Article

2011-09-22 Africa North

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2011-09-22 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Was that a real chem weapons plant or just a plant that produced pesticides.

Plenty of two (sometimes less) legged vermin in that part of the world...

Posted by Glenmore 2011-09-22 05:56|| 2011-09-22 05:56|| Front Page Top

#2 No surprise here.

This story was even more serious as it was about HEU.

Nonetheless Bush's Gaddafi deal was largely immune from serious criticism. The right didn't want to challenge one of the Bush administration's few undisputed success stories.

And since Bush followed the leftist template of diplomacy/political solution/grand bargain/reconciliation he wasn't criticized by the Democrats either.

Posted by Percy Tojo7636 2011-09-22 06:04|| 2011-09-22 06:04|| Front Page Top

#3 I couldn't understand the motivation for the NATO action in Libya; if the WMD programs were discovered to have increased activity it makes more sense.

Posted by Glenmore 2011-09-22 07:25|| 2011-09-22 07:25|| Front Page Top

#4 Uh, were you being sarcastic about the farms in the Libyan interior? If you look at the satellite imagery, there's a significant number of irrigation pivot farms out there, run off of Libya's vast fossil water resources.

I wouldn't imagine that Libya would need pesticide plants, unless the EU interdicted sale of precursor chemicals to an outlaw country with a reputation for wild misbehavior and an appetite for WMD...

In other words, doesn't need to be one thing or the other - embrace the healing power of "and".

Posted by Mitch H. 2011-09-22 10:54|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/ 2011-09-22 10:54|| Front Page Top

#5 So if it was a WMD depot, why didn't he use the weapons against the rebels?

Posted by Abu Uluque 2011-09-22 11:28|| 2011-09-22 11:28|| Front Page Top

#6 Because chemical weapons are kind of useless in most tactical situations, and it just would have worsened his international profile? Not to mention that he'd probably lose as many poorly-protected footsoldiers and possibly-sympathetic civilian supporters as any enemy combatants or enemy sympathizers?

Might have been a logistical issue as well - between shipping some old mustard gas and shipping food, gold, or ammunition, which seems like the better investment of truckspace? Heck, the people who remembered what was where might have even taken off before somebody thought of pulling the trigger.

Posted by Mitch H. 2011-09-22 13:44|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/ 2011-09-22 13:44|| Front Page Top

#7 Ghaddafi lost delivery capability for much of his chem weapons, but retained the materials, either to rebuild later or to trade.

Posted by lotp 2011-09-22 19:16|| 2011-09-22 19:16|| Front Page Top

23:32 Bill Clinton
22:28 Free Radical
22:16 Redneck Jim
22:13 Broadhead6
22:07 tipper
22:00 lotp
21:55 Redneck Jim
21:48 Frank G
21:33 SteveS
21:33 tipper
21:22 SteveS
21:16 Frank G
20:45 Frank G
20:40 DarthVader
20:34 OregonGuy
20:27 KBK
20:24 KBK
20:20 lotp
20:13 European Conservative
20:08 Percy Tojo7636
19:55 Barbara
19:52 SteveS
19:48 Barbara
19:17 European Conservative