4 ms·
"The Libyan disarmament issue was peacefully resolved on December 2003 when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi agreed to eliminate his country's weapons of mass dest
by bluthru 9y ago
"The Libyan disarmament issue was peacefully resolved on December 2003 when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi agreed to eliminate his country's weapons of mass destruction program, including a decades-old nuclear weapons program."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya
US foreign policy has shown that the only leverage you have is nukes. Libya disarmed and the government was still overthrown because Gaddafi threatened to start a new gold-backed African currency.
- scottLobster 9y agoActually US foreign policy is demonstrating right now that large conventional forces are an equally effective deterrent. If they weren't we would have overthrown North Korea by now, given the continuous threats they've made over the years. Also perhaps I'm just a "sheep" but I'm pretty sure the Libyan people didn't rebel over a theoretical currency change. Or was that a CIA job like 9/11? /sarcasm
- bluthru 9y ago>Actually US foreign policy is demonstrating right now that large conventional forces are an equally effective deterrent. I don't understand your point. North Korea has had nuclear bombs for over a decade. >Also perhaps I'm just a "sheep" but I'm pretty sure the Libyan people didn't rebel over a theoretical currency change. Of course not, but it was a reason for us to care. Lose the attitude. It's obvious you're not familiar with this topic: https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011 https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-th... http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/09/20/349549267/when-the-u-s-backs-rebels-it-doesnt-often-go-as-planned http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/09/20/349549267/w... http://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_countries_the_u_s_has_backed_international_crime_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_countries_the_u_s_has_bac...
- Sangermaine 9y ago>I don't understand your point. North Korea has had nuclear bombs for over a decade. The point is they didn't have them for 60 years after the Korean War and weren't attacked. They've long had enough conventional forces to make war with them a guaranteed disaster for the Korean Peninsula. The idea that nuclear weapons are what's keeping them from being attacked is simply stupid.
- bluthru 9y ago>The idea that nuclear weapons are what's keeping them from being attacked is simply stupid. I guess you think the top experts are "simply stupid" then: http://www.npr.org/2017/03/29/521909787/the-u-s-has-an-active-cyber-war-underway-to-thwart-the-north-korean-nuclear-thre http://www.npr.org/2017/03/29/521909787/the-u-s-has-an-activ... https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/must-we-accept-a-nuclear-north-korea https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/must-we-accept-a-nucl...
- Sangermaine 9y agoI'm not sure what your point is, since neither of those links espouse the position that nuclear weapons are the only reason North Korea hasn't been attacked. No one is saying NK having nuclear weapons isn't a threat or a danger. It's just simply an oft-repeated idiocy that you have to have nukes or the US will attack you. The US didn't go to war with NK for the 60 years prior to them having nukes, either, because other deterrents exist in the situation. It's a childish understanding of what's going on.