Full Version: No WMDs?
QUOTE
Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, said at the Oct. 6 hearing that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the March 2003 war.
"A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."
"A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."
Armed with your resources:
- Is Syria hiding something for Iraq?
- Should Syria be a targeted as a country supporting terrorist, armed with WMDs, ready to take down America, or as just a country caught in a tangled web of accusations?
yehoshua, your entire premise is flawed. First, nobody - including Duelfer- knows what was being shipped (if anything). It could've been dirty diapers for all we know. Out of the 10 million things imported and exported to/from Iraq, whether legally or illegally, WMD is only one and probably the most unlikely.
And why unlikely? Because of production facilities. They need to make this stuff. These same intelligence sources you are relying on to form an opinion said they knew where the production facilities existed and when we got there, another big "oops".
But did they go there, kick some dirt around, and say "well, nothing here"?
Not hardly. They had very credible and intelligent scientists using extremely sensitive equipment looking for traces. They found none.
Scott Ritter said all the WMD were destroyed. He was demonized.
Saddam's son-in-law told anyone who would listen when he defected that everything was destroyed and not reconstituted. He went back to Iraq and Saddam killed him.
Hans Blix found no traces.
David Kay found no traces.
Saddam provided a 12,000 page dossier to the UN show exactly why he had no WMD. We didn't believe him and invaded. We have since found out the dossier we were so quick to discount was entirely accurate. Saddam showed proof of his compliance. Although far from perfect, it was still far, far more accurate than anything we had.
The WMDs existed in the early 90's. We know because we have the receipts. We provided the materials to him under dual use laws. We provided him 60 Huey helicopters to disperse the WMD in northern Iraq while leaving it up to him to get the sprayers from somewhere else so we didn't violate law.
But since then, it has either been destroyed by Scott Ritter or died off due to it's short shelf life. Before 9/11, Rice and Powell stated unequivocally that Iraq was no longer a threat to it's neighbors, containment was working, and Iraq's weapons programs were history. You know - pretty much everything we know to be true now.
You need to get over it. WMD's were clearly not an issue and my feeling is, the administration knew it but used it to garner public support for the war. So, no need to keep rehashing it. Stick with the "Saddam was bad" argument because that's the only one that still holds water.
And why unlikely? Because of production facilities. They need to make this stuff. These same intelligence sources you are relying on to form an opinion said they knew where the production facilities existed and when we got there, another big "oops".
But did they go there, kick some dirt around, and say "well, nothing here"?
Not hardly. They had very credible and intelligent scientists using extremely sensitive equipment looking for traces. They found none.
Scott Ritter said all the WMD were destroyed. He was demonized.
Saddam's son-in-law told anyone who would listen when he defected that everything was destroyed and not reconstituted. He went back to Iraq and Saddam killed him.
Hans Blix found no traces.
David Kay found no traces.
Saddam provided a 12,000 page dossier to the UN show exactly why he had no WMD. We didn't believe him and invaded. We have since found out the dossier we were so quick to discount was entirely accurate. Saddam showed proof of his compliance. Although far from perfect, it was still far, far more accurate than anything we had.
The WMDs existed in the early 90's. We know because we have the receipts. We provided the materials to him under dual use laws. We provided him 60 Huey helicopters to disperse the WMD in northern Iraq while leaving it up to him to get the sprayers from somewhere else so we didn't violate law.
But since then, it has either been destroyed by Scott Ritter or died off due to it's short shelf life. Before 9/11, Rice and Powell stated unequivocally that Iraq was no longer a threat to it's neighbors, containment was working, and Iraq's weapons programs were history. You know - pretty much everything we know to be true now.
You need to get over it. WMD's were clearly not an issue and my feeling is, the administration knew it but used it to garner public support for the war. So, no need to keep rehashing it. Stick with the "Saddam was bad" argument because that's the only one that still holds water.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Oct 18 2004, 02:01 PM)
yehoshua, your entire premise is flawed. First, nobody - including Duelfer- knows what was being shipped (if anything). It could've been dirty diapers for all we know. Out of the 10 million things imported and exported to/from Iraq, whether legally or illegally, WMD is only one and probably the most unlikely.
And why unlikely? Because of production facilities. They need to make this stuff. These same intelligence sources you are relying on to form an opinion said they knew where the production facilities existed and when we got there, another big "oops".
But did they go there, kick some dirt around, and say "well, nothing here"?
