Glance at Libya's WMD Programs, Stockpile

Rocky Mountain Telegram ^ | Dec. 19, 2003 | AP

[FairOpinion]

A glance at Libya's banned-weapons stockpiles and programs, according to the Bush administration, and what Libya has promised to do on each:

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Libya admitted to nuclear fuel projects, including possessing centrifuges and centrifuge parts used in uranium enrichment. Libya agreed to abandon all elements of its nuclear weapons program; to inform the International Atomic Energy Agency of all current nuclear programs; and to adhere to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Libya showed American and British inspectors a significant quantity of mustard and bombs designed to be filled with the World War I-era chemical weapon, as well as ``chemical precursors'' that could be used to produce mustard and nerve agents. The country agreed to accept the restrictions of the chemical weapons treaty.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

Libya acknowledged it intended to acquire equipment and develop capabilities to create biological weapons. Libya committed to renounce these programs and to accept outside inspections and the restrictions of the biological weapons treaty.

MISSILES

Libya admitted ``elements of the history of its cooperation with North Korea'' to develop extended-range Scud missiles. It agreed to destroy all ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 186 miles, and payloads greater than 1,100 pounds.

[FairOpinion]

If Libya had this, can anyone serious believe that Saddam really didn't have any WMD?!

[jwalsh07]

In a word, no.

[TheDon]

If Libya came clean, and was involved with WMDs, it is not much of a stretch that they had some knowledge of Iraq's programs. Perhaps they collaborated to some extent. In any case, Libya could well have supplied some very helpful information regarding WMD programs in the region, and who was supplying them with equipment, know how, and materials.

[Bobby777]

Libya showed American and British inspectors a significant quantity of mustard and bombs

I say, Colonel K., do you have any Grey Poupon?

of course they mean mustard GAS ... I believe it causes your lungs to fill up with fluid and you drown / suffocate ... (at least that's what our engineering chem professor stated in college) ...

[bolobaby]

If Libya had this, can anyone serious believe that Saddam really didn't have any WMD?!

Yeah... democrats can believe that. Of course, they are inclined to believe all sorts of nonsense.

[Bobby777]

Libya's gas plants, I think, were built by German contractors ... German contractors also built the underground bunkers in Iraq for Saddam ...

and yes, I do have some German blood in me so I'm not German-bashing ... but I think this is correct ... if not, someone please give URL's for other info ...

[Cindy]

Two words come to mind...Syria and Iran.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Seems MK has done quite a turnabout the last couple years. Something must have really scared him.

[Cindy]

english.ALJAZEERA.net: "LIBYA TO SCRAP WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION Libya has announced it would eliminate all its weapons of mass destruction." (December 20, 2003) (Read More...)

MEMRI.org - Special Dispatch Series - No. 587: "AL-QADDAFI: 'LIBYA SHOULD QUIT THE ARAB LEAGUE... WOMEN MUST BE TRAINED TO BOOBY-TRAP CARS, HOUSES, LUGGAGE, AND CHILDREN'S TOYS'" (October 10, 2003)

[Agnes Heep]

Seems MK has done quite a turnabout the last couple years. Something must have really scared him.

I get your drift!

[FairOpinion]

The terrorist loving part of the "Arab World" must be having fits. Both Saddam and Qaddafi declared themselves at one time to be the "leader of the Arab World" and one is in captivity by the US, the other has renounced his evil ways.

I can just hear the wailing...

[FairOpinion]

I think the recent Saddam pictures finally made up his mind.

[Cindy]

Well, maybe Khadafi (and various other spellings) has his heart and mind in the right place and doesn't want any more bombs dropping around him, but...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1043899/posts
"Change Is In the Air in Libya"
Arab News ^ | December 14, 2003
Posted on 12/19/2003 9:55:12 PM PST by Shermy


And again, one must ask, "Is there really change in the air?"

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

An amazing change of direction from Col K!

[per loin]

Do we get to see the tunnel now?

[Cindy]

"An amazing change of direction from Col K!"

Well...maybe.

[FreedomPoster]

Agreed.

This whole episode is likely the result of 20-year-old memories of resolute actions being brought to the fore by the actions of our current President. Dubya would do well to emulate one of Reagans other resolute actions - that of "trust - with verification".

[Cindy]

Yep.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

This only makes Bush's decision to go launch the war on Iraq that much more valid. If a nation really wishes to disarm, it takes about 5 minutes to spill the beans about its various WMD programs, and a few days to take inspectors to sites for verification.

The dems wanted UN inspectors to search the sands of Iraq forever, in order to find weapons that Saddam admitted to having in the mid 1990s, but said he destroyed. George W. Bush made the reasonable argument that if you had known stockpiles of weapons, said that you destroyed them, and refused to show evidence of that destruction, then, by golly, we have to assume that you still have them. Therefore, Saddam was in violation of UN Resolution 1441 (and its many predecessors), and had to be removed.

The fact that the weapons have not been found is troubling, but in no way changes the above analysis. The only possibilities about Saddam's weapons are:
1. He never had them.
2. He destroyed them.
3. He hid them.
4. He moved them to another country.

You would have to be a democrat to believe that he never had them, since he had used them (against the Kurds), and admitted he had them as late as the mid 1990s.

To believe that he destroyed them but refused to show evidence of such destruction means that Saddam would rather be faced with invasion by the world's only superpower, rather than lose face in the Arab world. Such a scenario is not impossible, given Saddam's record of incredible hubris and overall military stupidity. Nevertheless, if he did destroy the weapons and refused to provide evidence (as required by Resolution 1441), we were still correct to invade.

Possibilities 3 and 4 (hiding or moving the weapons) are the most likely. Depending upon how well they were hidden or to which country they were moved will determine how long it will take to find them.

There is no possibility among the 4 that would argue against the war. Unless you are a democrat.

[Feckless]

A blister agent, very persistent. Causes large, painful blisters on contact. Inhaled it produces blisters in the lungs and airway (hence the "drowning"). A very old technology but very deadly.