Things found in Iraq - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Endymon32 · 12-25-2003, 04:29 AM

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html

As Michael Moore and other key anti war speakers have been saying " wait for the Kay report"

Well here is a part of it, why is this not big news?

Quote:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome this opportunity to discuss with the Committee the progress that the Iraq Survey Group has made in its initial three months of its investigation into Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs.

I cannot emphasize too strongly that the Interim Progress Report, which has been made available to you, is a snapshot, in the context of an on-going investigation, of where we are after our first three months of work. The report does not represent a final reckoning of Iraq's WMD programs, nor are we at the point where we are prepared to close the file on any of these programs. While solid progress - I would say even remarkable progress considering the conditions that the ISG has had to work under - has been made in this initial period of operations, much remains to be done. We are still very much in the collection and analysis mode, still seeking the information and evidence that will allow us to confidently draw comprehensive conclusions to the actual objectives, scope, and dimensions of Iraq's WMD activities at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The very scale of this program when coupled with the conditions in Iraq that have prevailed since the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom dictate the speed at which we can move to a comprehensive understanding of Iraq's WMD activities.

We need to recall that in the 1991-2003 period the intelligence community and the UN/IAEA inspectors had to draw conclusions as to the status of Iraq's WMD program in the face of incomplete, and often false, data supplied by Iraq or data collected either by UN/IAEA inspectors operating within the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed or by national intelligence collection systems with their own inherent limitations. The result was that our understanding of the status of Iraq's WMD program was always bounded by large uncertainties and had to be heavily caveated. With the regime of Saddam Husayn at an end, ISG has the opportunity for the first time of drawing together all the evidence that can still be found in Iraq - much evidence is irretrievably lost - to reach definitive conclusions concerning the true state of Iraq's WMD program. It is far too early to reach any definitive conclusions and, in some areas, we may never reach that goal. The unique nature of this opportunity, however, requires that we take great care to ensure that the conclusions we draw reflect the truth to the maximum extent possible given the conditions in post-conflict Iraq.

We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis.

Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six principal factors:

From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;

Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;

Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;

Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;

Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;

The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.
Supporting Images

Click Image to Enlarge
Vials: A total of 97 vials-including those with labels consistent with the al Hakam cover stories of single-cell protein and biopesticides, as well as strains that could be used to produce BW agents-were recovered from a scientist's residence.

Click Image to Enlarge
Lab Equipment From Mosque.

Click Image to Enlarge
Burned Documents Found at SAAD Center: An exploitation team on a recent mission to the SAAD Center, part of the Baghdad New Nuclear Design Center, found massive looting and the remnants of deliberately destroyed documents. Other documents were left untouched, however, and recovered by the team

Click Image to Enlarge
Storage room in basement of Revolutionary Command Council Headquarters. Burned frames of PC workstations visible on shelves. All rooms sharing walls with this storage room were untouched from fire or battle damage.

Click Image to Enlarge
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The basement historical files were systematically selected and destroyed.

What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. For example,

On 10 July 2003 an ISG team exploited the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) Headquarters in Baghdad. The basement of the main building contained an archive of documents situated on well-organized rows of metal shelving. The basement suffered no fire damage despite the total destruction of the upper floors from coalition air strikes. Upon arrival the exploitation team encountered small piles of ash where individual documents or binders of documents were intentionally destroyed. Computer hard drives had been deliberately destroyed. Computers would have had financial value to a random looter; their destruction, rather than removal for resale or reuse, indicates a targeted effort to prevent Coalition forces from gaining access to their contents.

All IIS laboratories visited by IIS exploitation teams have been clearly sanitized, including removal of much equipment, shredding and burning of documents, and even the removal of nameplates from office doors.

Although much of the deliberate destruction and sanitization of documents and records probably occurred during the height of OIF combat operations, indications of significant continuing destruction efforts have been found after the end of major combat operations, including entry in May 2003 of the locked gated vaults of the Ba'ath party intelligence building in Baghdad and highly selective destruction of computer hard drives and data storage equipment along with the burning of a small number of specific binders that appear to have contained financial and intelligence records, and in July 2003 a site exploitation team at the Abu Ghurayb Prison found one pile of the smoldering ashes from documents that was still warm to the touch.
I would now like to review our efforts in each of the major lines of enquiry that ISG has pursued during this initial phase of its work.

With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.

Debriefings of IIS officials and site visits have begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus. This network was never declared to the UN and was previously unknown. We are still working on determining the extent to which this network was tied to large-scale military efforts or BW terror weapons, but this clandestine capability was suitable for preserving BW expertise, BW capable facilities and continuing R&D - all key elements for maintaining a capability for resuming BW production. The IIS also played a prominent role in sponsoring students for overseas graduate studies in the biological sciences, according to Iraqi scientists and IIS sources, providing an important avenue for furthering BW-applicable research. This was the only area of graduate work that the IIS appeared to sponsor.

Discussions with Iraqi scientists uncovered agent R&D work that paired overt work with nonpathogenic organisms serving as surrogates for prohibited investigation with pathogenic agents. Examples include: B. Thurengiensis (Bt) with B. anthracis (anthrax), and medicinal plants with ricin. In a similar vein, two key former BW scientists, confirmed that Iraq under the guise of legitimate activity developed refinements of processes and products relevant to BW agents. The scientists discussed the development of improved, simplified fermentation and spray drying capabilities for the simulant Bt that would have been directly applicable to anthrax, and one scientist confirmed that the production line for Bt could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if the seed stock were available.

A very large body of information has been developed through debriefings, site visits, and exploitation of captured Iraqi documents that confirms that Iraq concealed equipment and materials from UN inspectors when they returned in 2002. One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced. This discovery - hidden in the home of a BW scientist - illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons. The scientist who concealed the vials containing this agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.