Not hardly. They had very credible and intelligent scientists using extremely sensitive equipment looking for traces. They found none.
Scott Ritter said all the WMD were destroyed. He was demonized.
Saddam's son-in-law told anyone who would listen when he defected that everything was destroyed and not reconstituted. He went back to Iraq and Saddam killed him.
Hans Blix found no traces.
David Kay found no traces.
Saddam provided a 12,000 page dossier to the UN show exactly why he had no WMD. We didn't believe him and invaded. We have since found out the dossier we were so quick to discount was entirely accurate. Saddam showed proof of his compliance. Although far from perfect, it was still far, far more accurate than anything we had.
The WMDs existed in the early 90's. We know because we have the receipts. We provided the materials to him under dual use laws. We provided him 60 Huey helicopters to disperse the WMD in northern Iraq while leaving it up to him to get the sprayers from somewhere else so we didn't violate law.
But since then, it has either been destroyed by Scott Ritter or died off due to it's short shelf life. Before 9/11, Rice and Powell stated unequivocally that Iraq was no longer a threat to it's neighbors, containment was working, and Iraq's weapons programs were history. You know - pretty much everything we know to be true now.
You need to get over it. WMD's were clearly not an issue and my feeling is, the administration knew it but used it to garner public support for the war. So, no need to keep rehashing it. Stick with the "Saddam was bad" argument because that's the only one that still holds water.
And why unlikely? Because of production facilities. They need to make this stuff. These same intelligence sources you are relying on to form an opinion said they knew where the production facilities existed and when we got there, another big "oops".
But did they go there, kick some dirt around, and say "well, nothing here"?
Not hardly. They had very credible and intelligent scientists using extremely sensitive equipment looking for traces. They found none.
Scott Ritter said all the WMD were destroyed. He was demonized.
Saddam's son-in-law told anyone who would listen when he defected that everything was destroyed and not reconstituted. He went back to Iraq and Saddam killed him.
Hans Blix found no traces.
David Kay found no traces.
Saddam provided a 12,000 page dossier to the UN show exactly why he had no WMD. We didn't believe him and invaded. We have since found out the dossier we were so quick to discount was entirely accurate. Saddam showed proof of his compliance. Although far from perfect, it was still far, far more accurate than anything we had.
The WMDs existed in the early 90's. We know because we have the receipts. We provided the materials to him under dual use laws. We provided him 60 Huey helicopters to disperse the WMD in northern Iraq while leaving it up to him to get the sprayers from somewhere else so we didn't violate law.
But since then, it has either been destroyed by Scott Ritter or died off due to it's short shelf life. Before 9/11, Rice and Powell stated unequivocally that Iraq was no longer a threat to it's neighbors, containment was working, and Iraq's weapons programs were history. You know - pretty much everything we know to be true now.
You need to get over it. WMD's were clearly not an issue and my feeling is, the administration knew it but used it to garner public support for the war. So, no need to keep rehashing it. Stick with the "Saddam was bad" argument because that's the only one that still holds water.
1. Selling helicopters constitutes selling materials to dispurse WMD's?
Wow. I apologize for my candid response. These helicopters are used for numerous reasons, mostly as troop transports, medivac choppers, etc. I know, as I fly a very similar bird, an AH-64 for the USMC Reserve (1Lt. USMC-R 41st MAG DFW). These are some times used as gunships, but never as a WMD dist method. I don't know where you got that information, but as a general rule, these weapons are sent via rocket, missles, bombs, etc so that your own troops aren't killed. We're not talking insecticides (which, by the way aren't dist by helicopter either).Sold him the matierals for WMD's? I surely hope you don't hinge that upon your helicopter theory. Think about the nature of a Huey. It's a low-flying helicopter that, in layman's terms, isn't very fast. It's durable
2. You acknowledge the fact that they existed during the 90's, and as we all know, he used chemical weapons during on his own people. To say that it's not a possibility that these things were sold/hidden/etc is awfully naive. I doubt he was producing them in mass qty, yet as wealthy as Iraq is, procurement is not beyond thought.
3. If the administration knew about it, so did the congress and the whole intelligence community. If there were secrets among ourselves and Britian in reference to this infomation, by now it would've surfaced. The decision to go to war, regardless of campaign SPIN, was bi-partisan. Blame the gov't as whole.
