No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

Andy Dingley wrote:

If it's OK to ignore the UN now, why so squeamish in '91 ?

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods


9-11 happened. The same people who had the infamous "dots" that lead to
9-11
came to Bush and said "We gotta problem, and if it is real it could
cause millions
to die." Bush said "what's the chance these "dots" are real?" and no
matter what percentage they
gave him. He had to act and act fast. Failure to act, with the
information coming
on the heels of 9-11, seems to be too much of a chance to take. If he
was wrong,
and I'm still on the fence, he was wrong. But given the fact that the
people who
were telling him of this issue just failed him on 9-11, he had no choice.
kwc

"Peter Glasø" wrote:

Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely
missed,right?

It was worth every single of those 20,000+ civilian lives to remove this
ex-CIA puppert, right?


"Michael Petukhov" skrev i melding
om...
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...=21801&lang=en

No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

05 October 2003

As the first progress report from the Iraq Survey Group is released,
Cambridge WMD expert Dr Glen Rangwala finds that even the diluted
claims made for Saddam Hussein's arsenal don't stand up


Last week's progress report by American and British weapons inspectors
in Iraq has failed to supply evidence for the vast majority of the
claims made on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction by their governments
before the war.

David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told congressional
committees in Washington that no official orders or plans could be
found to back up the allegation that a nuclear programme remained
active after 1991. Aluminium tubes have not been used for the
enrichment of uranium, in contrast to US Secretary of State Colin
Powell's lengthy exposition to the UN Security Council in February. No
suspicious activities or residues have been found at the seven sites
within Iraq described in the Prime Minister's dossier from September
2002.

The ISG even casts serious doubt on President Bush's much-trumpeted
claim that US forces had found three mobile biological laboratories
after the war: "technical limitations" would prevent the trailers from
being ideally suited to biological weapons production, it records. In
other words, they were for something else.

There have certainly been no signs of imported uranium, or even
battlefield munitions ready to fire within 45 minutes. Most
significantly, the claim to Parliament on the eve of conflict by Jack
Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that "we know that this man [Saddam
Hussein] has got ... chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses,
bacilli and ... 10,000 litres of anthrax" has yet to find a single
piece of supportive evidence.

Those who staked their career on the existence in Iraq of at least
chemical and biological weapons programmes have latched on to three
claims in the progress report.

First, there is the allegation that a biologist had a "collection of
reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum
Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced". Mr Straw
claimed the morning after the report's release that this agent was
"15,000 times more toxic than the nerve agent VX". That is wrong:
botulinum type A is one of the most poisonous substances known, and
was developed in weaponised form by Iraq before 1991. However, type B
- the form found at the biologist's home - is less lethal.

Even then, it would require an extensive process of fermentation, the
growing of the bug, the extraction of the toxin and the weaponisation
of the toxin before it could cause harm. That process would take
weeks, if not longer, but the ISG reported no sign of any of these
activities.

Botulinum type B could also be used for making an antidote to common
botulinum poisoning. That is one of the reasons why many military
laboratories around the world keep reference strains of C botulinum
Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for example, and calls them
"seed banks".

Second, a large part of the ISG report is taken up with assertions
that Iraq had been acquiring designs and under- taking research
programmes for missiles with a range that exceeded the UN limit of
150km. The evidence here is more detailed than in the rest of the
report. However, it does not demonstrate that Iraq was violating the
terms of any Security Council resolution. The prohibition on Iraq
acquiring technology relating to chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons was absolute: no agents, no sub-systems and no research or
support facilities.

By contrast, Iraq was simply prohibited from actually having
longer-range missiles, together with "major parts, and repair and
production facilities". The ISG does not claim proof that Iraq had any
such missiles or facilities, just the knowledge to produce them in
future. Indeed, it would have been entirely lawful for Iraq to develop
such systems if the restrictions implemented in 1991 were lifted,
while it would never have been legitimate for it to re-develop WMD.

Third, one sentence within the report has been much quoted: Iraq had
"a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the
Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment subject to UN
monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research". Note what that
sentence does not say: these facilities were suitable for chemical and
biological weapons research (as almost any modern lab would be), not
that they had engaged in such research. The reference to UN monitoring
is also spurious: under the terms of UN resolutions, all of Iraq's
chemical and biological facilities are subject to monitoring. So all
this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=450121

Source: Dr Glen Rangwala The Independent

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Michael Williamson
writes

Also, in some cases there is still reason to believe that the
weapons existed up until at least just prior to the war. Kay
reportedly has
received testimony that Iraq was still producing Scud fuel, which is
not used by any Iraqi equipment except Scuds (none that we know of,
anyway).


I could be wrong, but aren't Scuds powered by a mix of hydrazine and
nitric acid? Which, again subject to error, powers the booster for the
SA-2 missile in widespread use in Iraq? (I'm sure both use red fuming
nitric acid as oxidiser - kerosene is hardly a classified agent and
hydrazine is widely used too)


As Kay asked in one interview, what do you need to produce
rocket fuel for if you don't have a rocket to use it in?


The Iraqis were still allowed to use rocket-powered weapons, just with
limitations.


I'm not familiar with the fuel used by either the Scud or the SA-2,
so I can't comment on whether the fuel is common to both types or
not. Kay did state in his report, however, that the fuel is
usable only by the Scud. He could possibly be mistaken, or the
source for his information could be wrong, but I've not seen a
definitive refutation. His report may be found at the following
link (by the way, this was the only CIA search result from the
search string "Scud fuel." Later in the report he details the
claims that Scud fuel and oxidizer was manufactured in a factory
in or near Al Tariq, which apparently was their main
production source for concentrated Nitric Acid, along with other
conventional explosives and munitions. The reports of this
production have not been confirmed yet, being currently based
solely on witness testimony.

http://www.cia.gov/search?NS-search-...S-doc-number=1


Boy, that's a long URL. It might be easier to just go to www.cia.gov
and do the search yourself. The portion dealing with the fuel
production is located alongside the 'supporting images.' Nearby
are a few tidbits about Korea and technology transfers as well.
Most of the report is classified, so there likely isn't going to
be a lot of 'meat' in the unclassified report.

Hope this was at least somewhat helpful Paul. Take care

Mike

kirill wrote in message ...
"Peter Glasø" wrote:

Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely
missed,right?

It was worth every single of those 20,000+ civilian lives to remove this
ex-CIA puppert, right?

We don't know. Since Hussein was a CIA puppet only in the
sense that some New Yorkers look like CIA.

But in New York, some New Yorkers look like Martians,
and some New Yorkers look like Julius Caesar. Some
New Yorkers look like Jesus Christ, and some
New Yorkers even look like Hitler.

But no New Yorkers look like oil drillers.

kirill wrote:


"Peter Glasø" wrote:

Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice
guy after all.And he is sorely
missed,right?

It was worth every single of those 20,000+ civilian
lives to remove this
ex-CIA puppert, right?


"Michael Petukhov"
skrev i melding
om...
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...=21801&lang=en

No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no
programmes

05 October 2003

As the first progress report from the Iraq
Survey Group is released,
Cambridge WMD expert Dr Glen Rangwala finds
that even the diluted
claims made for Saddam Hussein's arsenal
don't stand up


Last week's progress report by American
and British weapons inspectors
in Iraq has failed to supply evidence for
the vast majority of the
claims made on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
by their governments
before the war.

David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group
(ISG), told congressional
committees in Washington that no official
orders or plans could be
found to back up the allegation that a nuclear
programme remained
active after 1991. Aluminium tubes have
not been used for the
enrichment of uranium, in contrast to US
Secretary of State Colin
Powell's lengthy exposition to the UN Security
Council in February. No
suspicious activities or residues have been
found at the seven sites
within Iraq described in the Prime Minister's
dossier from September
2002.

The ISG even casts serious doubt on President
Bush's much-trumpeted
claim that US forces had found three mobile
biological laboratories
after the war: "technical limitations" would
prevent the trailers from
being ideally suited to biological weapons
production, it records. In
other words, they were for something else.

There have certainly been no signs of imported
uranium, or even
battlefield munitions ready to fire within
45 minutes. Most
significantly, the claim to Parliament on
the eve of conflict by Jack
Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that "we know
that this man [Saddam
Hussein] has got ... chemical weapons, biological
weapons, viruses,
bacilli and ... 10,000 litres of anthrax"
has yet to find a single
piece of supportive evidence.

Those who staked their career on the existence
in Iraq of at least
chemical and biological weapons programmes
have latched on to three
claims in the progress report.

First, there is the allegation that a biologist
had a "collection of
reference strains" at his home, including
"a vial of live C botulinum
Okra B from which a biological agent can
be produced". Mr Straw
claimed the morning after the report's release
that this agent was
"15,000 times more toxic than the nerve
agent VX". That is wrong:
botulinum type A is one of the most poisonous
substances known, and
was developed in weaponised form by Iraq
before 1991. However, type B
- the form found at the biologist's home
- is less lethal.

Even then, it would require an extensive
process of fermentation, the
growing of the bug, the extraction of the
toxin and the weaponisation
of the toxin before it could cause harm.
That process would take
weeks, if not longer, but the ISG reported
no sign of any of these
activities.

Botulinum type B could also be used for
making an antidote to common
botulinum poisoning. That is one of the
reasons why many military
laboratories around the world keep reference
strains of C botulinum
Okra B. The UK keeps such substances, for
example, and calls them
"seed banks".

Second, a large part of the ISG report is
taken up with assertions
that Iraq had been acquiring designs and
under- taking research
programmes for missiles with a range that
exceeded the UN limit of
150km. The evidence here is more detailed
than in the rest of the
report. However, it does not demonstrate
that Iraq was violating the
terms of any Security Council resolution.
The prohibition on Iraq
acquiring technology relating to chemical,
biological or nuclear
weapons was absolute: no agents, no sub-systems
and no research or
support facilities.

By contrast, Iraq was simply prohibited
from actually having
longer-range missiles, together with "major
parts, and repair and
production facilities". The ISG does not
claim proof that Iraq had any
such missiles or facilities, just the knowledge
to produce them in
future. Indeed, it would have been entirely
lawful for Iraq to develop
such systems if the restrictions implemented
in 1991 were lifted,
while it would never have been legitimate
for it to re-develop WMD.

Third, one sentence within the report has
been much quoted: Iraq had
"a clandestine network of laboratories and
safe houses within the
Iraqi intelligence service that contained
equipment subject to UN
monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW
research". Note what that
sentence does not say: these facilities
were suitable for chemical and
biological weapons research (as almost any
modern lab would be), not
that they had engaged in such research.
The reference to UN monitoring
is also spurious: under the terms of UN
resolutions, all of Iraq's
chemical and biological facilities are subject
to monitoring. So all
this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=450121

Source: Dr Glen Rangwala The Independent
Saddam was no CIA puppet-his thugs hanged as many "CIA Spies" as they did
"Israeli Spies", or spies for somebody. Sure we helped him out in the 80s
back when Iran was considered Public Enemy #1 by the US, but alliances in
the Mideast shift with the sands. I hope you're not some rabble-rouser who
thinks the mass graves and torture chambers found after the invasion are
hoaxes or "wildly exaggerated." as some apologists for the Butcher of Baghdad
claim.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

In message , Michael Williamson
writes
Paul J. Adam wrote:
I could be wrong, but aren't Scuds powered by a mix of
hydrazine and
nitric acid? Which, again subject to error, powers the booster for the
SA-2 missile in widespread use in Iraq? (I'm sure both use red fuming
nitric acid as oxidiser - kerosene is hardly a classified agent and
hydrazine is widely used too)

The Iraqis were still allowed to use rocket-powered weapons,
just with
limitations.

I'm not familiar with the fuel used by either the Scud or the SA-2,
so I can't comment on whether the fuel is common to both types or
not. Kay did state in his report, however, that the fuel is
usable only by the Scud.

Reading his report, he refers only to red fuming nitric acid in the
unclassified public part. A search for "hydrazine" (the fuel, as opposed
to the oxidiser, for the Scud family) came up blank. So he's got Scud
_oxidiser_. (A small technical quibble, but us engineers are pedantic)

RFNA is indeed usable to power Scuds and derivatives... but it's also
used as oxidiser in Styx/Silkworm antiship missiles, which Iraq was
allowed to retain, and for SA-2 Guideline SAMs which again were
permitted - both use kerosene fuel with RFNA oxidiser. (Easy to forget
that Iraq wasn't being completely disarmed, just stripped of long-range
offensive weapons)

RFNA is one of those awkward "precursor" chemicals, like ammonium
nitrate; it's useful for a lot of tasks, one of which is powering Scuds;
but it can be used in other missiles, and it's necessary for a lot of
manufacturing tasks too.

If you find a stash of ammonium nitrate, the owner might intend to use
it to fertilise his fields. Or he might be quarrying for gravel. Or he
might be a terrorist about to build a huge truck bomb. All are
_possible_, only one is blatantly illegal. RFNA is crudely similar.


Doesn't prove Saddam was an angel of sweetness and light, but it's not
convincing that he was busy building ICBMs either. He'd need RFNA just
to make Kalashnikov ammunition, and he was allowed _that_ (and needed
it... Iraq still has hostile neighbours)

Hope this was at least somewhat helpful Paul. Take care

You too.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article , says...


Andy Dingley wrote:

If it's OK to ignore the UN now, why so squeamish in '91 ?

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods


9-11 happened. The same people who had the infamous "dots" that lead to
9-11
came to Bush and said "We gotta problem, and if it is real it could
cause millions
to die." Bush said "what's the chance these "dots" are real?" and no
matter what percentage they
gave him. He had to act and act fast. Failure to act, with the
information coming
on the heels of 9-11, seems to be too much of a chance to take. If he
was wrong,
and I'm still on the fence, he was wrong. But given the fact that the
people who
were telling him of this issue just failed him on 9-11, he had no choice.
kwc


Nonsense. The neo-cons in the administration wanted to beat up an Arab
country to show the rest they mean business. They had also wanted to
take out Saddam in 91. Iraq was the only Arab country that they had any
hope of making a case against which would be believed by enough people.
So they exaggerate what was far from solid intelligence, ignore what is
not convenient, and do the deed. Taking out Hussien is easier than
finding Bin Laden, and you get to fly to an aircraft carrier for a great
photo op. Maybe you can even have some victory parades in an election
year.

Neil Harden wrote in message .. .
In article , says...


Andy Dingley wrote:

If it's OK to ignore the UN now, why so squeamish in '91 ?

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods


9-11 happened. The same people who had the infamous "dots" that lead to
9-11
came to Bush and said "We gotta problem, and if it is real it could
cause millions
to die." Bush said "what's the chance these "dots" are real?" and no
matter what percentage they
gave him. He had to act and act fast. Failure to act, with the
information coming
on the heels of 9-11, seems to be too much of a chance to take. If he
was wrong,
and I'm still on the fence, he was wrong. But given the fact that the
people who
were telling him of this issue just failed him on 9-11, he had no choice.
kwc


Nonsense. The neo-cons in the administration wanted to beat up an Arab
country to show the rest they mean business. They had also wanted to
take out Saddam in 91. Iraq was the only Arab country that they had any
hope of making a case against which would be believed by enough people.
So they exaggerate what was far from solid intelligence, ignore what is
not convenient, and do the deed. Taking out Hussien is easier than
finding Bin Laden, and you get to fly to an aircraft carrier for a great
photo op. Maybe you can even have some victory parades in an election
year.

But that's not news. The neo cons have always ignored intelligence form
science. Since whenever you are not being misinformed about chemical
virus' from UN scientists, you are being misformed about computer
virus' from American scientists.

You forgot "no Saddam".

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
Not hardly, but that's not a good enough reason to go to war with every no-good
murderous ****head in the world.

There is a reason to go to war with the murderous ****head.
Since it's only Los Angelos bank robbers who are really murderous ****heads.
since they use SUVs to kill.

But Hussein uses toxic gas.

And we use cruise missles that can take any random assortment
of 100 or so Middle East Palaces that has ever been built.