Additional information is beginning to corroborate reporting since 1996 about human testing activities using chemical and biological substances, but progress in this area is slow given the concern of knowledgeable Iraqi personnel about their being prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW production effort. Investigation into the origin of and intended use for the two trailers found in northern Iraq in April has yielded a number of explanations, including hydrogen, missile propellant, and BW production, but technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers. That said, nothing we have discovered rules out their potential use in BW production.

We have made significant progress in identifying and locating individuals who were reportedly involved in a mobile program, and we are confident that we will be able to get an answer to the questions as to whether there was a mobile program and whether the trailers that have been discovered so far were part of such a program.

Let me turn now to chemical weapons (CW). In searching for retained stocks of chemical munitions, ISG has had to contend with the almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons. For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous.

While searching for retained weapons, ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003. When Saddam had asked a senior military official in either 2001 or 2002 how long it would take to produce new chemical agent and weapons, he told ISG that after he consulted with CW experts in OMI he responded it would take six months for mustard. Another senior Iraqi chemical weapons expert in responding to a request in mid-2002 from Uday Husayn for CW for the Fedayeen Saddam estimated that it would take two months to produce mustard and two years for Sarin.

We are starting to survey parts of Iraq's chemical industry to determine if suitable equipment and bulk chemicals were available for chemical weapons production. We have been struck that two senior Iraqi officials volunteered that if they had been ordered to resume CW production Iraq would have been willing to use stainless steel systems that would be disposed of after a few production runs, in place of corrosive-resistant equipment which they did not have.

We continue to follow leads on Iraq's acquisition of equipment and bulk precursors suitable for a CW program. Several possibilities have emerged and are now being exploited. One example involves a foreign company with offices in Baghdad, that imported in the past into Iraq dual-use equipment and maintained active contracts through 2002. Its Baghdad office was found looted in August 2003, but we are pursuing other locations and associates of the company.

Information obtained since OIF has identified several key areas in which Iraq may have engaged in proscribed or undeclared activity since 1991, including research on a possible VX stabilizer, research and development for CW-capable munitions, and procurement/concealment of dual-use materials and equipment.

Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. We are carefully examining dual-use, commercial chemical facilities to determine whether these were used or planned as alternative production sites.

We have also acquired information related to Iraq's CW doctrine and Iraq's war plans for OIF, but we have not yet found evidence to confirm pre-war reporting that Iraqi military units were prepared to use CW against Coalition forces. Our efforts to collect and exploit intelligence on Iraq's chemical weapons program have thus far yielded little reliable information on post-1991 CW stocks and CW agent production, although we continue to receive and follow leads related to such stocks. We have multiple reports that Iraq retained CW munitions made prior to 1991, possibly including mustard - a long-lasting chemical agent - but we have to date been unable to locate any such munitions.

With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research activities and increased its overall funding levels. This expansion may have been in initial preparation for renewed nuclear weapons research, although documentary evidence of this has not been found, and this is the subject of continuing investigation by ISG.

Starting around 2000, the senior Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) and high-level Ba'ath Party official Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa'id began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives that could be applied to nuclear weapons development. These initiatives did not in-and-of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program, but could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term. We do not yet have information indicating whether a higher government authority directed Sa'id to initiate this research and, regretfully, Dr. Said was killed on April 8th during the fall of Baghdad when the car he was riding in attempted to run a Coalition roadblock.

Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.

According to documents and testimony of Iraqi scientists, some of the key technical groups from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program remained largely intact, performing work on nuclear-relevant dual-use technologies within the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). Some scientists from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program have told ISG that they believed that these working groups were preserved in order to allow a reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program, but none of the scientists could produce official orders or plans to support their belief.

In some cases, these groups performed work which could help preserve the science base and core skills that would be needed for any future fissile material production or nuclear weapons development.

Several scientists - at the direction of senior Iraqi government officials - preserved documents and equipment from their pre-1991 nuclear weapon-related research and did not reveal this to the UN/IAEA. One Iraqi scientist recently stated in an interview with ISG that it was a "common understanding" among the scientists that material was being preserved for reconstitution of nuclear weapons-related work.
The ISG nuclear team has found indications that there was interest, beginning in 2002, in reconstituting a centrifuge enrichment program. Most of this activity centered on activities of Dr. Sa'id that caused some of his former colleagues in the pre-1991 nuclear program to suspect that Dr. Sa'id, at least, was considering a restart of the centrifuge program. We do not yet fully understand Iraqi intentions, and the evidence does not tie any activity directly to centrifuge research or development.

Exploitation of additional documents may shed light on the projects and program plans of Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa'id. There may be more projects to be discovered in research placed at universities and private companies. Iraqi interest in reconstitution of a uranium enrichment program needs to be better understood through the analysis of procurement records and additional interviews.

With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.

Detainees and co-operative sources indicate that beginning in 2000 Saddam ordered the development of ballistic missiles with ranges of at least 400km and up to 1000km and that measures to conceal these projects from UNMOVIC were initiated in late-2002, ahead of the arrival of inspectors. Work was also underway for a clustered engine liquid propellant missile, and it appears the work had progressed to a point to support initial prototype production of some parts and assemblies. According to a cooperating senior detainee, Saddam concluded that the proposals from both the liquid-propellant and solid-propellant missile design centers would take too long. For instance, the liquid-propellant missile project team forecast first delivery in six years. Saddam countered in 2000 that he wanted the missile designed and built inside of six months. On the other hand several sources contend that Saddam's range requirements for the missiles grew from 400-500km in 2000 to 600-1000km in 2002.