The reality is that at some point, whether it was Bush sr or Clinton, no one intentionally sold anything to Iraq that could be used to procure, develop, or dist WMD's. Just as the argument that can be made that no WMD's were found, the same argument can be made that a Bi-Partisan congress voted to go to war.
Before this thread goes more off-track, a reminder of the questions to be debated:
1. Is Syria hiding something for Iraq?
2. Should Syria be a targeted as a country supporting terrorist, armed with WMDs, ready to take down America, or as just a country caught in a tangled web of accusations?
Responses should fit within this framework, please.
1. Is Syria hiding something for Iraq?
2. Should Syria be a targeted as a country supporting terrorist, armed with WMDs, ready to take down America, or as just a country caught in a tangled web of accusations?
Responses should fit within this framework, please.
I think that it's relevant to this debate that the Worldtribune is a fundamentally flawed news organization. The fact that this article is so similar to the other, easily refuted article they posted back in June leaves me certain that this is just the same bunch of hogwash all over again.
Thus the june article is here
And the E-mail the UN sent me back, which basically said the article was a distortion, is right here
Tangled web. There needs to be something more legitimate to accuse them with, lest we end up in a similar mess as with Iraq.
Thus the june article is here
And the E-mail the UN sent me back, which basically said the article was a distortion, is right here
QUOTE
# Should Syria be a targeted as a country supporting terrorist, armed with WMDs, ready to take down America, or as just a country caught in a tangled web of accusations?
Tangled web. There needs to be something more legitimate to accuse them with, lest we end up in a similar mess as with Iraq.
I don't think Syria is hiding anything, in a WMD context, and while Syria may be a legitimate target of further investigation, and no small degree of suspicion that they support terrorism, I don't think that they have much to do with WMD.
I find it more plausible that many Iraqis, while maybe believing Saddam's game of bluff might have prevented invasion, would have taken steps to smuggle out valuables, family members or even themselves, and that Syria, being neither hostile to Iraq (as is Iran) nor a close US ally (as are Saudi, Turkey & Kuwait, the other main countries with land borders to Iraq), might be the safest route out without being detected, not least by the rump of the Saddam regime itself.
Plus, for all those suspicious of French links to the Saddam regime, which route do you think they used to smuggle out their bribes and smuggle in the weapons or what-have-you? Direct Paris-Baghdad flights?
Also, all those luxury goods that Saddam and those at the centre of the Ba'athist regime managed to surround themselves with, even during the sanctions regime - how do you suppose they got hold of them? Is it really plausible that they just flew into Bagdhad or sailed up the Sha'at-al-Arab? Or might they in fact have come through a safely obscure land crossing where it was next to impossible to monitor movement of goods and people? Like, say - just as a wildly improbable example - the land border with Syria?
If these (I humbly suggest) perfectly credible routes were already established both before, during and after the invasion, then we don't have to invent theories about how bad Syria is and how they are now the most dangerous country in the world for conflation of the twin bogeymen of WMD and international Muslim-extremist terrorism. The Nazis shifted hugely quantities of looted goods from Germany into Switzerland and elsewhere once it became clear that Allied troops were set on attacking the "Fatherland", even before it looked likely they'd win. And lots of prominent Nazis fled to avoid capture. Very little of these goods, and very few of the people, were being moved as part of a plan to continue the fight after Germany was invaded - it was mostly just people's self-preservation and self-interest.
Was Saddam's regime so much more ideologically-driven than Nazi Germany that they would faviour dogged resistance and not be even more likely to try to stay rich and pampered in obscurity in the only neighbouring country likely to welcome them (since, like old Iraq, Syria is largely owned and run by Ba'athists)?
These theories, coincidentally (and conveniently, for Western governments that get a freer hand through making us all scared of our own shadows than they would otherwise get) have the potential to add Syria to the Bush-Blair to-do list as another chaotic dictatorship that might be a pushover for regime change (but also a nightmare for stabilisation afterwards). Because, after all, rollings tanks, thundering helicopters and smart missile raids make for better television than endless, cautious, foot patrols through dusty streets, don't they?
No, in the absence of hard, tangible evidence (rather than the supposition and hearsay that formed the basis of the "intelligence" used to justify the invasion of Iraq) we don't need invent theories to explain what happened to the Iraqi WMDs to explain the observed movement of goods, because there are a whole host of other explanations that are not only more plausible, but which are demonstrably truer - the Italian marble and African gold decking Saddam's palaces must have come ultimately from Italy and Africa. You can't dig it up anywhere else, after all.
