Sign in to follow this  
Rosenberg

Hans Blix's little secret....

Recommended Posts

From - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-...-603370,00.html

From the times on line...

March 08, 2003  

Iraqi drone 'could drop chemicals on troops'

From James Bone in New York

 

 

 

A REPORT declassified by the United Nations yesterday contained a hidden bombshell with the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, suggesting an illegal range that could threaten Iraq’s neighbours with chemical and biological weapons.  

US officials were outraged that Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, did not inform the Security Council about the drone, or remotely piloted vehicle, in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day. The omission raised serious questions about Dr Blix’s objectivity.  

“Recent inspections have also revealed the existence of a drone with a wingspan of 7.45m that has not been declared by Iraq,” the report said. “Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone had been test-flown. Further investigation is required to establish the actual specifications and capabilities of these RPV drones . . . (they) are restricted by the same UN rules as missiles, which limit their range to 150km (92.6 miles).  

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, told the Security Council in February that Washington had evidence that Iraq had test-flown a drone in a race-track pattern for 500km non-stop.  

In another section of the declassified report, the inspectors give warning that Iraq still has spraying devices and drop tanks that could be used in dispersing chemical and biological agents from aircraft. “A large number of drop tanks of various types, both imported and locally manufactured, are available and could be modified,” it says.  

The paper, obtained by The Times, details the possible chemical and biological arsenal that British and US Forces could face in an invasion of Iraq. The paper suggests that Iraq has huge stockpiles of anthrax, may be developing long-range missiles and could possess chemical and biological R400 aerial bombs and Scud missiles, and even smallpox.  

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, told his fellow Security Council Foreign Ministers that the document was a“chilling read”.  

General Powell resorted to reading passages from the paper out loud in the Council chamber. He pointed out that it chronicled nearly 30 times when Iraq had failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate its claims, and 17 instances when inspectors uncovered evidence that contradicted those claims. But his draft copy, dating from a meeting of the inspectors’ advisory board last week, did not contain the crucial passage about the new drone.  

The decision by Dr Blix to declassify the internal report marks the first time the UN has made public its suspicions about Iraq’s banned weapons programmes, rather than what it has been able to actually confirm. “Unmovic has credible information that the total quantity of biological warfare agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax,” it says.  

The report says there is “credible information” indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the war and was never destroyed.  

The paper, a collection of 29 “clusters” of questions for Iraq, offers some reassurance about Iraq’s missing botulinum toxin, which Unmovic believed is “unlikely to retain much, if any, of its potency” if it has been stockpiled since 1991.

Not suprising but very disapointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Underpants Gnome,

These are among those weapons and materials prohibited under U.N.Security Council Resolution 687 (the cease fire resolution from the Gulf War) and subsequent resolutions up to and including Resolution 1441.

Rosenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would the US react if it's WMD were prohibited by a UN resolution, I wonder?

Well I would imagine the U.S. would simply ignore the U.N. in such a case.

If this hypothetical Resolution was a cease fire resolution which the U.S. accepted, then It would be comparable to the situation in Iraq.

Given that both the hypothetical and the real resolution were cease fire resolutions, the U.N. would be perfectly justified in resuming whatever conflict the resolutions brought to an end to.

And as we stand today, I believe the U.N. would be justified in resuming the conflict with Iraq based on these grounds.

Likewise the U.N. in the hypothetical, would also be justified in resuming hostilities with the U.S., though - I would not recommend it.

Finally, I am sorry I misspelled you name. I am an old man given to foolish mistakes from time to time. My apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would the US react if it's WMD were prohibited by a UN resolution, I wonder?
Yeah, and what about those murderers in jail who are denied access to guns.... It's not fair... The guards get guns, but the baby killers don't. The world is such an unfair place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would the US react if it's WMD were prohibited by a UN resolution, I wonder?
Yeah, and what about those murderers in jail who are denied access to guns.... It's not fair... The guards get guns, but the baby killers don't. The world is such an unfair place!