ISG has gathered testimony from missile designers at Al Kindi State Company that Iraq has reinitiated work on converting SA-2 Surface-to-Air Missiles into ballistic missiles with a range goal of about 250km. Engineering work was reportedly underway in early 2003, despite the presence of UNMOVIC. This program was not declared to the UN. ISG is presently seeking additional confirmation and details on this project. A second cooperative source has stated that the program actually began in 2001, but that it received added impetus in the run-up to OIF, and that missiles from this project were transferred to a facility north of Baghdad. This source also provided documentary evidence of instructions to convert SA-2s into surface-to-surface missiles.

ISG has obtained testimony from both detainees and cooperative sources that indicate that proscribed-range solid-propellant missile design studies were initiated, or already underway, at the time when work on the clustered liquid-propellant missile designs began. The motor diameter was to be 800 to 1000mm, i.e. much greater than the 500-mm Ababil-100. The range goals cited for this system vary from over 400km up to 1000km, depending on the source and the payload mass.

A cooperative source, involved in the 2001-2002 deliberations on the long-range solid propellant project, provided ISG with a set of concept designs for a launcher designed to accommodate a 1m diameter by 9m length missile. The limited detail in the drawings suggest there was some way to go before launcher fabrication. The source believes that these drawings would not have been requested until the missile progress was relatively advanced, normally beyond the design state. The drawing are in CAD format, with files dated 09/01/02.

While we have obtained enough information to make us confident that this design effort was underway, we are not yet confident which accounts of the timeline and project progress are accurate and are now seeking to better understand this program and its actual progress at the time of OIF.

One cooperative source has said that he suspected that the new large-diameter solid-propellant missile was intended to have a CW-filled warhead, but no detainee has admitted any actual knowledge of plans for unconventional warheads for any current or planned ballistic missile. The suspicion expressed by the one source about a CW warhead was based on his assessment of the unavailability of nuclear warheads and potential survivability problems of biological warfare agent in ballistic missile warheads. This is an area of great interest and we are seeking additional information on warhead designs.

While I have spoken so far of planned missile systems, one high-level detainee has recently claimed that Iraq retained a small quantity of Scud-variant missiles until at least 2001, although he subsequently recanted these claims, work continues to determine the truth. Two other sources contend that Iraq continued to produce until 2001 liquid fuel and oxidizer specific to Scud-type systems. The cooperating source claims that the al Tariq Factory was used to manufacture Scud oxidizer (IRFNA) from 1996 to 2001, and that nitrogen tetroxide, a chief ingredient of IRFNA was collected from a bleed port on the production equipment, was reserved, and then mixed with highly concentrated nitric acid plus an inhibitor to produce Scud oxidizer. Iraq never declared its pre-Gulf War capability to manufacture Scud IRFNA out of fear, multiple sources have stated, that the al Tariq Factory would be destroyed, leaving Baghdad without the ability to produce highly concentrated nitric acid, explosives and munitions. To date we have not discovered documentary or material evidence to corroborate these claims, but continued efforts are underway to clarify and confirm this information with additional Iraqi sources and to locate corroborating physical evidence. If we can confirm that the fuel was produced as late as 2001, and given that Scud fuel can only be used in Scud-variant missiles, we will have strong evidence that the missiles must have been retained until that date. This would, of course, be yet another example of a failure to declare prohibited activities to the UN.

Iraq was continuing to develop a variety of UAV platforms and maintained two UAV programs that were working in parallel, one at Ibn Fernas and one at al-Rashid Air Force Base. Ibn Fernas worked on the development of smaller, more traditional types of UAVs in addition to the conversion of manned aircraft into UAVs. This program was not declared to the UN until the 2002 CAFCD in which Iraq declared the RPV-20, RPV-30 and Pigeon RPV systems to the UN. All these systems had declared ranges of less than 150km. Several Iraqi officials stated that the RPV-20 flew over 500km on autopilot in 2002, contradicting Iraq's declaration on the system's range. The al-Rashid group was developing a competing line of UAVs. This program was never fully declared to the UN and is the subject of on-going work by ISG. Additional work is also focusing on the payloads and intended use for these UAVs. Surveillance and use as decoys are uses mentioned by some of those interviewed. Given Iraq's interest before the Gulf War in attempting to convert a MIG-21 into an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry spray tanks capable of dispensing chemical or biological agents, attention is being paid to whether any of the newer generation of UAVs were intended to have a similar purpose. This remains an open question.

ISG has discovered evidence of two primary cruise missile programs. The first appears to have been successfully implemented, whereas the second had not yet reached maturity at the time of OIF.

The first involved upgrades to the HY-2 coastal-defense cruise missile. ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile. These efforts extended the HY-2's range from its original 100km to 150-180km. Ten modified missiles were delivered to the military prior to OIF and two of these were fired from Umm Qasr during OIF - one was shot down and one hit Kuwait.

The second program, called the Jenin, was a much more ambitious effort to convert the HY-2 into a 1000km range land-attack cruise missile. The Jenin concept was presented to Saddam on 23 November 2001 and received what cooperative sources called an "unusually quick response" in little more than a week. The essence of the concept was to take an HY-2, strip it of its liquid rocket engine, and put in its place a turbine engine from a Russian helicopter - the TV-2-117 or TV3-117 from a Mi-8 or Mi-17helicopter. To prevent discovery by the UN, Iraq halted engine development and testing and disassembled the test stand in late 2002 before the design criteria had been met.

