No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

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

they have found tons of munitions.

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
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

captain! wrote:

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...=21801&lang=en

No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

they have found tons of munitions.
What kind of munitions do you think that Petkhov was
refering to?
What kind of munitions were found?
What can this be considered as evidence of?

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...
captain! wrote:

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...=21801&lang=en

No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes

they have found tons of munitions.
What kind of munitions do you think that Petkhov was
refering to?
What kind of munitions were found?
What can this be considered as evidence of?


small arms, ammunition, rpgs, bombs, shells:
things that the iraqi army left behind. (some stored in warehouses)
this can be considered evidence that there were munitions found.

captain! wrote:

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...

captain! wrote:


"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
e.com...


http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...=21801&lang=en

No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes


they have found tons of munitions.
What kind of munitions do you think that Petkhov was
refering to?
What kind of munitions were found?
What can this be considered as evidence of?



small arms, ammunition, rpgs, bombs, shells:
things that the iraqi army left behind. (some stored in warehouses)
this can be considered evidence that there were munitions found.

I repeat:
What kind of munitions do you think that Petukhov was
refering to?
(Hint, suggestion - Think WMD)

the word "munitions" covers a very broad range of things. i pointed out the
error that the author made in claiming that none were found.

you can play guessing games about what michael meant if you want. i go by
facts.

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
news
captain! wrote:

"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message
...

captain! wrote:


"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
e.com...


http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...=21801&lang=en

No uranium, no munitions, no missiles, no programmes


they have found tons of munitions.
What kind of munitions do you think that Petkhov was
refering to?
What kind of munitions were found?
What can this be considered as evidence of?



small arms, ammunition, rpgs, bombs, shells:
things that the iraqi army left behind. (some stored in warehouses)
this can be considered evidence that there were munitions found.

I repeat:
What kind of munitions do you think that Petukhov was
refering to?
(Hint, suggestion - Think WMD)

(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....

"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.

Keith

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