Except that Qaddafi didn't actually, ever, have any nukes. Correct me
if I'm wrong by reference to an article stating the contrary.

You guys keep going on like he had things that could make big bangs.
All he had was an R&D program looking for a means of building bombs.

Get a grip on reality. Nearly everyone on rec.crafts.metalworking has
the technical equipment to build a nuclear weapon, it isn't technically
very difficult. The problem lies in getting the plutonium or U235.

PDW

In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:15:05 +0000, Maxprop wrote:


One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is
a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that
if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

Gadaffi's efforts to rejoin the civilized world predate Bush. I'll grant
you that Reagan's bombing of Libya may have shown him the light, but it
was not Bush. Gadaffi turned over the Lockerbie bombers pre-Bush.
Denounced terrorism and reestablished diplomatic links with the UK in
1999. Ending his weapons programs was just a continuation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/548303.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/388420.stm

What you cite is accurate, and I agree. But I do think that our
no-line-in-the-sand approach with Saddam tended to lead Qaddaffi to believe
he was in jeopardy by keeping his nukes. It was the push he needed, if you
will.

Max