> > > Pacifism and diplomacy are fine and dandy when you're dealing with countries that are peaceful, democratic, and reasonable.
> >
> > Anyone here have the experience of arguing with a madman? Believe me, you can't win.
> >
> Anyone remember Colonel Khaddafi (sp?) in Libya? He was the "madman" for a few years until Saddam Hussein. Libya gave refuge to a couple of known terrorists (I don't remember which plane bombing) for several years yet eventually they were handed over to be tried for their crimes (by international courts I think). Negotiating with a "madman" has been done.

I assume you're referring to Pan Am 103, blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland?

Incidentally, this was the terrorist act with the largest number of casualties before the 11th, with over 270 deaths.

1) Gaddaffi didn't hand the accused over - they were arrested in Germany, on suspicion of other terrorist acts.

2) The "diplomacy" consisted of 10 yeahs of economic and diplomatic sanctions. That is to say, the British Govt actively avoided doing anything that might be seen as a diplomatic solution, focusing instead on applying pressure to Lybia, leading to the pain and suffering of untold numbers of civilians.

3) One suspect (Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah) was found to be innocent (more accurately, that peculiar Scottish verdict of "Not Proved"). Grave questions have appeared concerning the guilt of Abdelbast Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who was convicted.

4) You describe Gaddaffi as having been demonised by the media as a "madman". This is somewhat different from actual clinical insanity. I can't say for certain (of course) that the situation is so very different with bin Laden, but I would wager a pound of bananas to a penny bun it is.

winter"Any other questions?"mute