Bush, Iraq, Libya, and "WMD" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dy156 · 03-22-2004, 03:33 PM

Couldn't find this, please delete if duplicate and I missed it.

Libya had lots of weapons of mass destruction, and voluntarily gave them up. There is now concrete evidence of this. Personally, I think that this was a direct result of the invasion of Iraq. Quadafi (sp?) wanted to stick around, and saw what we were willing to do to a country we suspected of having such weapons, and acted to save his own ass. I have been critical of the Bush administration in the past. However, for this, I say thank you President Bush for standing strong in spite of all the criticism about not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I challenge anyone to say that this action by Libya would have occured had it not been for the invasion of Iraq, or that the world is not a better and safer place without 44,000 LBS. of poisonous gas in the hands of a regime like Libya that has admitted to sponsoring terrorist acts.

CNN.com article

Quote:

Libya declares mustard gas stockpiles
Friday, March 5, 2004 Posted: 1:42 PM EST (1842 GMT)

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi announced in December that his government would dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) -- Libya acknowledged stockpiling 44,000 pounds of mustard gas and disclosed the location of a production plant in a declaration submitted Friday to the world's chemical weapons watchdog.

Libyan Col. Mohamed Abu Al Huda handed over 14 file cartons disclosing Libya's chemical weapons programs to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, said general director Rogelio Pfirter.

The Hague-based OPCW oversees compliance with the 1993 international treaty banning chemical weapons, which Libya joined last month.

Libya also declared thousands of tons of precursors that could be used to make sarin nerve gas, and two storage facilities, Pfirter said. The production and storage facilities were near Tripoli and in the south of the country, Pfirter said.

The declaration was a major step in Libya's eliminating its weapons of mass destruction, which it unexpectedly promised in December, hoping to end its international isolation and restore relations with the United States.

In addition to cooperating with the OPCW, Libya is also working with inspectors from the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency to eliminate its nuclear weapons programs.

On Thursday, the White House lifted the ban on Americans traveling to Libya and said it would expand the U.S. diplomatic presence in Tripoli. It also said U.S. companies that were in Libya before the sanctions can begin negotiating their return, pending the end of sanctions.

Pfirter said the documents handed over by Libya "will allow us to certify that everything declared there will be destroyed and will never be used for any other purpose."

He added that he believed Libya's declaration was complete and comprehensive.

In the past week, Libya made the first concrete move to eliminate its stockpiles when it destroyed 3,300 bombs specifically intended to carry chemical payloads.

With international inspectors monitoring the weeklong operation, bulldozers crushed the shell casings to complete the process, which ended Wednesday, the OPCW said.

Pfirter praised Libya's cooperation with the OPCW since it ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention in January and became a full member of the treaty a month later.

"Not only have they joined the convention, they have been consistent in complying with it in a dynamic form. They have made an enormous effort," Pfirter said.

He said the Libyan development program and the production of potential weapons ended in the early 1990s, and the mustard gas had not been weaponized. "They were tested but not used," he said.

More than 160 countries are members of the treaty, including the world's largest possessors of chemical weapons, the United States and Russia. Only a handful of large countries, including Angola, North Korea, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, and Syria, have yet to join.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-22-2004, 03:39 PM

Quadafi learned his lesson along time, these actions only go to show that Bush's move to Iraq was a lot deeper then WMD's in Iraq alone. Granted not all of this due to Dubya's move, Libya is trying to move back to the main stage after years of resolutions and embargos.

Building off this, what does the beloved UN plan to do about the Nuclear situation in Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and N. Korea? Seeing as to we have Pakistan admitting it sold secrets to all those countries, not to mention the fact that Iran has come under heavy scrutiny by the IAEA as of late. Any guesses that dick will get done?

FaderMonkey · 03-22-2004, 05:43 PM

Quote:

More than 160 countries are members of the treaty, including the world's largest possessors of chemical weapons, the United States and Russia. Only a handful of large countries, including Angola, North Korea, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, and Syria, have yet to join.

What exactly is the Chemical Weapons Convention? Why is it that the US and Russia are members if we have chemical weapons? I seriously just don't know much about this and I wondering if anyone could explain.

archer2371 · 03-22-2004, 06:06 PM

The CWC

Ok, there's the site for the CWC. Mods, sorry for not posting the actual convention because it is just way too freaking long.

I'll post the preamble tho, it just sets out the ideas that the CWC is trying to attain, the rest is basically just definitions and clarifications.

