[texasflower]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on something here.

While I personally feel like Qaddafi is serious, I understand the need for healthy skepticism.

I disagree though with the part about giving him legitimacy.

We all know that no one is going to blindly trust him, and we will always have our eyes on him.

It's one of those dirty sort of things that we have to do in my opinion.

Yes, it will be a hard pill to swallow for those who were victimized by him, but the overall benefit to our security makes it something we really need to do, in my opinion.

Arafat knew he could do whatever he wanted and Clinton wouldn't do a thing.

I think that we MUST, at least on the surface give Qaddafi some degree of legitimacy.

If we don't, we negate the benefit of coming clean and destroying his weapons.

Other nations will not see any advantage to disarming if we don't.

Using Qaddafi as an example of what happens when a nation cooperates is hugely beneficial.

We will always watch Libya very closely, but we have got to show the world that there is much to gain by having better relations with the US.

[yonif]

The problem is Qaddafi, with or without weapons, continues to rule a terrorist regime, which harbors terror groups, and funds terror groups, who plan and execute operations to murder many people such as Americans and Israelis.