The WMDs that we know Saddam used to have need not have gone anywhere, since we have no idea how much he had to start with. We do know that he used some, that UN inspectors found and destroyed some, and that some has been stumbled across abandoned and largely forgotten in deserts since the invasion in 2003.
We also know that Saddam's regime took exaggeration of it's own strengths and capabilities to comical new limits - Desert Storm was going to be "The Mother of All Battles", remember? Am I the only person who recalls the widespread mirth caused in the West by the broadcasts of "Comical Ali" - confidently telling lies so bald-faced that we could do little else but laugh because we knew better?
Given that it certainly seems that the collective intelligence agencies of the West were suckered in by Saddam's lies when we didn't know better, why is it so hard, and why are some people so determined, to believe that Ba'athist boasts really are true?
I find it more plausible that many Iraqis, while maybe believing Saddam's game of bluff might have prevented invasion, would have taken steps to smuggle out valuables, family members or even themselves, and that Syria, being neither hostile to Iraq (as is Iran) nor a close US ally (as are Saudi, Turkey & Kuwait, the other main countries with land borders to Iraq), might be the safest route out without being detected, not least by the rump of the Saddam regime itself.
Plus, for all those suspicious of French links to the Saddam regime, which route do you think they used to smuggle out their bribes and smuggle in the weapons or what-have-you? Direct Paris-Baghdad flights?
Also, all those luxury goods that Saddam and those at the centre of the Ba'athist regime managed to surround themselves with, even during the sanctions regime - how do you suppose they got hold of them? Is it really plausible that they just flew into Bagdhad or sailed up the Sha'at-al-Arab? Or might they in fact have come through a safely obscure land crossing where it was next to impossible to monitor movement of goods and people? Like, say - just as a wildly improbable example - the land border with Syria?
If these (I humbly suggest) perfectly credible routes were already established both before, during and after the invasion, then we don't have to invent theories about how bad Syria is and how they are now the most dangerous country in the world for conflation of the twin bogeymen of WMD and international Muslim-extremist terrorism. The Nazis shifted hugely quantities of looted goods from Germany into Switzerland and elsewhere once it became clear that Allied troops were set on attacking the "Fatherland", even before it looked likely they'd win. And lots of prominent Nazis fled to avoid capture. Very little of these goods, and very few of the people, were being moved as part of a plan to continue the fight after Germany was invaded - it was mostly just people's self-preservation and self-interest.
Was Saddam's regime so much more ideologically-driven than Nazi Germany that they would faviour dogged resistance and not be even more likely to try to stay rich and pampered in obscurity in the only neighbouring country likely to welcome them (since, like old Iraq, Syria is largely owned and run by Ba'athists)?
These theories, coincidentally (and conveniently, for Western governments that get a freer hand through making us all scared of our own shadows than they would otherwise get) have the potential to add Syria to the Bush-Blair to-do list as another chaotic dictatorship that might be a pushover for regime change (but also a nightmare for stabilisation afterwards). Because, after all, rollings tanks, thundering helicopters and smart missile raids make for better television than endless, cautious, foot patrols through dusty streets, don't they?
No, in the absence of hard, tangible evidence (rather than the supposition and hearsay that formed the basis of the "intelligence" used to justify the invasion of Iraq) we don't need invent theories to explain what happened to the Iraqi WMDs to explain the observed movement of goods, because there are a whole host of other explanations that are not only more plausible, but which are demonstrably truer - the Italian marble and African gold decking Saddam's palaces must have come ultimately from Italy and Africa. You can't dig it up anywhere else, after all.
The WMDs that we know Saddam used to have need not have gone anywhere, since we have no idea how much he had to start with. We do know that he used some, that UN inspectors found and destroyed some, and that some has been stumbled across abandoned and largely forgotten in deserts since the invasion in 2003.
We also know that Saddam's regime took exaggeration of it's own strengths and capabilities to comical new limits - Desert Storm was going to be "The Mother of All Battles", remember? Am I the only person who recalls the widespread mirth caused in the West by the broadcasts of "Comical Ali" - confidently telling lies so bald-faced that we could do little else but laugh because we knew better?
Given that it certainly seems that the collective intelligence agencies of the West were suckered in by Saddam's lies when we didn't know better, why is it so hard, and why are some people so determined, to believe that Ba'athist boasts really are true?