If the world were really that simple (as it tends to be suggested by the media [1]) this could easily turn out as an apples to apples comparison. Honestly I wouldn't touch the Near East with said 10 ft pole, let alone anything beyond that. Nevertheless, everyone who wants to start a war will always find some reasons - that has never been a problem.

[1] In the past, listening to shortwave was the way of listening to views of friend and foe alike, allowing to get an idea of what was really going on. The net can serve the same purpose, but a few MHz are easier to overview than the WWW, at least IMHO...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering what the mighty USA had in mind for those criminal in Tasmania we all know they are terrorists that are masquerading as freedom fighters and does anyone know when the USA will start the War their.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"All you have to do to make the people do your bidding is to convince them they are being attacked, then denounce the protestors for lack of patriotism. Whether a fascist dictatorship, or a democracy, or a communist dictatorship, or a parliamentary government, that is how it works."

-Herrmann Goering

"Those who forget their history are condemned to relive it"

-Santayama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would the US react if it's WMD were prohibited by a UN resolution, I wonder?
Yeah, and what about those murderers in jail who are denied access to guns.... It's not fair... The guards get guns, but the baby killers don't. The world is such an unfair place!

If the world were really that simple (as it tends to be suggested by the media [1]) this could easily turn out as an apples to apples comparison. Honestly I wouldn't touch the Near East with said 10 ft pole, let alone anything beyond that. Nevertheless, everyone who wants to start a war will always find some reasons - that has never been a problem.

[1] In the past, listening to shortwave was the way of listening to views of friend and foe alike, allowing to get an idea of what was really going on. The net can serve the same purpose, but a few MHz are easier to overview than the WWW, at least IMHO...

Well perhaps this is so.

Yet the war has already begun in this case. It began on 9-11-2001. How soon we forget that America is in a war against terrorism. Afghanistan was the first battle and Iraq will be the second.

State sponsored terrorism will no longer be tolerated by the United States.

Rosenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just wondering what the mighty USA had in mind for those criminal in Tasmania we all know they are terrorists that are masquerading as freedom fighters and does anyone know when the USA will start the War their.

Tasmania? What on earth are you talking about?

Rosenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't have oil...

Sivar my friend,

Ah yes the oil. It is said by many this is what the looming battle with Iraq is about.

Yet we should consider that the rich oil fields in southern Iraq were ours for the taking (or keeping to be more accurate) in 1991. As were those of Kuwait. Each were, one could say, already "captured".

Yet we gave them back. Even those of Iraq were returned to the people Iraq. Were oil the goal of the U.S., why would we have done this?

There is no need in the first place for the US or the UK for that matter to spend a single Dollar or a single British Pound, let alone shed a drop of blood, to have the oil in question. They need only drop their support of the Sanctions against Iraq in the Security council.

Interestingly enough, France has oil contracts with Saddam valued by some as being worth $50 billion dollars. Russia has contracts for oil with Iraq as well. However these contracts at present cannot be fulfilled as a result of the limitations imposed by the UN Sanctions and the Oil for Food program. Would anyone care to suggest what is coming next if France and Russia have their way and the inspections continue for four more months? Could it be a demand for the Sanctions to be lifted so that their contracts may be filled?

Yet no one is accusing these nations of being motivated by oil are they? Curious no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"All you have to do to make the people do your bidding is to convince them they are being attacked, then denounce the protestors for lack of patriotism. Whether a fascist dictatorship, or a democracy, or a communist dictatorship, or a parliamentary government, that is how it works."  

-Herrmann Goering

"Those who forget their history are condemned to relive it"

-Santayama

With apologies to Santayama - Must we quote Nazi war criminals to make a point? Were they really so wise? At any rate his words of "wisdom" which you quote are not analogous with the U.S. war on terror.

