he ate his broccoli."
posted by tkchrist at 6:09 PM on June 2, 2006

I think we should give the US a month to comply with the UN investigators' demands, and if they don't, I say we INVADE!!! Who's with me???!!??
posted by psmealey at 7:17 PM on June 2, 2006

The French hate the Germans
The Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs
South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don't like anybody very much

I take it back.
posted by longsleeves at 12:42 AM on June 3, 2006

"It is difficult to understand the actions of the US government."

What's so difficult? Libya has oil, and takes payment in petrodollars. So we get cheaper gasoline and our failing economy gets propped up a little longer, at least until after the elections in 2008. Follow the money.
posted by Mr. Six at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2006

From homunculus link:
“But America has forgotten that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and Pakistani Muslims are much more fundamentalist than Iranian Muslims, and Pervez Musharraf [the Pakistan President] did not come to power as a result of an election. The only difference between Iran and Pakistan is that Pakistan is friendly towards America and obeys America, while Iran does not obey America. This double standard is something that the Iranian people cannot understand.”

Double standard? Pakistan does what we want, Iran don’t.

Pretty straightforward.
Unless we’re trying to present ourselves as some sort of champion of fairness, truth, justice and liberty.
That hasn’t been true since...
Hmm, has that ever been true?

The double standard is between “America” the people and “America” the government.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:58 AM on June 5, 2006

« Older Olbermann Tears O'Reilly a New One   |   Curious George Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments