No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
(Michael Petukhov) wrote:

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".

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".

But when the US CDC sends such things to Iraq, your ilk trumpet the
claim that we're sending them biological weapons stocks....


There's an interesting article the BBC published yesterday
about David Kay The man spearheading the US hunt for
banned weapons in Iraq. He said he is surprised attention
has focused on what his Iraq Survey Group has not found,
rather than on the things it has uncovered.

He says his Iraq Survey Group has uncovered evidence of
banned activities which the United Nations and pre-war
intelligence had not known about, including 24 clandestine
laboratories and four unreported missile programmes.

He also insisted his report last week to US Congress was interim.
"I know we're going to find remarkable things about Iraq's
weapons programmes," he said.

But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because they
don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody? Is that going
to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?

George Z.

Keith

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...


But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because
they
don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody?

Today not all

In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
go back into production of WMD and the missiles
to carry them who knows ?

Is that going
to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?


It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...


But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because
they
don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody?

Today not all

In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
go back into production of WMD and the missiles
to carry them who knows ?

The same things that happened during the past five years could have happened in
the next five years, without either of our countries having had to have suffered
the loss of a single life. I'm not convinced that your pessimistic view of the
future is anywhere near accurate, and certainly not enough to satisfy me as
being worth the number of dead and maimed we have suffered up to now and
apparently will continue to suffer.

Is that going
to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?


It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?

Yes, I would, because the thing may blow up on the pad, or it may suffer one of
countless setbacks that might prevent it from ever leaving the ground. IAC, if
that's the criteria, our war with them should have started already, but I notice
that it hasn't, for some strange reason.

Yes, I still think it's an empty rationale. We can't make war with every
country we don't like just because we are fearful of their intentions. If we
have to do that, we're pretty much fully engaged and committed in Afghanistan
and Iraq at the moment, so how about you guys taking the lead in North Korea and
China.....I'm sure we can find a division or two of troops to send over to give
your guys a hand and lend you some moral support.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message

In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted
and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and
go back into production of WMD and the missiles
to carry them who knows ?

The same things that happened during the past five years could have happened in
the next five years, without either of our countries having had to have suffered
the loss of a single life. I'm not convinced that your pessimistic view of the
future is anywhere near accurate, and certainly not enough to satisfy me as
being worth the number of dead and maimed we have suffered up to now and
apparently will continue to suffer.

I think the sanctions were about to be broken. Russia, France, Germany and
a significant part of US opinion was starting to regard them as misdirected
against innocent Iraqis. The regime was largely unhampered by them, and in
fact, was enriching itself on the limited commondities.

It wasn't until US intentions to go to war became clear that suddenly, sanctions
were good and should "be given time" to work. Too many interests in too many
countries in letting Saddam out from under the UN, for them to have lasted.

It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait
until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ?

Yes, I would, because the thing may blow up on the pad, or it may suffer one of
countless setbacks that might prevent it from ever leaving the ground. IAC, if
that's the criteria, our war with them should have started already, but I notice
that it hasn't, for some strange reason.

I wonder if any of the Bush critics *really* would support a war, or even more
agressive actions against NK? It's a *much* more formidable country militarily
than Iraq probably ever was. I don't believe for a minute that Dean or Kennedy
or any of the Democratic (or Republican) critics of the war would even think of
seriously threatening NK with force. Yet we keep hearing them tell us how much
more dangerous NK is and our efforts should be put there.

Yes, I still think it's an empty rationale. We can't make war with every
country we don't like just because we are fearful of their intentions. If we

That's absolutely true. I've come to the belief that we should simply wait
until the "fearful intentions" are actually demonstrated, before action is taken.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans (most likely civilians) will die by waiting, but
the intent will be clear, and whether anyone else likes our reaction or not won't
matter a whit to the American people.

have to do that, we're pretty much fully engaged and committed in Afghanistan
and Iraq at the moment, so how about you guys taking the lead in North Korea and
China.....I'm sure we can find a division or two of troops to send over to give
your guys a hand and lend you some moral support.

So are you actually in support of military operations against this more dangerous
to US than Iraq, North Korea? I'd be very surprised to see you actually supporting
a war against NK, especially if the current casualty rate in Iraq is considered too
high. Can you imagine the casualty rates per week against NK?


SMH

George Z. Bush wrote:
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..

(Michael Petukhov) wrote:


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".

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".

If these strains were intended to be used for legitimate use, why did
they hide them in this guy's home refrigerator? Also, he reportedly
told investigators that they tried to hide Anthrax at his home as well,
but that he convinced them to remove it due to the hazard posed, as
he had small children in the home (although it does seem strange to
me that he would be willing to keep the Botulinum). The Anthrax
involved was never accounted for by Iraq, AFAIK.


There's an interesting article the BBC published yesterday
about David Kay The man spearheading the US hunt for
banned weapons in Iraq. He said he is surprised attention
has focused on what his Iraq Survey Group has not found,
rather than on the things it has uncovered.

He says his Iraq Survey Group has uncovered evidence of
banned activities which the United Nations and pre-war
intelligence had not known about, including 24 clandestine
laboratories and four unreported missile programmes.

He also insisted his report last week to US Congress was interim.
"I know we're going to find remarkable things about Iraq's
weapons programmes," he said.


But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because they
don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody? Is that going
to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government?


Well, the UN resolution didn't require Iraq to prove only that it
had no weapons at the time of the latest round of inspections. It
required Iraq to reveal any and all programs and to show that
they had been permanently abondoned. Since these programs were
never revealed and appear to be ongoing, we have simple proof that
Iraq was in violation of the UN resolution under which the U.S.,
Britain, Spain, et al, declared as their authority for action.

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). 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? While we
await confirmation or refutation of the testimony, we can't rule out
Scud missiles still being in the inventory 12 years after Iraq agreed
to destroy them under the ceasefire agreement.

Mike

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.

While we
await confirmation or refutation of the testimony, we can't rule out
Scud missiles still being in the inventory 12 years after Iraq agreed
to destroy them under the ceasefire agreement.

They're not small or inconspicuous, and they need regular maintenance -
should be easy enough to find. (Liquid-fuelled rockets take a lot of
care and feeding if they're ready to use, or else a big effort to
prepare and fuel if stored dry - exactly the reason the US rapidly
abandoned them)

--
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

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

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