In addition to the activities detailed here on Iraq's attempts to develop delivery systems beyond the permitted UN 150km, ISG has also developed information on Iraqi attempts to purchase proscribed missiles and missile technology. Documents found by ISG describe a high level dialogue between Iraq and North Korea that began in December 1999 and included an October 2000 meeting in Baghdad. These documents indicate Iraqi interest in the transfer of technology for surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 1300km (probably No Dong) and land-to-sea missiles with a range of 300km. The document quotes the North Koreans as understanding the limitations imposed by the UN, but being prepared "to cooperate with Iraq on the items it specified". At the time of OIF, these discussions had not led to any missiles being transferred to Iraq. A high level cooperating source has reported that in late 2002 at Saddam's behest a delegation of Iraqi officials was sent to meet with foreign export companies, including one that dealt with missiles. Iraq was interested in buying an advanced ballistic missile with 270km and 500km ranges.

The ISG has also identified a large volume of material and testimony by cooperating Iraq officials on Iraq's effort to illicitly procure parts and foreign assistance for its missile program. These include:

Significant level of assistance from a foreign company and its network of affiliates in supplying and supporting the development of production capabilities for solid rocket propellant and dual-use chemicals.

Entities from another foreign country were involved in supplying guidance and control systems for use in the Al-Fat'h (Ababil-100). The contract was incomplete by the time of OIF due to technical problems with the few systems delivered and a financial dispute.

A group of foreign experts operating in a private capacity were helping to develop Iraq's liquid propellant ballistic missile RDT&E and production infrastructure. They worked in Baghdad for about three months in late 1998 and subsequently continued work on the project from abroad. An actual contract valued at $10 million for machinery and equipment was signed in June 2001, initially for 18 months, but later extended. This cooperation continued right up until the war.

A different group of foreign experts traveled to Iraq in 1999 to conduct a technical review that resulted in what became the Al Samoud 2 design, and a contract was signed in 2001 for the provision of rigs, fixtures and control equipment for the redesigned missile.

Detainees and cooperative sources have described the role of a foreign expert in negotiations on the development of Iraq's liquid and solid propellant production infrastructure. This could have had applications in existing and planned longer range systems, although it is reported that nothing had actually been implemented before OIF.
Uncertainty remains about the full extent of foreign assistance to Iraq's planned expansion of its missile systems and work is continuing to gain a full resolution of this issue. However, there is little doubt from the evidence already gathered that there was substantial illegal procurement for all aspects of the missile programs.

I have covered a lot of ground today, much of it highly technical. Although we are resisting drawing conclusions in this first interim report, a number of things have become clearer already as a result of our investigation, among them:

Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.

In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.

In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre.
Let me conclude by returning to something I began with today. We face a unique but challenging opportunity in our efforts to unravel the exact status of Iraq's WMD program. The good news is that we do not have to rely for the first time in over a decade on

the incomplete, and often false, data that Iraq supplied the UN/IAEA;

data collected by UN inspectors operating with the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed;

information supplied by defectors, some of whom certainly fabricated much that they supplied and perhaps were under the direct control of the IIS;

data collected by national technical collections systems with their own limitations.
The bad news is that we have to do this under conditions that ensure that our work will take time and impose serious physical dangers on those who are asked to carry it out.

Why should we take the time and run the risk to ensure that our conclusions reflect the truth to the maximum extent that is possible given the conditions in post-conflict Iraq? For those of us that are carrying out this search, there are two reasons that drive us to want to complete this effort.

First, whatever we find will probably differ from pre-war intelligence. Empirical reality on the ground is, and has always been, different from intelligence judgments that must be made under serious constraints of time, distance and information. It is, however, only by understanding precisely what those difference are that the quality of future intelligence and investment decisions concerning future intelligence systems can be improved. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is such a continuing threat to global society that learning those lessons has a high imperative.

Second, we have found people, technical information and illicit procurement networks that if allowed to flow to other countries and regions could accelerate global proliferation. Even in the area of actual weapons there is no doubt that Iraq had at one time chemical and biological weapons. Even if there were only a remote possibility that these pre-1991 weapons still exist, we have an obligation to American troops who are now there and the Iraqi population to ensure that none of these remain to be used against them in the ongoing insurgency activity.

Mr. Chairman and Members I appreciate this opportunity to share with you the initial results of the first 3 months of the activities of the Iraqi Survey Group. I am certain that I speak for Major General Keith Dayton, who commands the Iraqi Survey Group, when I say how proud we are of the men and women from across the Government and from our Coalition partners, Australia and the United Kingdom, who have gone to Iraq and are carrying out this important mission.

Thank you.

For those not into reading this article here is a list of things found

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

As Charles Krauthammer says;

Quote:

"Kay's list is chilling. It includes a secret network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence service; bioorganisms kept in scientists' homes, including a vial of live botulinum; and my favorite, "new research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin'' -- all "not declared to the U.N.''

I have been to medical school, and I have never heard of Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever. I don't know one doctor in 100 who has. It is an extremely rare disease, and you can be sure that Saddam was not seeking a cure. "

But, of course, Saddam had Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever out of a sense of warm, fuzzy compassion for his fellow man, right? I mean, it's not like he wanted to do something icky like, oh, I don't know, develop a weapon, right?

lordjeebus · 12-25-2003, 08:04 AM

That is a very interesting article. I would agree that there is strong evidence that Saddam was seeking to develop bio/chem/nuclear weapons. He was certainly in violation of UN regulations on his country. I doubt many people would be in favor of Saddam developing a Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever weapon.

But controversial questions remain.

There do not seem to be any weapons ready for delivery, just R&D: was there an imminent threat?

For what purpose would Saddam have used such weapons, knowing that such use would lead to certain retaliation?

How many other countries have active WMD R&D that we aren't willing to invade them over?