We Americans need not be convinced we are being "attacked". No fairy tales of Polish aggression are needed here as they were in the Fatherland. We all saw the Jets fly into the World Trade Center Towers on September 11. We saw the buildings fall, the people jumping to their deaths to escape the fires. We saw the three thousand perish. So you see, there is no need to convince us, we are quite certain we have been attacked.

Rosenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would the US react if it's WMD were prohibited by a UN resolution, I wonder?

It would be a strategic decision. The US would have to weigh the actual need to possess WMDs with the probability of the UN being willing to do something about flaunting the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would the US react if it's WMD were prohibited by a UN resolution, I wonder?

Do think Russia, China, and France would vote for such a resolution... (seeing as they all have nuclear weapons, and a veto)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interestingly enough, France has oil contracts with Saddam valued by some as being worth $50 billion dollars. Russia has contracts for oil with Iraq as well. However these contracts at present cannot be fulfilled as a result of the limitations imposed by the UN Sanctions and the Oil for Food program. Would anyone care to suggest what is coming next if France and Russia have their way and the inspections continue for four more months? Could it be a demand for the Sanctions to be lifted so that their contracts may be filled?

Yet no one is accusing these nations of being motivated by oil are they? Curious no?

What a coincidence, Saddam has now called for an end to the sanctions;

Saturday, March 08, 2003

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq  — Emboldened by the latest weapons inspectors' report, Iraq on Saturday called on the United Nations to remove crippling sanctions and ban weapons of mass destruction in the entire Middle East — and eventually in the United States.

The full story can be found here - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80581,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know just lately I have noticed a great deal of people that I suspect are in their early twenties to late twenties having a great deal to say about the defense of their country and eager for a war,I'm not saying it is wrong to want to defend your country,but I was wondering how many of them would be willing to join the military and defended it or is it as usual easy to talk but not willing to do the dirty job.

Or put it another way, how many people in the USA are actually willing to join the military and go into harm's way to attack Iraq and possibly die or is it as usual a great deal of talking but very little doing Where it's easier to let somebody else do their dirty work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosenberg: I suppose this did not happen also ?

Is the American administration so naive in thinking that the average person cannot see through there Double standard and hypocrisy Such as Donald Rumsfeld Business deals with Saddam Hussein.  

http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main....requestid=67568

Such nonsense! But ever so typical of the European Press where journalistic ethics come second to bashing America.

For example; Let us look at the title of the news piece you link to;

America helped Iraq to acquire chemical weapons

By Toby Harnden

Reading that one expect a story describing just what that says - Chemical Weapons no?

However when you read the story, you discover that the US did no such thing;

Fresh details about how America helped to supply Iraq with weapons during the 1980s have emerged with the release of declassified documents from the period.

 

Donald Rumsfeld: met with Saddam in 1983  

The US administration now considers Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction among its justifications for war, but the Washington Post reported that it once allowed Iraq to buy "dual use" items, including some that could be used to make chemical and biological arms.

In addition, William Casey, a former CIA director, was said to have used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs for its war against Iran.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, was also reported to have held a 90-minute meeting with Saddam Hussein in 1983 as a special envoy sent by Ronald Reagan.

The issue of chemical weapons was not raised, although a contemporary intelligence report said the Iraqis were resorting to "almost daily use" of them. The question was mentioned in a meeting with Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister.

According to the Washington Post, documents show that Mr Rumsfeld's "visits to Baghdad led to closer US-Iraqi co-operation on a wide variety of fronts" and the re-opening of diplomatic relations.

Mr Rumsfeld has defended his role at the time. During a visit to Qatar this month, he said: "President Reagan and secretary of state George Shultz asked me if I would take a leave of absence from my business and come in and assist them for a period of months with respect to the problems in the Middle East."

Now we discover they are actually only talking about "dual use materials" and not actual chemical or biological weapons at all. Unfortunately the weak minded among us fall for this sort slanderous news reporting hook line and sinker all too often.

Rosenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosenberg: I suppose this did not happen also ?