If it weren’t for Syria’s past this would almost be laughable.
Here’s where I take issue with all those who still claim Iraq possessed WMD. Why didn’t he use them when we invaded? I’ve heard for two years that he used them on his own people and was a threat to use them elsewhere or could sell them through a connection that never existed to Al Quida. Surely with everything to lose and in an act of desperation or last line of defense Sadaam would have used them on invading forces.
A tangled web of accusations?
Now I see why many of you fell for the chum thrown off the USS Bush. Keep tossing the bait and you’ll find enough fish to win the election.
Here’s where I take issue with all those who still claim Iraq possessed WMD. Why didn’t he use them when we invaded? I’ve heard for two years that he used them on his own people and was a threat to use them elsewhere or could sell them through a connection that never existed to Al Quida. Surely with everything to lose and in an act of desperation or last line of defense Sadaam would have used them on invading forces.
A tangled web of accusations?
Now I see why many of you fell for the chum thrown off the USS Bush. Keep tossing the bait and you’ll find enough fish to win the election.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Oct 19 2004, 08:54 AM)
If it weren’t for Syria’s past this would almost be laughable.
Here’s where I take issue with all those who still claim Iraq possessed WMD. Why didn’t he use them when we invaded? I’ve heard for two years that he used them on his own people and was a threat to use them elsewhere or could sell them through a connection that never existed to Al Quida. Surely with everything to lose and in an act of desperation or last line of defense Sadaam would have used them on invading forces.
A tangled web of accusations?
Now I see why many of you fell for the chum thrown off the USS Bush. Keep tossing the bait and you’ll find enough fish to win the election.
Here’s where I take issue with all those who still claim Iraq possessed WMD. Why didn’t he use them when we invaded? I’ve heard for two years that he used them on his own people and was a threat to use them elsewhere or could sell them through a connection that never existed to Al Quida. Surely with everything to lose and in an act of desperation or last line of defense Sadaam would have used them on invading forces.
A tangled web of accusations?
Now I see why many of you fell for the chum thrown off the USS Bush. Keep tossing the bait and you’ll find enough fish to win the election.
Yeah, I listen to a guy named Mike McConnell on 700 WLW in Cincinnati everyday. He's the most level headed guy I've ever heard because he's strictly a common sense guy (he's filled in for Rush before, but got slammed for not toeing a ridiculous party line). But even HE falls for this mantra. His observation is, "why would Saddam have WMD if he wasn't ready to use them"? But he can't answer the question why Saddam never used them in Gulf war 1.0 when he CERTAINLY had them. This disconnect in itself violates almost any premise justifying the current war. Saddam could've used WMD before and he could have sold them before. But he never did. Obviously, at some point that could have changed, but if you hang your hat onto that theory, then so could Britain or any of our allies. The same amount of evidence supports either - which is none.
Syria doesn't have Iraq's WMD because they didn't exist in the first place. They were either destroyed or died off due to the short shelf life. Syria would not take Iraq's WMD because of the risks. At one point, I thought Syria should be on the radar screen. But not anymore because my opinion is based on the same intelligence services that helped get us into this war and were wrong ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the time. They didn't get one or two things wrong. They got it all wrong.
If Bush isn't lying, then our intelligence services are worthless. So, no way can you assume Syria to be a threat.
1. Is Syria hiding something for Iraq?
Clearly if we are relying on the same intelligence as that which got everyone here to this point, it must be absolutely discarded. Anything that US intelligence comes up with from this point on will be viewed with much scepticism and disdain. That may be quite a loss for the US and the hidden tragedy in all of this.
2. Should Syria be a targeted as a country supporting terrorist, armed with WMDs, ready to take down America, or as just a country caught in a tangled web of accusations?
If the US goes into Syria in the next ten years it will be labelled as an aggressive nation by even its closest allies and you may see many switches in allegiances. WHile no one is a huge fan of Syria, the US lost its credibilty in this ill-advised move into Iraq. Bush may be fiddling while Rome burns.
Clearly if we are relying on the same intelligence as that which got everyone here to this point, it must be absolutely discarded. Anything that US intelligence comes up with from this point on will be viewed with much scepticism and disdain. That may be quite a loss for the US and the hidden tragedy in all of this.
2. Should Syria be a targeted as a country supporting terrorist, armed with WMDs, ready to take down America, or as just a country caught in a tangled web of accusations?