Why don't we have a problem with certain countries that are known to have actual deliverable WMD (eg. Israel, Pakistan, the United States itself)? What gives a country the right to produce such weapons?

Phaenx · 12-25-2003, 08:48 AM

Not invading peaceful non-hostile nations or slaughtering your own civilians is a start.

apechild · 12-25-2003, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lordjeebus
controversial questions remain.

There do not seem to be any weapons ready for delivery, just R&D: was there an imminent threat?

Quote:

Originally stated by President George W. Bush in the "State of the Union" Address, January 28, 2003
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Sparhawk · 12-25-2003, 06:30 PM

The reason this isn't big news is because of this:

Quote:

We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis.

If actual weapons are found, or these guys can say definitively that they don't exist (not sure how they'll ever be able to do that...), then it's a news story. But this? There isn't actually anything new here...

rogue49 · 12-25-2003, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lordjeebus
But controversial questions remain.

There do not seem to be any weapons ready for delivery, just R&D: was there an imminent threat?

For what purpose would Saddam have used such weapons, knowing that such use would lead to certain retaliation?

How many other countries have active WMD R&D that we aren't willing to invade them over?

Why don't we have a problem with certain countries that are known to have actual deliverable WMD (eg. Israel, Pakistan, the United States itself)? What gives a country the right to produce such weapons?

Because Iraq had shown a willingness to USE them & have USED them.
Consistently in the past against other nations and internally against civilians.

Other nations have NOT done this.

mrbuck12000 · 12-27-2003, 11:36 AM

Are we sure this wasn't found in Don rumsfelds basement? that sounds more like him to harbor this crap. No wait he has aspartame in his basement. my bad....he also has....oh never mind!!!

nirol · 12-27-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by apechild

Apechild, you must be very lonely, philosophically and politically, in Vermont.

Good fisking, that "imminent threat" crap sure has taken on a life of its own.

Strange Famous · 12-27-2003, 12:31 PM

so they found no actual weapons at all?

Wow, what a surprise. Anything that was found was probably planted by America (which does have, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons)

debaser · 12-27-2003, 12:35 PM

Why ask for proof when your personal bias is to instantly deny any proof that is given?

Iraq was not allowed to have any of the contraband listed in the above article. They knew what the consequence of having such material was.

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
so they found no actual weapons at all?

Wow, what a surprise. Anything that was found was probably planted by America (which does have, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons)

Um I assume you dont read any posts that contradict you? Saddam had a shoping list of contraband biologicals. But you dont care, as it doesnt support the stance you decided to take before you went out to argue. Please continue to ignore facts. It makes taking a stance all the more easier.

Strange Famous · 12-27-2003, 02:28 PM

but the facts you have shown me was that no actual weapons have been found. Yes?

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 03:13 PM

If Crimean Congo Hemorraghe fever is not a biological weapon then can you explain its other uses? Same with the anthrax and other bios found. Again you are wrong on EVERY one of your posts.

You remind me of a pro communist poster that once posted this very line

" if you exclude the millions of deaths, Communism is a good thing"

Strange Famous · 12-27-2003, 03:17 PM

Have you ever heard of medical research? Vaccines?

Scientists working on producing vaccines may well have samples of various diseases.

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 03:19 PM

LOL
Good one, then why were those not found anywhere near hospitals? And why is there not one case of CCHF in Iraq in its 5000 year history?

Denial aint just a river in Egypt....

Strange Famous · 12-27-2003, 03:35 PM

how do you that Iraq was not working on vaccines to sell to other countries where this disease does exist?

seretogis · 12-27-2003, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
how do you that Iraq was not working on vaccines to sell to other countries where this disease does exist?

Keep digging.

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
how do you that Iraq was not working on vaccines to sell to other countries where this disease does exist?

LOL Thats right, please provide us with other humanitarian opperations that Iraq was involved in so that you have even a sliver of crediblity. And why sell a cure to a diease that is etremly rare? Why not work on chicken pox or some such more common dieasse? He was really going make the world safer by curing a super rare diease.
I get you now, you are really some arch conservative posting inorder to make liberals look bad. Keep posting, your killing me. My ribs hurt.

SLM3 · 12-27-2003, 04:29 PM

Every post I've read of yours in the last 5 minutes contains a personal attack on whoever you're replying to. Where are the moderators on this?

Grow up.

SLM3

SLM3 · 12-27-2003, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rogue49
Because Iraq had shown a willingness to USE them & have USED them.
Consistently in the past against other nations and internally against civilians.

Kinda like the US?

SLM3

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 04:32 PM

Really? When did we use WMD on our own population? We used nukes in Japan, and that was justified, as it ended a war that would have killed more than were killed in the bombing. So you are wrong.

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
Every post I've read of yours in the last 5 minutes contains a personal attack on whoever you're replying to. Where are the moderators on this?

Grow up.

SLM3

Asking for proof is a personal attack? Why so scared of asking for facts? I guess that will destroy your arguments?

Strange Famous · 12-27-2003, 04:35 PM

All I am trying to do if talk about the facts.

Your report (which is from a source we must consider dubious anyway) clearly states no weapons at all have been found.

It states that some artifacts that could be used to produce weapons have been found, that is all.

So what we are saying is that there is a possibility that maybe Iraq was trying to produce WMD, but we have found no proof, and no actual weapons.

Furthermore, of course, America would not have attacked if they believed the weapons did exist (that is why they waited for the UN inspectors to tell them there was nothing there), and if Iraq did have the weapons, surely Hussain would have used them as his country collapsed under the Anglo-American attack?

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 04:39 PM

LOL you slay me.

debaser · 12-27-2003, 04:41 PM

Nope.

First, as has been said many times, the "artifacts" were prohibited under the terms of the '91 ceasefire.

Second, there was no evidence offered by Iraq that they had destroyed the weapons we know they had (we kept the reciepts). The UN inspectors reported only that they were encountering the same resistance from he regime that they always had.

Third, we attacked fully expecting chemical retaliation, thank goodness no such weapons were used. The threat of a nuclear reprisal could have had something to do with that.

Strange Famous · 12-27-2003, 04:51 PM

The fact that Iraq (a sovereign state) had things - possibly for legitimate scientific puporses, or possibly as part of a programme to make weapons to defend itself - from the American attack they knew was coming - which America decreeed that they were not allowed to have is very different from saying hey had WMD.

This report is just more evidence of what we have all suspected, Iraq had no WMD, and did not pose any immediate threat to anyone.

Which means, very simply, the UK and US war was based on a lie, a falsehood.

debaser · 12-27-2003, 04:54 PM

I am not supporting what Bush said, but Iraq was not allowed to have the items they had by merit of a treaty they signed in 1991 to preserve the regime of Saddam Hussien. He made the law, he broke it, and he suffered the consequences.

SLM3 · 12-27-2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Endymon32
Asking for proof is a personal attack? Why so scared of asking for facts? I guess that will destroy your arguments?

Quote:

But you dont care, as it doesnt support the stance you decided to take before you went out to argue.

Quote:

Again you are wrong on EVERY one of your posts.

Quote:

LOL, good one.

Quote:

Denial aint just a river in Egypt....

Quote:

LOL Thats right

Quote:

I get you now, you are really some arch conservative posting inorder to make liberals look bad. Keep posting, your killing me. My ribs hurt.

All of these are within the last day or so. Take it easy, buddy. If you make a good point, then it'll stand on its own.

SLM3

SLM3 · 12-27-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Endymon32
Really? When did we use WMD on our own population? We used nukes in Japan, and that was justified, as it ended a war that would have killed more than were killed in the bombing. So you are wrong.

Well, just off the top of my head there's the Mustard Gas testing on Americans as well as on Australians. Of course the government then went on to test the gas on the Japanese in your internment camps because they wanted to see if it would affect the Asian "race" any differently. Obviously, it did not.

One thing I've noticed here is how adamant Americans are at how many lives they SAVED by dropping two nukes. They'll talk about it until they're blue in the face, as if they'd acted out both options and decided one was better than the other. I wish my crystal ball worked that well.

Anyone else read about how the US changed the fuel source in napalm, gave it a new name, and used it most recently in Iraq? Do we need to even touch Vietnam in terms of chemical weapons?

SLM3

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
The fact that Iraq (a sovereign state) had things - possibly for legitimate scientific puporses, or possibly as part of a programme to make weapons to defend itself - from the American attack they knew was coming - which America decreeed that they were not allowed to have is very different from saying hey had WMD.

America made no such decree. The UN did, and Saddam did too when he signed the treaty in 91. Sorry to show your errors to the rest of the board.

Quote:

This report is just more evidence of what we have all suspected, Iraq had no WMD, and did not pose any immediate threat to anyone.

Tell that to the 3 million he killed. And he DID have WMD. The fact that you keep ignoring the evidence is very telling about you.

Quote:

Which means, very simply, the UK and US war was based on a lie, a falsehood.

Not even true. I find it odd that you are not happy that a man that oppressed his people are now free, I mean isnt that a good thing? You sound like you would be happier if Saddam were still killing people at a rate of 100, 000 per year.

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
All of these are within the last day or so. Take it easy, buddy. If you make a good point, then it'll stand on its own.

SLM3

When you and strange famous acknowedge a fact I will have a heart attack.

debaser · 12-27-2003, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
Well, just off the top of my head there's the Mustard Gas testing on Americans as well as on Australians. Of course the government then went on to test the gas on the Japanese in your internment camps because they wanted to see if it would affect the Asian "race" any differently. Obviously, it did not.

One thing I've noticed here is how adamant Americans are at how many lives they SAVED by dropping two nukes. They'll talk about it until they're blue in the face, as if they'd acted out both options and decided one was better than the other. I wish my crystal ball worked that well.

Anyone else read about how the US changed the fuel source in napalm, gave it a new name, and used it most recently in Iraq? Do we need to even touch Vietnam in terms of chemical weapons?

SLM3

The bombs were dropped on Japan to force their surrender before the Russians could join the fight against the, thus forcing another partition like we had in Germany.

As to Napalm, at risk of sounding repetitious, it is not a chemical weapon.

SLM3, what is your source for:

Quote:

Of course the government then went on to test the gas on the Japanese in your internment camps because they wanted to see if it would affect the Asian "race" any differently. Obviously, it did not.

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
Well, just off the top of my head there's the Mustard Gas testing on Americans as well as on Australians. Of course the government then went on to test the gas on the Japanese in your internment camps because they wanted to see if it would affect the Asian "race" any differently. Obviously, it did not.

One thing I've noticed here is how adamant Americans are at how many lives they SAVED by dropping two nukes. They'll talk about it until they're blue in the face, as if they'd acted out both options and decided one was better than the other. I wish my crystal ball worked that well.

Anyone else read about how the US changed the fuel source in napalm, gave it a new name, and used it most recently in Iraq? Do we need to even touch Vietnam in terms of chemical weapons?

SLM3

1 that was a horrid abomination, I agee with you. So you are right, we shouldnt have taken out Saddam.

