Anyone remember how Clinton handled Libya during the 90's?

[BushOut06]

Remember when Libya was harboring a couple of fugitives wanted in connection with the Pan Am bombing? We didn't bomb Tripoli, or send in special forces to topple Gadhafi. We certainly didn't mass troops on the Egyptian border or invade Libya. We went through the United Nations, imposed economic sanctions, and isolated Libya. Eventually, it worked - Gadhafi handed over the suspects for trial, and eventually began cooperating with us, even dismantling their WMD programs. (this process started well before * and his "with us or against us" remarks)

It might also be worth noting that the bombing of Libya under Reagan had little effect, as Gadhafi continued his support for terrorists, evidenced by his harboring the Pan Am fugitives.

So why do so many people seem to be in such a rush to take military action against Pakistan? It's not like they're not doing anything whatsoever to help, because they are! Do any of these people advocating military action truly understand the precarious position that Musharaf is in? Using military force in this situation could very well create the situation that we've been dreading - an extremist Islamic country armed with nuclear weapons, and the desire to use them against us.

But what the hell do I know about presidential politics? Maybe I just don't understand the need to pander to the war-hawks in this country.

[BlackHawk706867]

1. Yep, what you describe is factual... However, you are comparing a rational...

(beautiful spirit if you will) to someone/something that is actually sub-human... Sorry, not a good comparison IMHO.

ww

[rockymountaindem]

2. A quick remark and then I have to head out for dinner:

There are two significant differences between Pakistan now and Libya then. The first is that modern-day Pakistan is riven between the military government, which is friendly toward us, and a burgeoning Islamist movement which most certainly is not. Libya, then and now, is ruled by a military government with no real opposition. While sending troops to Libya back then would have meant confronting a unified power structure thoroughly hostile toward the US, sending troops to Pakistan now could conceivably tip the balance toward the existing powers that be (Musharraf) that are friendly to us. Thus, instead of replacing one government with another as would have been necessary in Libya, military action in Pakistan could serve, in the best possible outcome of such action, to help our friends defeat a mutual enemy and thus *prevent* a change of power instead of precipitating one.

The second factor is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, which raises the ante in every sense, whereas Libya has no such weapons.

Disclaimer: I'm undecided in the primary right now, and I do not think that we should just walk into Pakistan tomorrow.

[JDPriestly]

4. No one has suggested walking into Pakistan tomorrow.

The suggestion is a specific action against the Al Qaeda group that claimed it attacked the U.S. in 2001 provided there is specific information on its whereabouts in Pakistan.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Well, Reagan bombed Libya for something some Germans did.....nt