If the US goes into Syria in the next ten years it will be labelled as an aggressive nation by even its closest allies and you may see many switches in allegiances. WHile no one is a huge fan of Syria, the US lost its credibilty in this ill-advised move into Iraq. Bush may be fiddling while Rome burns.
The answer to your questions are inconclusive (in actual WMD context). Though equipment with "dual-use" purposes was certianly shipped to Syria and other countries before the war.
I would like to add some resources because some people are ill-informed on this subject. Instead of providing many links to MSM sources, FrontPage has put together a solid amount of resources to back up the article.
NOTE : Some of the article is conjecture but it does provide many interesting links to examine.
LINK
We did know how many WMD's Saddam had only by what Saddam had declared. The problem is that we did not find all of what he had declared. So that leads to one of three conclusions.
1. Saddam was bluffing
2. They where sold/hidden
3. They where destroyed
Here are the WMD's that where unaccounted for.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/Com...mons-050202.htm
Saddam hiding WMD components is not conjecture it is a fact.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/...irq.centrifuge/
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include...&storyid=670120
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobil...ants/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/...s.ap/index.html
I would like to add some resources because some people are ill-informed on this subject. Instead of providing many links to MSM sources, FrontPage has put together a solid amount of resources to back up the article.
NOTE : Some of the article is conjecture but it does provide many interesting links to examine.
LINK
We did know how many WMD's Saddam had only by what Saddam had declared. The problem is that we did not find all of what he had declared. So that leads to one of three conclusions.
1. Saddam was bluffing
2. They where sold/hidden
3. They where destroyed
Here are the WMD's that where unaccounted for.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/Com...mons-050202.htm
QUOTE
Up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, approximately 300 tonnes of which, in the Iraqi CW programme, were unique to the production of VX nerve agent;
Up to 360 tonnes of bulk CW agent including 1.5 tonnes of VX; and
Over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents;
Up to 360 tonnes of bulk CW agent including 1.5 tonnes of VX; and
Over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents;
Saddam hiding WMD components is not conjecture it is a fact.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/...irq.centrifuge/
QUOTE
(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include...&storyid=670120
QUOTE
"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobil...ants/index.html
QUOTE
Hydrogen Production Cover Story
Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. Hydrogen production would be a plausible cover story for the mobile production units.
The Iraqis have used sophisticated denial and deception methods that include the use of cover stories that are designed to work. Some of the features of the trailer—a gas collection system and the presence of caustic—are consistent with both bioproduction and hydrogen production.
The plant's design possibly could be used to produce hydrogen using a chemical reaction, but it would be inefficient. The capacity of this trailer is larger than typical units for hydrogen production for weather balloons. Compact, transportable hydrogen generation systems are commercially available, safe, and reliable.
Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. Hydrogen production would be a plausible cover story for the mobile production units.
The Iraqis have used sophisticated denial and deception methods that include the use of cover stories that are designed to work. Some of the features of the trailer—a gas collection system and the presence of caustic—are consistent with both bioproduction and hydrogen production.
The plant's design possibly could be used to produce hydrogen using a chemical reaction, but it would be inefficient. The capacity of this trailer is larger than typical units for hydrogen production for weather balloons. Compact, transportable hydrogen generation systems are commercially available, safe, and reliable.
QUOTE
Legitimate Uses Unlikely
Coalition experts on fermentation and systems engineering examined the trailer found in late April and have been unable to identify any legitimate industrial use—such as water purification, mobile medical laboratory, vaccine or pharmaceutical production—that would justify the effort and expense of a mobile production capability. We have investigated what other industrial processes may require such equipment—a fermentor, refrigeration, and a gas capture system—and agree with the experts that BW agent production is the only consistent, logical purpose for these vehicles.
The capability of the system to capture and compress exhaust gases produced during fermentation is not required for legitimate biological processes and strongly indicates attempts to conceal production activity.
The presence of caustic in the fermentor combined with the recent painting of the plant may indicate an attempt to decontaminate and conceal the plant's purpose.
Finally, the data plate on the fermentor indicates that this system was manufactured in 2002 and yet it was not declared to the United Nations, as required by Security Council Resolutions.
Coalition experts on fermentation and systems engineering examined the trailer found in late April and have been unable to identify any legitimate industrial use—such as water purification, mobile medical laboratory, vaccine or pharmaceutical production—that would justify the effort and expense of a mobile production capability. We have investigated what other industrial processes may require such equipment—a fermentor, refrigeration, and a gas capture system—and agree with the experts that BW agent production is the only consistent, logical purpose for these vehicles.