2 Miltiary experts say that it would have cost over 100,000 lives to force Japan to surrender. Dropping the bombs cost a fraction of that and at a cost of 0 to Americans. I am glad it was done. In fact they had to drop two, as Japan woudlnt surrender after the first one. That shows the mentallity of Imperial Japan. In terms of long term casualties, the bomeb acutally lowerd the body count. To say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of military stratedgy.

3 I didnt hear about that one, why dont you post your sources so we can read it.

I have an idea, how about insted of looking for personal attacks you acutally post the sources of your information. If you are correct as you say, this shouldnt be too difficult to get me to acknowledge your points.

SLM3 · 12-27-2003, 05:27 PM

First, check out "Major Problems in the History of American Medicine and Public Health" by Thomas Paterson if you're really interested. For a quick overview on what I was talking about, check out this excerpt from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. I believe part of this was the actual text used in the above book.

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1991/d91/d91freeman.html

SLM3

debaser · 12-27-2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
First, check out "Major Problems in the History of American Medicine and Public Health" by Thomas Paterson if you're really interested. For a quick overview on what I was talking about, check out this excerpt from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. I believe part of this was the actual text used in the above book.

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/19...91freeman.html

SLM3

Very interesting read. However, your earlier comment hints at sophistry.

You said:

Quote:

Well, just off the top of my head there's the Mustard Gas testing on Americans as well as on Australians. Of course the government then went on to test the gas on the Japanese in your internment camps because they wanted to see if it would affect the Asian "race" any differently. Obviously, it did not.

...as evidence that the US used chemical weapons on it's own people. You neglect to mention that all of the individuals were voluteers, including the 40 Japanese-Americans who took part in the trials. Not exactly in the same league as gassing towns full of Kurds, is it?

SLM3 · 12-27-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by debaser
Very interesting read. However, your earlier comment hints at sophistry.

You said:

...as evidence that the US used chemical weapons on it's own people. You neglect to mention that all of the individuals were voluteers, including the 40 Japanese-Americans who took part in the trials. Not exactly in the same league as gassing towns full of Kurds, is it?

I agree with you, it's not the same. However, my point is that the mentality is there. The US justified it, knowing full well its effects. Also, does the fact that the US supplied much of the chemical weapons used to gas those Kurds somehow involve them at all in their usage? Is the person who hands the gun over, knowing what it's to be used for, any less guilty than the one who actually pulled the trigger?

Also, you have to understand that the term volunteer is misleading. These people were baited with early discharges, increased pay, etc, to participate in a test with results they had no clue about. It mentions how much harder it got to find volunteers once news of the effects of the Gas got out. It was at this point that they thought to test the Japanese.

SLM3

debaser · 12-27-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
I agree with you, it's not the same. However, my point is that the mentality is there. The US justified it, knowing full well its effects. Also, does the fact that the US supplied much of the chemical weapons used to gas those Kurds somehow involve them at all in their usage? Is the person who hands the gun over, knowing what it's to be used for, any less guilty than the one who actually pulled the trigger?

Also, you have to understand that the term volunteer is misleading. These people were baited with early discharges, increased pay, etc, to participate in a test with results they had no clue about. It mentions how much harder it got to find volunteers once news of the effects of the Gas got out. It was at this point that they thought to test the Japanese.

SLM3

True, but a volunteer is still a volunteer. The weapon was not used in anger. Note the portion dealing with the Australian volunteers...

I do think the US bears responsibility for the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. It is one of the reasons I feel removing Saddam Hussien to be justified

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 06:17 PM

So 40 people voluntering for an experiment is the same as gassing 30,000 people. Wow that is what sane people call a STRECH.

SLM3 · 12-27-2003, 06:25 PM

You completely...missed...the...point.

I believe what it boils down to is that I don't think there is that massive a gap between testing it on unknowing "volunteers" and using it as a weapon. That coupled with the the fact that states supply these weapons knowing full well that they are going to be used to kill innocents reveals to me less of a void than it does to you, apparently.

SLM3

Dragonlich · 12-28-2003, 03:04 AM

people... how exactly did this thread go from "things that Iraq had" to "suppliers of those things are evil too"?

Fact: Iraq had military items it should not have had if it had followed the UN resolutions.

Now, these items *might* theoretically have been used for peaceful means, but that doesn't matter! Saddam wasn't allowed to have them, period. These items might even be supplied by the US/UK (besides the rest of the whole goddamned world), but that also doesn't matter one bit - Saddam was never *forced* to accept chemical and biological weapons, now was he? He could have said no. He is fully responsible for the subsequent use of those weapons; the suppliers are stupid and inhumane, but they're not responsible for their client's use of WMDs, unless they actively pulled the trigger.

Saddam wasn't a mindless monkey doing what the rest of the world told him to; he is fully responsible for everything he did, including the use of chemical weapons, the wars against his neighbors, and the breaking of UN sanctions. All the murder, torture and bloodshed was done in *his* name, and on *his* orders.

12-25-2003, 08:48 AM	#3 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Not invading peaceful non-hostile nations or slaughtering your own civilians is a start. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

12-27-2003, 11:36 AM	#7 (permalink)
mrbuck12000 Psycho Location: wisCONsin	Are we sure this wasn't found in Don rumsfelds basement? that sounds more like him to harbor this crap. No wait he has aspartame in his basement. my bad....he also has....oh never mind!!! __________________ "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

12-27-2003, 12:31 PM	#9 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	so they found no actual weapons at all? Wow, what a surprise. Anything that was found was probably planted by America (which does have, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons) __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-27-2003, 12:35 PM	#10 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Why ask for proof when your personal bias is to instantly deny any proof that is given? Iraq was not allowed to have any of the contraband listed in the above article. They knew what the consequence of having such material was. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