Is the American administration so naive in thinking that the average person cannot see through there Double standard and hypocrisy Such as Donald Rumsfeld Business deals with Saddam Hussein.  

http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main....requestid=67568

Such nonsense! But ever so typical of the European Press where journalistic ethics come second to bashing America.

For example; Let us look at the title of the news piece you link to;

America helped Iraq to acquire chemical weapons

By Toby Harnden

Reading that one expect a story describing just what that says - Chemical Weapons no?

However when you read the story, you discover that the US did no such thing;

Fresh details about how America helped to supply Iraq with weapons during the 1980s have emerged with the release of declassified documents from the period.

 

Donald Rumsfeld: met with Saddam in 1983  

The US administration now considers Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction among its justifications for war, but the Washington Post reported that it once allowed Iraq to buy "dual use" items, including some that could be used to make chemical and biological arms.

In addition, William Casey, a former CIA director, was said to have used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs for its war against Iran.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, was also reported to have held a 90-minute meeting with Saddam Hussein in 1983 as a special envoy sent by Ronald Reagan.

The issue of chemical weapons was not raised, although a contemporary intelligence report said the Iraqis were resorting to "almost daily use" of them. The question was mentioned in a meeting with Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi foreign minister.

According to the Washington Post, documents show that Mr Rumsfeld's "visits to Baghdad led to closer US-Iraqi co-operation on a wide variety of fronts" and the re-opening of diplomatic relations.

Mr Rumsfeld has defended his role at the time. During a visit to Qatar this month, he said: "President Reagan and secretary of state George Shultz asked me if I would take a leave of absence from my business and come in and assist them for a period of months with respect to the problems in the Middle East."

Now we discover they are actually only talking about "dual use materials" and not actual chemical or biological weapons at all. Unfortunately the weak minded among us fall for this sort slanderous news reporting hook line and sinker all too often.

Rosenberg

So what do you think they were going to use these so called "dual use materials" maybe to produce good old fashioned American Apple Pie or maybe a machine that can deny it ever happen ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its.fubar my friend,

Here is an article which will illustrate quite clearly what dual use items are and how the fact that these items were sent to Iraq is widely misused and misunderstood by many people.

The Anthrax Slander

Is Saddam’s bio-weapons program our fault?

 

t is a sign that Saddam Hussein has truly entered the pantheon of the world's great evils that his creation is now, in sophisticated quarters, being blamed on the United States.

"We shipped seven strains of anthrax to Iraq between 1978 and 1988," New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof maintained in a recent column retailing the budding conventional wisdom about Saddam's unconventional weapons program: Namely, it's all our fault.

 

America did, in an understandable strategic calculation, back Saddam in his war in the early 1980s with the Ayatollah's Iran, a regime that called the United States the "Great Satan," took hundreds of American hostages and practically invented contemporary Islamic terrorism.  

But to leap from this fact to the notion that the United States aided the Iraqi bio-weapons program is a slander. It is a convenient lie that undercuts the case for war by making President Bush's anti-Saddam campaign seem a fickle bait-and-switch, and bolsters the sly anti-Americanism of so many doves on Iraq.

"I think it's absolute nonsense," Richard Spertzel, the former head of the United Nations' biological inspections team in Iraq, says of the bio-weapons charge. "To help the program implies doing something consciously. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that the U.S. did anything to help the Iraqi biological-weapons or chemical-weapons program on a knowledgeable basis."

The American Type Culture Collection, a Manassas, Va.,-based nonprofit that makes biological cultures and products available for research purposes around the world, shipped anthrax strains to Iraq in the 1980s — providing the basis for the charge that "we" gave Saddam anthrax.

But the culture collection isn't an arm of the U.S. government. Nor did it intend to give the material to Iraq for nefarious purposes. The transfers occurred at a time when anthrax was still primarily thought of as a veterinary disease.

"Anthrax is found in nature," explains Michael Moodie of the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute. "People who want to do research for legitimate medical or other reasons have these strains."

