If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"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. We're not going to find out anything about Iraq's missle programs. Since we don't even find out anything about the US's missle program. UN employees need to be reminded that weekly, since not only are most of them unemployed CIA, many are just everyday morons. Keith |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message . com...
(ZZBunker) wrote in message . com... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "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. We're not going to find out anything about Iraq's missle programs. Since we don't even find out anything about the US's missle program. UN employees need to be reminded that weekly, since not only are most of them unemployed CIA, many are just everyday morons. Spend 10 minutes a week with Aviation Week and Space Technology, you will know more about the US missile programs than you ought to know. Back in the 70s I was visited by a Soviet engineer-diplomat who picked up Av Week read it carefully and then said "In my country this would be a classified document." That's redundent. Since in Russia, *every* printed document is a classified document. Since Russia is not a country. It's a clerk with an AK-47. I beg to differ. The Air Force needs to be reminded weekly that Aviation Week and Space Technology is an *Air Force* Missle Review. The US Army Missles are nothing like US Air Force Missles. Since the Army missles shoot to kill, rather than shoot to shoot. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
From: (Michael Petukhov)
m No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes 05 October 2003 Also from the AP on 10-05-03 Kay Says Iraq Weapons May Still Be Found By DAVID HO--The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - Weapons hunters in Iraq are pursuing tips that point to the possible presence of anthrax and Scud missiles still hidden in the country, the chief searcher said Sunday. David Kay told Congress last week that his survey team had not found nuclear, biological or chemical weapons so far. But he argued against drawing conclusions, saying he expects to provide a full picture on Iraq's weapons programs in six months to nine months. While lacking physical evidence for the presence anthrax or Scuds, Kay said tips from Iraqis are motivating the search for them. Critics, including many in Congress, say Kay's findings do not support most of the Bush administration's prewar assertions that the United States faced an imminent, serious threat from Iraq's Saddam Hussein because of widespread and advanced Iraqi weapons programs. President Bush has said the U.S.-led war on Iraq was justified despite the failure to find weapons. Kay reported that searchers found a vial of live botulinum bacteria that had been stored since 1993 in an Iraqi scientist's refrigerator. The bacteria make botulinum toxin, which can be used as a biological weapon, but Kay has offered no evidence that the bacteria had been used in a weapons program. The live bacteria was among a collection of ``reference strains'' of biological organisms that could not be used to produce biological warfare agents. Kay said Sunday the same scientist told investigators that he was asked to hide another much larger cache of strains, but ``after a couple of days he turned them back because he said they were too dangerous. He has small children in the house.'' Kay said the cache ``contains anthrax and that's one reason we're actively interested in getting it.'' Kay, speaking on ``Fox News Sunday,'' did not say whether the anthrax was live or a strain used only for anthrax research. Before the war, Iraqis said they had destroyed their supply of anthrax. Inspectors haven't found any and Iraqis haven't been able to provide evidence to satisfy investigators that they did destroy it. Experts note that old supplies of anthrax would have degraded by now. While the Bush administration argued before taking the country to war that Iraq's arsenal posed an imminent threat, much of what Kay discovered is that Iraq had interest in such weapons and was researching some agents. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Kay's report shows Saddam's clear intent to develop chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. He said, however, that the administration didn't tell the public the whole truth. ``There is some evidence that the Bush administration exaggerated unnecessarily,'' he told ``Fox News Sunday.'' Lieberman, a presidential candidate, said the exaggeration ``did discredit what was otherwise a very just cause of fighting tyranny and terrorism.'' Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have contended the vial of botulinum bacteria that Kay's team found is one strong piece of evidence of Saddam's weapons intent. Searches have been unsuccessful for the kind of long-range Scud missiles the Iraqis fired at Saudi Arabia and Israel in 1991. Many were destroyed during and after the Persian Gulf War, but the Bush administration had accused Iraq of continuing to hide Scuds. Kay said there are indications there may still be Scuds even though Iraq declared it got rid of them in the early 1990s. ``We have Iraqis now telling us that they continued until 2001, early 2002, to be capable of mixing and preparing Scud missile fuel. Scud missile fuel is only useful in Scud missiles,'' he said. ``Why would you continue to produce Scud missile fuel if you didn't have Scuds? We're looking for the Scuds.'' Kay's report to Congress said the information on fuel production came from Iraqi sources and has not been confirmed with documents or physical evidence. Weapons hunters still are looking for chemical weapons at scores of large ammunition storage sites throughout Iraq. Because of the size of the depots, searchers have examined only 10 of 130 sites so far, Kay said. ``These are sites that contain - the best estimate is between 600,000 and 650,000 tons of arms,'' he said. ``That's about one-third of the entire ammunition stockpile of the much larger U.S. military.'' The Iraqis stored chemical weapons, often unmarked, among conventional munitions, so ``you really have to examine each one,'' Kay said. He said 26 sites are on a critical list to be examined quickly. On the Net: David Kay's report to members of Congress: http://www.cia.gov 10/05/03 20:26 EDT |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dav1936531 wrote:
From: (Michael Petukhov) No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes 05 October 2003 Also from the AP on 10-05-03 Kay Says Iraq Weapons May Still Be Found Similarly, if pigs grew wings, they might be able to fly. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely
missed,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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:42:34 +0200, "Peter Glasų" pgglaso @
broadpark.no wrote: Yes,Saddam turned out to be a really nice guy after all.And he is sorely missed,right? The thing that really ****es me off about the whole situation is not the result on Iraq, but the effect on Western democracy (and I include Russia here). SH was a total *******, We should have chased his sorry ass all the way to Baghdad in '91. I rejoice in his downfall and the impending day when he is torn limb from limb down the streets of Tikrit. But if this was a long-overdue war to depose SH, then why couldn't we be _honest_ about it and call it that ? Instead we've seen the unedifying spectacle of Bush blaming SH for the WTC attacks, and the majority of America believing it. Or Blair claiming that we're only 45 minutes from an Iraqi attack on the Tube. Now Bush isn't my prez, so I'll let someone else rant about him. But Blair has lied and cheated all around this issue, and has misled and twisted the parliament of _my_ country in a way that hasn't been seen since Charles I. There are no WMD. There were once, he wanted some more, but the fine work of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC kept his greedy little hands out of the cookie jar (despite some shameful behaviour by some European manufacturers and conniving governments). If any last remnant of these programs had survived, or some final struggle went on like Heisenberg's atomkeller, then it was by and large irrelevant. It was certainly no justification for this war. We (the larger coallition of Western states) should have waited. There was scope for ongoing inspection, if we really were concerned about an international risk of WMD attack. Against the argument of "We had to move in before the Summer heat", I'd ask why such moves couldn't have been put in train 6 months earlier, and also point out that it's now October and ground troops are still in there, after the worst of Summer. Waiting, and continuing the inspections, would have probably brought Germany on board as a supporter, if there was any real justification, and would have reduced the basis on which France and Russia could have continued to refuse. I think Blair probably does sincerely believe in the threat of Iraqi WMD. He is, after all, the Hughie Green of British sound-bite politics. But this has more to with him being so far up his own spin that he convinces himself to truly believe it. A UK president with such a capacity for genuine doublethink is truly frightening. -- Smert' spamionam |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Poland: French Missile Report Was Wrong | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 8 | October 7th 03 10:54 PM |
Mk 84 iron bomb version with depleted uranium? | MCN | Military Aviation | 8 | October 3rd 03 01:56 AM |
AIRCRAFT MUNITIONS - THE COBALT BOMB | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 1 | August 29th 03 09:22 AM |