12-27-2003, 02:28 PM	#12 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	but the facts you have shown me was that no actual weapons have been found. Yes? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-25-2003, 08:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
lordjeebus ‚±‚Ìˆó˜U‚ª–Ú‚É“ü‚ç‚Ê‚© Location: College	That is a very interesting article. I would agree that there is strong evidence that Saddam was seeking to develop bio/chem/nuclear weapons. He was certainly in violation of UN regulations on his country. I doubt many people would be in favor of Saddam developing a Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever weapon. But controversial questions remain. There do not seem to be any weapons ready for delivery, just R&D: was there an imminent threat? For what purpose would Saddam have used such weapons, knowing that such use would lead to certain retaliation? How many other countries have active WMD R&D that we aren't willing to invade them over? Why don't we have a problem with certain countries that are known to have actual deliverable WMD (eg. Israel, Pakistan, the United States itself)? What gives a country the right to produce such weapons?

12-27-2003, 03:13 PM	#13 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	If Crimean Congo Hemorraghe fever is not a biological weapon then can you explain its other uses? Same with the anthrax and other bios found. Again you are wrong on EVERY one of your posts. You remind me of a pro communist poster that once posted this very line " if you exclude the millions of deaths, Communism is a good thing"

12-27-2003, 03:17 PM	#14 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Have you ever heard of medical research? Vaccines? Scientists working on producing vaccines may well have samples of various diseases. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-27-2003, 03:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	LOL Good one, then why were those not found anywhere near hospitals? And why is there not one case of CCHF in Iraq in its 5000 year history? Denial aint just a river in Egypt....

12-27-2003, 03:35 PM	#16 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	how do you that Iraq was not working on vaccines to sell to other countries where this disease does exist? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-27-2003, 04:29 PM	#19 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	Every post I've read of yours in the last 5 minutes contains a personal attack on whoever you're replying to. Where are the moderators on this? Grow up. SLM3

12-27-2003, 04:32 PM	#21 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	Really? When did we use WMD on our own population? We used nukes in Japan, and that was justified, as it ended a war that would have killed more than were killed in the bombing. So you are wrong.

12-27-2003, 04:35 PM	#23 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	All I am trying to do if talk about the facts. Your report (which is from a source we must consider dubious anyway) clearly states no weapons at all have been found. It states that some artifacts that could be used to produce weapons have been found, that is all. So what we are saying is that there is a possibility that maybe Iraq was trying to produce WMD, but we have found no proof, and no actual weapons. Furthermore, of course, America would not have attacked if they believed the weapons did exist (that is why they waited for the UN inspectors to tell them there was nothing there), and if Iraq did have the weapons, surely Hussain would have used them as his country collapsed under the Anglo-American attack? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-27-2003, 04:39 PM	#24 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	LOL you slay me.

12-27-2003, 04:41 PM	#25 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Nope. First, as has been said many times, the "artifacts" were prohibited under the terms of the '91 ceasefire. Second, there was no evidence offered by Iraq that they had destroyed the weapons we know they had (we kept the reciepts). The UN inspectors reported only that they were encountering the same resistance from he regime that they always had. Third, we attacked fully expecting chemical retaliation, thank goodness no such weapons were used. The threat of a nuclear reprisal could have had something to do with that. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

12-27-2003, 04:51 PM	#26 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	The fact that Iraq (a sovereign state) had things - possibly for legitimate scientific puporses, or possibly as part of a programme to make weapons to defend itself - from the American attack they knew was coming - which America decreeed that they were not allowed to have is very different from saying hey had WMD. This report is just more evidence of what we have all suspected, Iraq had no WMD, and did not pose any immediate threat to anyone. Which means, very simply, the UK and US war was based on a lie, a falsehood. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-27-2003, 04:54 PM	#27 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	I am not supporting what Bush said, but Iraq was not allowed to have the items they had by merit of a treaty they signed in 1991 to preserve the regime of Saddam Hussien. He made the law, he broke it, and he suffered the consequences. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

12-27-2003, 05:27 PM	#34 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	First, check out "Major Problems in the History of American Medicine and Public Health" by Thomas Paterson if you're really interested. For a quick overview on what I was talking about, check out this excerpt from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. I believe part of this was the actual text used in the above book. http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1991/d91/d91freeman.html SLM3

12-27-2003, 06:17 PM	#38 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	So 40 people voluntering for an experiment is the same as gassing 30,000 people. Wow that is what sane people call a STRECH.

12-27-2003, 06:25 PM	#39 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	You completely...missed...the...point. I believe what it boils down to is that I don't think there is that massive a gap between testing it on unknowing "volunteers" and using it as a weapon. That coupled with the the fact that states supply these weapons knowing full well that they are going to be used to kill innocents reveals to me less of a void than it does to you, apparently. SLM3

12-28-2003, 03:04 AM	#40 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	people... how exactly did this thread go from "things that Iraq had" to "suppliers of those things are evil too"? Fact: Iraq had military items it should not have had if it had followed the UN resolutions. Now, these items might theoretically have been used for peaceful means, but that doesn't matter! Saddam wasn't allowed to have them, period. These items might even be supplied by the US/UK (besides the rest of the whole goddamned world), but that also doesn't matter one bit - Saddam was never forced to accept chemical and biological weapons, now was he? He could have said no. He is fully responsible for the subsequent use of those weapons; the suppliers are stupid and inhumane, but they're not responsible for their client's use of WMDs, unless they actively pulled the trigger. Saddam wasn't a mindless monkey doing what the rest of the world told him to; he is fully responsible for everything he did, including the use of chemical weapons, the wars against his neighbors, and the breaking of UN sanctions. All the murder, torture and bloodshed was done in his name, and on his orders.