Quote:

Preamble
The States Parties to this Convention,

Determined to act with a view to achieving effective progress towards general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, including the prohibition and elimination of all types of weapons of mass destruction,

Desiring to contribute to the realization of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling that the General Assembly of the United Nations has repeatedly condemned all actions contrary to the principles and objectives of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 (the Geneva Protocol of 1925),

Recognizing that this Convention reaffirms principles and objectives of and obligations assumed under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction signed at London, Moscow and Washington on 10 April 1972,

Bearing in mind the objective contained in Article IX of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction,

Determined for the sake of all mankind, to exclude completely the possibility of the use of chemical weapons, through the implementation of the provisions of this Convention, thereby complementing the obligations assumed under the Geneva Protocol of 1925,

Recognizing the prohibition, embodied in the pertinent agreements and relevant principles of international law, of the use of herbicides as a method of warfare,

Considering that achievements in the field of chemistry should be used exclusively for the benefit of mankind,

Desiring to promote free trade in chemicals as well as international cooperation and exchange of scientific and technical information in the field of chemical activities for purposes not prohibited under this Convention in order to enhance the economic and technological development of all States Parties,

Convinced that the complete and effective prohibition of the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer and use of chemical weapons, and their destruction, represent a necessary step towards the achievement of these common objectives,

Have agreed as follows:

Hope this helps FaderMonkey.

[edit]I believe that the CWC doesn't prohibit having them if you had them prior to the signing of the Convention, just using them.[/edit]

filtherton · 03-22-2004, 06:20 PM

I agree that 44,000 less LBS. of poisonous gas is a better thing for the world, but i'm not sure if we have yet acheived a net positive as far as world safety goes. Not that it really matters. Safety is one of those things we can pretend to know about but can never prove. It is really easy to say that we are safer now than before because whether we actually are or not is impossible to measure. That being said, i wonder how much safer the people of madrid feel.

I also haven't seen any direct evidence that iraq was the cause of libya's coming around. I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem like america is in a position, militarily or politically, to undertake another invasion. Why should they feel threatened? I think i'll probably be less skeptical when qadaffi directly attributes his change of heart to the invasion of iraq. Until then, it just seems like prowar spin to me.

dy156 · 03-23-2004, 06:41 AM

Quote:

I also haven't seen any direct evidence that iraq was the cause of libya's coming around. I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem like america is in a position, militarily or politically, to undertake another invasion. Why should they feel threatened? I think i'll probably be less skeptical when qadaffi directly attributes his change of heart to the invasion of iraq. Until then, it just seems like prowar spin to me.

As another poster above pointed out, Libya has been under scrutiny and sanctions for years. While the weapons have just now been disclosed, Quadafi announced last year that Libya was voluntarily giving up it's chemical weapons program.

There probably isn't, nor will there ever be, direct evidence of causation. I bet Quadafi has more pride than to come out and say "I'm giving up our chemical weapons program because I don't want America to Saddamize me" or something like that. However, the sanctions and heightened scrutiny have been in place since the 1980's, but he finally does this less than a year after the invasion of Iraq, and I don't think that's a coincidence.

This is just conjecture, but I would not be suprised if the message "you're next." was somehow communicated to him.

onetime2 · 03-23-2004, 06:48 AM

I think the invasion of Iraq is part of the reason Libya decided to give up its weapons. They have been trying to get back into the world's good graces for many years now and the last thing Kadafi wants is to be ousted just as he's starting to see results.

While the US military is not in a position right now to easily take on a third front, as Iraq is stabilized troops will be freed up to attend to other countries if required. Overtaking a country is not the problem. As always, occupation is far more complicated.

Even targeted strikes against "rogue" nations such as Libya would be a blow to the government and could lead to the destruction of Kadafi's progress towards rejoining world political and economic discourse in a major way.

mml · 03-23-2004, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I think the invasion of Iraq is part of the reason Libya decided to give up its weapons. They have been trying to get back into the world's good graces for many years now and the last thing Kadafi wants is to be ousted just as he's starting to see results.

While the US military is not in a position right now to easily take on a third front, as Iraq is stabilized troops will be freed up to attend to other countries if required. Overtaking a country is not the problem. As always, occupation is far more complicated.

Even targeted strikes against "rogue" nations such as Libya would be a blow to the government and could lead to the destruction of Kadafi's progress towards rejoining world political and economic discourse in a major way.

