All good friends together.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.newstatesm...leader-gaddafi-during

But when exactly did it all go wrong?

[Gromit]

40 odd years ago under King Idris, Libya, a pro western country was falling apart and decending into chaos. When Gadaffi seized power, the British and US were supportive. They had a few opportunities early on to bring about his downfall, but did not. The view was that Libya needed a strong leader. But Gadaffi became more irratic and began to foster international anti western terrorism. Lockerbie proved a means of isolating himand his country. They were now pirayhs? They tried to sideline Gadaffi, but he just wouldn't go away. A big problem was that Libya had a great deal of oil that was just too tempting. The British cracked first. They didn't like Gadaffi, but were prepared to do oil deals with him. With the help of the British, he was reintroduced to the world as a reformed character. He might have thought his luck had changed, but it was about to change for the worse...

The Arab spring revolutions finally galvanised the opposition in Libya and for the first time in 40 years, a crack in his armour had showed. The international community sensed this was the opportunity they had waiting such a long time for, a popular unrising against Gadaffi, that they put their might and money behind the rebels. And it looks like they had triumphed.

AOG. I must compliment you ob your ready. Was there a mix up at the newsagent and they put the Statesmen in your DM instead of a 'You' magazine.

[Gromit]

Compliment you on your reading, even.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

And here was I about to compliment you on a well laid out history lesson on Gaddafi and Libya, and then you go and spoil yourself by adding the remarks about my choice of reading.

Just like you I pick my on-line news source to fit in with my question.

Why, even the 'Holier-than-thou' Gromit does not show aversion at using his loathsome publication the Daily Mail, from time to time.

[Gromit]

AOG

The 'remark' was meant in jest.

[sandyRoe]

Did he never meet with Conservatives? I don't see any in those photographs.

[Gromit]

Even Gadaffi has standards.

[anotheoldgit]

/// Even Gadaffi has standards.///

Yeh! try telling that to those trying to get hold of him.

Marvellous to what depths where your admirations go to Gromit.

[Gromit]

My 'remark' was meant in jest.

Have you had a sense of humour by-pass AOG? Lighten up old man.

[anotheoldgit]

Are they only classed as jest if Gromit enters them, but have to be taken very seriously if some others dare to enter something 'tongue in the cheek'?

I know you introduced jokes onto the News section recently, but it's time to stop the jokes now Gromit.

[jake-the-peg]

There's a long history of dealing with the devil

http://www.rafbomberc...ive/seven_b_three.jpg

Wouldn't you say?

How's your high horse feeling now?

[sandyRoe]

Who's the devil with Uncle Joe?

[jake-the-peg]

Let's not forget this one either

http://www.zimeye.org...eed.ic.nvEuqcDsZD.jpg

[emmie]

Once allies, then enemies, same old story.

[emmie]

SR, Stalin is with Winston Churchill as you well know, and he wasn't Uncle Joe i am sure to the millions who died at his command.

[jake-the-peg]

It is but that's what I found hard to forgive about Thatcher's association with Pinnochet.

Yes he was an ally during the Falklands but she stood by him even when he'd ceased to be of use.

The man had been responsible for thousands of murders and tortures of his opponants he was at least as bad as Gadhaffi and yet she still gave him safe haven when there was no national interest reason to do so.

I'm sorry, you may be great mates with someone but when the police start digging up bodies from under his patio you have to decide where you stand

[ichkeria]

Gromit's history lesson omits two things of relevance, perhaps: firstly, the reason Britain did deals with Gaddafi was because he claimed to want to abandon his WMD programme (which in fairness he did) and stop sponsoring terrorism (which he sort of did). It wasn't, as implied, that Britain "cracked" under the temptation of all that oil.
Second, it's hardly true to say that the international community seized the chance to oust him. If you remember it looked for some time as though no one was going to do anything to help the rebels. I would be prepared to bet a fair amount of money (monopoly notes anyway :-)) that had there been no intervention, and had the population of Benghazi been slaughtered as Gaddafi threatened, many of those now fuming about NATO, Britain ewtc etc, and agonising over "interference" in a foreign country, would have been protesting about the west standing idly by, protecting its new friend Gaddafi.
You don't get to be a head of state with a nice line in smooth talking and not get to rub shoulders and schmooze with many of one's fellow world leaders (well, unless you're the jet phobic leader of North Korea, perhaps).

[sandyRoe]

Did he really want to abandon the WMD? Post 9-11 he must have known that they would be reason enough to put him squarely in the sights of the USA. Wasn't that why he got rid of them?

[plautus]

Churchill's philosophy was, "My enemy's enemy is my friend".

[emmie]

http://www.telegraph....al-in-the-desert.html

how does this work then.

[ichkeria]

"Did he really want to abandon the WMD? Post 9-11 he must have known that they would be reason enough to put him squarely in the sights of the USA. Wasn't that why he got rid of them? "

Oh yes, and part of it was co-operation over the Lockerbie bombing. All for self-interest no doubt, and certainly not for any reasons of morality or remorse, I would guess