The capability of the system to capture and compress exhaust gases produced during fermentation is not required for legitimate biological processes and strongly indicates attempts to conceal production activity.
The presence of caustic in the fermentor combined with the recent painting of the plant may indicate an attempt to decontaminate and conceal the plant's purpose.
Finally, the data plate on the fermentor indicates that this system was manufactured in 2002 and yet it was not declared to the United Nations, as required by Security Council Resolutions.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/...s.ap/index.html
QUOTE
The nuclear agency pulled out of Iraq in 1998, and by the time it returned in 2002, it confirmed that 35 tons of HMX that had been placed under IAEA seal were missing. HMX and RDX are the key components in plastic explosives, which insurgents have widely used in a series of bloody car bombings in Iraq.
ElBaradei told the United Nations in February 2003 that Iraq had declared that "HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used in quarrying."
"However, given the nature of the use of high explosives, it may well be that the IAEA will be unable to reach a final conclusion on the end use of this material," ElBaradei warned at the time.
"A large quantity of these explosives were under IAEA seal because they do have a nuclear application," Fleming said Monday.
ElBaradei told the United Nations in February 2003 that Iraq had declared that "HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used in quarrying."
"However, given the nature of the use of high explosives, it may well be that the IAEA will be unable to reach a final conclusion on the end use of this material," ElBaradei warned at the time.
"A large quantity of these explosives were under IAEA seal because they do have a nuclear application," Fleming said Monday.
QUOTE
Scott Ritter said all the WMD were destroyed. He was demonized.
I could also counter that by saying Scott Ritter only said that to seek public attention - backed up by the fact that all of the other inspectors did not come to the same conclusion. He reffered to Bush as a "neo-con" subjugating ulterior motives by someone who uses emotion to cloud their judgment coupled with his position in the UN inspection process he was well aware what type of ripples it would cause for his desire to seek public attention. Usually (by todays use of the word) the term is only brought up if they have a hatred for the "evil neo-con conservatives" it is also a term that can loosly be used against Jewish influence in American politics.
The only reason I say this is because I have met Scott Ritter on one occasion and he seemed to me to be that type of person, and normally my first impression of a person are dead on. So in my opinion - backed up by the conclusions of other UN inspectors and my experience when I met him - he was rightfully demonized.
Vampiel, please refrain from double-posting. If you have more than one thing to say, or wish to address different subjects (or people) please find a way to do so in the same post. You also have a 12 hour window in which to go back and edit your posts. I would encourage you to read the Survival Guide to familiarize yourself with the best way to accomplish this.
"A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."[/quote]
Armed with your resources:
[/quote]
I have a Lebanese friend who visits family every year there and he and many people in Lebanon believe that WMD moved over the border to Syria in the weeks before we invaded.
Certainly with no field agents in the right places in Iraq we will never know what was in the trucks and we cannot invade Syria with no proof.
This also puts the lie to the former, Clinton Administration, idea that Iraq and it’s WMD could be “kept in a box” by the international community. Their borders were wide open and literally anything could move across and no doubt did.
Armed with your resources:
- Is Syria hiding something for Iraq?
- Should Syria be a targeted as a country supporting terrorist, armed with WMDs, ready to take down America, or as just a country caught in a tangled web of accusations?
[/quote]
I have a Lebanese friend who visits family every year there and he and many people in Lebanon believe that WMD moved over the border to Syria in the weeks before we invaded.
Certainly with no field agents in the right places in Iraq we will never know what was in the trucks and we cannot invade Syria with no proof.
This also puts the lie to the former, Clinton Administration, idea that Iraq and it’s WMD could be “kept in a box” by the international community. Their borders were wide open and literally anything could move across and no doubt did.
I personally think that they had the WMD's but just moved them.
QUOTE(PlayMaker @ Nov 1 2004, 07:04 PM)
I personally think that they had the WMD's but just moved them.
Playmaker - please avoid posting one-liner posts. They are not constructive and therefore, against the Rules. Please remember to bring substance to the debates. Thanks. TOPICS:
1. Is Syria hiding something for Iraq?
2. Should Syria be a targeted as a country supporting terrorist, armed with WMDs, ready to take down America, or as just a country caught in a tangled web of accusations?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.