Who Was Responsible For Libya's Backdown?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalice+23 December 2003 - 00:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice &#064; 23 December 2003 - 00:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FatBastard@22 December 2003 - 14:52
<!--QuoteBegin-muchspl2

---

Quote:

---

@22 December 2003 - 23:36
its riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, & I&#39;m the worst speller I know

---

Really? Why don&#39;t you point them out?

Gadafy

---

FB, most of those results are related to The Guardian.

Gaddafi.[/b][/quote]
Really? Did you check all 33 pages? I did, and I only found the first three were from the guardian. ;)

@ Much; this is in a British newspaper, all the spelling "mistakes" you pointed out are American bastardisations of the proper English spelling. As for gentlemen&#39;s, here are 261,000 instances of it&#39;s use.

I did say that I was the worst speller I know :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Samurai@23 December 2003 - 00:18
Dear Guardian,

Is it me or have you spelt his name worng? In all of your related articles relating to Moammar Gadhafi, his name has been spelt Moammar Gadhafy. I&#39;ve checked online, and even his offial website (http://www.algathafi.org/Index_e.htm) seems to confirm this.

---

You spelt worng worng&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalice@23 December 2003 - 00:15
Well, the official site spells it "Gadafi" which isn&#39;t quite the same as "Gadhafi".

Every other western journalist seems to spell it "Gaddafi".

---

The official site also spells it "Gathafi".

FB, I&#39;m just going out on a limb and employing some common sense.

I did a search for "Gadafy" on Google and it yielded a paltry 1950 results.

I then did a search for "Gaddafi" and raked in the princely sum of 69,000.

I&#39;m not too up on maths but I&#39;d say there&#39;s quite a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FatBastard+22 December 2003 - 14:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FatBastard @ 22 December 2003 - 14:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Samurai@23 December 2003 - 00:18
Dear Guardian,

Is it me or have you spelt his name worng? In all of your related articles relating to Moammar Gadhafi, his name has been spelt Moammar Gadhafy. I&#39;ve checked online, and even his offial website (http://www.algathafi.org/Index_e.htm) seems to confirm this.

---

You spelt worng worng&#33; [/b][/quote]
Oh damn. That was a mis-type lol nicely spotted though. Hope the Guardian think I put that in there deliberately hehe

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chalice@22 December 2003 - 07:29
FB, I&#39;m just going out on a limb and employing some common sense.

I did a search for "Gadafy" on Google and it yielded a paltry 1950 results.

I then did a search for "Gaddafi" and raked in the princely sum of 69,000.

I&#39;m not too up on maths but I&#39;d say there&#39;s quite a difference.

---

yeah but people are arguing, here, about the spelling of a name that doesn&#39;t come from a language based on the roman alphabet. libya speaks/writes in arabic, so the translation of their names into our alphabet is totally arbitrary. the same goes for translation from languages like hindi, chinese, japanese, russian, etc.

back in the 1980s, Gadhafi&#39;s name was spelled with a K, not a G. we just use the G now because it is apparently a more accurate translation.

I thought this thread was about Libya&#39;s backdown ,not spelling contest,it&#39;s obvious Sadamm got his arse kicked & Gaddafi did not want the same. & who care&#39;s who sorted it out terrorist&#39;s are evil, in any language.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FatBastard@22 December 2003 - 15:19
I came across this article today.&nbsp; I found it very interesting, especially as I&#39;ve also read how the US was responsible.&nbsp;


A very British coup
To this delicate process, Washington&#39;s bellicosity formed a worrying backdrop, not a spur. As Libya has indicated, the Iraq war actually made agreement more difficult; it was eventually reached despite, not because of, Iraq. If anything, it now seems Mr Bush may have inadvertently invaded the wrong country. The fabled WMD were in Libya all along. All the more reason, next time around, for preferring words to guns and gung-ho.

Source.

---

Billy,

I may be wrong on this, but I believe I heard that Khadifi&#39;s(sp?) son said on a live TV interview that America&#39;s war in Iraq was EXACTLY why they did this.

He stated something about the US being "serious" about this war on terror.

As I said, I may have misheard and Khadafi&#39;s son is not exactly the best speaker of English. But that is the overall concept I got from the interview.

Billy,

I could not find any support for my statements, except the opinion of Hans Blix.

I guess I just feel that to believe that Lybia would have done what they have in a vacuum is naive.

Again, I am just giving my opinion. I may be entirely wrong. Please don&#39;t rip my arse too hard. Thanks.