Was Blair right to shake Gaddafi's hand

[Uncle Spielberg]

My view is yes. We need all the friends we can get in that part of the world right now.

He cannot be forgiven for past misdemeanors but if he is prepared to get rid of his weapons programme and " come on board " bring him on.

If not we'd still be at War with Germany surely who did far more harm to the people of this country than Gaddafi could ever do.

So Tony , a brave choice and I'm with you on this one.

 

[sams dad]

Agree with your sentiments there GG.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Agreed.

 

[perseus]

If he washed them afterwards ......

 

[Spicy]

I am unsure about this one. Ok Gaddafi has promised to give up his weapons, but then where have we heard that before? The fact that Blair has visited may well be viewed as acceptance of the regime in Libya. There is still controversy surrounding Libya's alleged support for other corrupt governments. I do not believe Gaddafi has agreed to give up weapons on the basis of self preservation - I think it is more about economics.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

True, but its not as though we're giving them anything at this stage. All Blair has done is talk, the handshake is merely a symbolic gesture.

At least Gadaffi is prepared to talk, which makes him a step up from the likes of Bin Laden. We'll never get anywhere by shunning countries who in theory want to make progress, whatever their reasons.

 

[jonnyboylennon]

If my relatives had been killed in Lockerbie I know what I'd think....

 

[sullyupthewing]

He should have put on Marigolds first.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

History should be a guide of problems in the past and not be used for an excuse for not moving forward in the future. A lot of the families of the Lockerbie victims were fully behind Blair's hand of reconciliation.

 

[FG aka Football Genius.]

ITS DISGUSTING AND AN INSULT TO THE JOCKS RE LOCKERBEE

Blair the Puppet of Bush should resign now,

BRING ON THE TORRIES! let our great nation be great again and the land be filled with blue

PS for every LOckerbee jock that was behind Blair just as many WERE NOT!!!!!!!!!

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

FG - Wrong Again !

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Insult to the jocks?

Isn't calling them "jocks" mildly insulting.

What would you prefer FG, we try to make progress and move on, or we carry on cold-shouldering the likes of Libya despite their attempts at reconciliation, pissing off even more Arabs and making a similar attack to Lockerbie even more likely?

 

[Gullet]

Unsure about this one. The point about how we buried any ill feeling towards Germany after the war is not a very strong one really. Germany had new people to govern the country, not the ones who started the war. With Gadaffi we have a person who undoubtedly has the blood of hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people on his hands, whether directly or indirectly, still in charge.
I dont trust him. Just because he says he is prepared to shelve any WMDs doesn't mean that he is'nt funding some terrorist group somewhere.
I voted no. I think Blair could have met him and not shaken his hand. If Gadaffi is serious about burning bridges he would have understood. If I had been a relative of a Lockerbie victim I would never have been able to forgive until a new Government were in charge of Libya.

 

[Bwian]

ITS DISGUSTING AND AN INSULT TO THE JOCKS RE LOCKERBEE

Blair the Puppet of Bush should resign now,

BRING ON THE TORRIES! let our great nation be great again and the land be filled with blue

PS for every LOckerbee jock that was behind Blair just as many WERE NOT!!!!!!!!!

You really are one sad twat.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

the only way we can go forward is to not keep going back to grudges. so i applaude blair on this!

 

[US Seagull]

I find it ironic that the current excuse for invading Iraq was to spread democracy and get rid of an evil dictator, but now it seems all Saddam really needed to do was bung the west a few millions dollars, say he's sorry and everything would have been dandy. So much for the moral high ground. Remember in the 80's Gaddafi was every bit as vilified by the west as Saddam was through the 90's to today. So what changed?

 

[clapham_gull]

Problem is that the Jury is out as to how much involvement Gadaffi has with Lockerbie.

A cynic would say that Gadaffi has "admitted" his countries involvement since the compensation they have had to pay out is substantially less than the money they have lost through sanctions.

What changed ?

Did anybody else pick up the fact that a Shell representation was on the SAME flight as Blair, and investment is now flooding into Lybia.

It has the biggest resource of Sulphur Free Oil Reserves on Earth (I believe).

This has little to do with Lockerbie or the War on Terror.

 

[sullyupthewing]

What's a torries

 

[clapham_gull]

Interestingly John Simpson met Gadaffi a few years back and he farted throughout the interview, its all in one of his books.

My take on it is that Saddam is very bad and a little bit mad, whilst Gadaffi is completely f*cking hatstand.

 

[US Seagull]

Did anybody else pick up the fact that a Shell representation was on the SAME flight as Blair, and investment is now flooding into Lybia.

Right, so Gaddafi says "Sorry" sends a few million to the people he pissed off, Shell get at his oil reserves, he makes back many time the money he had to pay out to the relatives, Shell and their buddies make a bundle, Bush and Blair get to hail the whole deal as a win and everybodies happy.
.
.
.
Well accept the people who died and their families
.
.
.
And the people of Libya
.
.
.
No pleasing some...