Anthrax is caused by the spore-forming bacterium Bacillus anthracis and infects mostly cattle, sheep and the like, although humans can get it from infected animals.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is common in agricultural regions in South and Central America, Southern and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East — including Iraq.

So it wasn't unusual for Iraq to gather strains of anthrax in the 1980s, as it did not just from the American Type Culture Collection, but also from the Paris-based Pasteur Institute.

One of the destinations for the strains was the University of Baghdad, which at the time, according to former inspector Spertzel, had a solid reputation.  

It only seems scandalous that Iraq got anthrax from a U.S. source if today's attitude toward the disease is projected back 20 years. Anthrax began to secure its association with terror only with the revelation that the Soviet Union had a massive biological-weapons program and the discovery of the Iraqi program in 1995.  

Iraq now maintains that its program used the anthrax strains from the United States, a way to score propaganda points by stamping its terror weapons "Made in the U.S.A." This, however, appears to be untrue.

"I found no hard indication that said that the U.S. strains were used in the program," says Terence Taylor of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a former weapons inspector. "And I'm not alone in that point of view."

All this aside — what if the United States did knowingly advance Iraqi unconventional weapons programs in the 1980s? Would that make it OK for Iraq to have these weapons programs now?

Of course not.  

By pointing out the U.S.-Iraq anthrax connection, doves aren't making a serious policy point so much as reinforcing their attitude to American power, which they consider always in the wrong — wrong when it supposedly gives Saddam anthrax, and wrong when it prepares to take it away.

From -http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry.asp

I sincerely hope you have a better idea now of what the truth about the situation is.

Rosenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know just lately I have noticed a great deal of people that I suspect are in their early twenties to late twenties having a great deal to say about the defense of their country and eager for a war,I'm not saying it is wrong to want to defend your country,but I was wondering how many of them would be willing to join the military and defended it or is it as usual easy to talk but not willing to do the dirty job.  

Or put it another way, how many people in the USA are actually willing to join the military and go into harm's way to attack Iraq and possibly die or is it as usual a great deal of talking but very little doing Where it's easier to let somebody else do their dirty work.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...ields/2105.html

So, according to the above, the US has 76 million men of fighting age and Iraq has 6, it would only take about 15% of this number to be fit and interested in war to easily double Iraq's fighting force.

It's interesting to note that India and China both have populations which far outnumber the US, by roughly 4 and 5 times respectively. Russia's population is roughly half that of the US.

A better measure of military might IMHO is annual military budget, where the US beats all other countries by a factor of 10!

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/milspend/ushigh...hestbudget.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"All you have to do to make the people do your bidding is to convince them they are being attacked, then denounce the protestors for lack of patriotism. Whether a fascist dictatorship, or a democracy, or a communist dictatorship, or a parliamentary government, that is how it works."  

-Herrmann Goering

"Those who forget their history are condemned to relive it"

-Santayama

With apologies to Santayama - Must we quote Nazi war criminals to make a point? Were they really so wise? At any rate his words of "wisdom" which you quote are not analogous with the U.S. war on terror.

We Americans need not be convinced we are being "attacked". No fairy tales of Polish aggression are needed here as they were in the Fatherland. We all saw the Jets fly into the World Trade Center Towers on September 11. We saw the buildings fall, the people jumping to their deaths to escape the fires. We saw the three thousand perish. So you see, there is no need to convince us, we are quite certain we have been attacked.

Uh. Somehow I didn't expect to read something like that here. I have never read more fitting quotes. And it seems you either ignore the point they make (distraction), or you didn't get it.

The deceit in this case is not that someone is attacked, but by whom. There is absolutely no proof that Iraq has anything to do with those terrorists.

The attack should have been a excuse for thinking about politics. And not a excuse for leading war. It is the deceit that war will solve the problem.

Goering was a twisted man, but he was the master of deceit. The master of propanda. Face the truth: evil men are not always the most stupid. However you would like to have it.

cya

ralf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this