It's happened again - onetime2 and I are in complete agreement.

sighs, shakes his head and wonders what the world is coming to when people of different parties can agree about common sense issues

onetime2 · 03-23-2004, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mml
It's happened again - onetime2 and I are in complete agreement.

sighs, shakes his head and wonders what the world is coming to when people of different parties can agree about common sense issues

Ack! At least the agreements are fewer and farther between.

Perhaps you and I should just cut out all the middlemen and choose the next President ourselves. (throwing out the current candidates of course since we'd never be able to come to agreement otherwise)

Tomservo · 03-23-2004, 11:35 AM

Personally, I feel like Khaddafi, Gaddafi, Ghaddafi, Kadafi, whatever his name his.... is simply trying to gain "world favor" by showing himself to be part of the "new world order", I suppose. There was the quite public freakout in 2002 when Libya was the head of the UN's "Human Rights" panel, that showed obviously the world didn't believe Libya was truly reformed. This gesture perhaps will change that opinion...

As for it's relation to Iraq, if only from a PR standpoint, the two things are related. However, as Iraq was obviously a "grudge" war, and Libya was our other old "grudge", maybe Khadafi thought Bush was just going down the list. If so, watch out Vietnam!

reconmike · 03-23-2004, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomservo
As for it's relation to Iraq, if only from a PR standpoint, the two things are related. However, as Iraq was obviously a "grudge" war, and Libya was our other old "grudge", maybe Khadafi thought Bush was just going down the list. If so, watch out Vietnam!

[/B]

I can only hope, this time vietnam can get the ass kicking they should have gotten the first time.
If Nixon would have stood by his guns and continued to bomb the hell out of hanoi.

Charlatan · 03-23-2004, 01:48 PM

/shakes head

filtherton · 03-23-2004, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
I can only hope, this time vietnam can get the ass kicking they should have gotten the first time.
If Nixon would have stood by his guns and continued to bomb the hell out of hanoi.

God i hope that's sarcasm.

03-22-2004, 03:39 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Quadafi learned his lesson along time, these actions only go to show that Bush's move to Iraq was a lot deeper then WMD's in Iraq alone. Granted not all of this due to Dubya's move, Libya is trying to move back to the main stage after years of resolutions and embargos. Building off this, what does the beloved UN plan to do about the Nuclear situation in Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and N. Korea? Seeing as to we have Pakistan admitting it sold secrets to all those countries, not to mention the fact that Iran has come under heavy scrutiny by the IAEA as of late. Any guesses that dick will get done? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-23-2004, 06:48 AM	#7 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I think the invasion of Iraq is part of the reason Libya decided to give up its weapons. They have been trying to get back into the world's good graces for many years now and the last thing Kadafi wants is to be ousted just as he's starting to see results. While the US military is not in a position right now to easily take on a third front, as Iraq is stabilized troops will be freed up to attend to other countries if required. Overtaking a country is not the problem. As always, occupation is far more complicated. Even targeted strikes against "rogue" nations such as Libya would be a blow to the government and could lead to the destruction of Kadafi's progress towards rejoining world political and economic discourse in a major way. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

03-23-2004, 01:48 PM	#12 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	/shakes head __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-22-2004, 06:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I agree that 44,000 less LBS. of poisonous gas is a better thing for the world, but i'm not sure if we have yet acheived a net positive as far as world safety goes. Not that it really matters. Safety is one of those things we can pretend to know about but can never prove. It is really easy to say that we are safer now than before because whether we actually are or not is impossible to measure. That being said, i wonder how much safer the people of madrid feel. I also haven't seen any direct evidence that iraq was the cause of libya's coming around. I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem like america is in a position, militarily or politically, to undertake another invasion. Why should they feel threatened? I think i'll probably be less skeptical when qadaffi directly attributes his change of heart to the invasion of iraq. Until then, it just seems like prowar spin to me.

03-23-2004, 11:35 AM	#10 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	Personally, I feel like Khaddafi, Gaddafi, Ghaddafi, Kadafi, whatever his name his.... is simply trying to gain "world favor" by showing himself to be part of the "new world order", I suppose. There was the quite public freakout in 2002 when Libya was the head of the UN's "Human Rights" panel, that showed obviously the world didn't believe Libya was truly reformed. This gesture perhaps will change that opinion... As for it's relation to Iraq, if only from a PR standpoint, the two things are related. However, as Iraq was obviously a "grudge" war, and Libya was our other old "grudge", maybe Khadafi thought Bush was just going down the list. If so, watch out Vietnam!