BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Weapons inspection find: The plot thickens

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Rev. Wright
23:04 / 16.01.03
UN inspectors find empty warheads in Iraq

Staff and agencies
Thursday January 16, 2003


Eleven empty chemical weapon warheads have been found in Iraq by UN arms inspectors in what may be the first evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime has been lying about possessing weapons of mass destruction.
The 122mm empty chemical warheads were found during a visit by inspectors to the Ukhaider ammunition storage area in southern Iraq, UN spokesman Hiro Ueki said in a statement tonight.

The warheads were described by as being in "excellent" condition. A US spokesman said the warheads had not been previously declared by Iraq, however the US and British ambassadors to the UN reacted cautiously to the news.

According to the Reuters news agency, Iraq has dismissed the report as a "storm in a teacup" over arms that had long passed their sell-by date.

"These are 122mm rockets with an empty warhead. There are no chemical or biological agents or weapons of mass destruction or linked to weapons of mass destruction," Reuters reported the head of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, General Hussam Mohammad Amin, as saying.

"These rockets are expired ... they were in closed wooden boxes ... that we had forgotten about," he told a news conference. He challenged UN inspectors to disprove his claim and described the issue as a "storm in a teacup".

A 12th warhead also was found that requires further evaluation, according to a UN statement which said they were "similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980s". The significance of the find will increase if further tests reveal any actual chemical weapons agents on the warhead.

The warheads were discovered as UN inspectors were looking at a large group of bunkers built in the late 1990s at the Ukhaider facility. The UN statement said the team used portable x-ray equipment to conduct a preliminary analysis of one of the warheads and collected samples for chemical testing, the statement said.

Giving his reaction to the discovery of the empty warheads, the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said it was too early to say if Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions banning it from having weapons of mass destruction.

Referring to the date when the UN inspectors are due to give an update to the security council and report on the cooperation they have received from Iraq, Mr Negroponte said: "We will just have to wait and see until January 27 and then we will take it from there."

Britain's UN ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, was also careful not to overstate the significance of the find. He said: "I think it signifies a certain tension in the air ... the lead remains with the inspector, that is the UK's view." He added: "I think every member of the [UN security] council wants the inspectors to do their job in an intensive way."

There was no immediate comment from the Iraqi side. President Saddam's administration has repeatedly denied still possessing chemical weapons, which Iraq has been repeatedly ordered to give up under United Nations security council resolutions dating back to the Gulf crisis of 1990.

Earlier this month, the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, told the UN security council that his team had yet to find any "smoking gun" or evidence of weapons of mass destruction but the US and Britain have remained adamant they are there.

Mr Blix today described the situation around inspections as "tense and dangerous" and urged Baghdad to cooperate to prevent a US-led war. Inspectors have complained that Iraq has failed to provide evidence of action it says it took to destroy stocks of banned weapons following the departure of previous UN teams in 1998.

Following a new security council resolution 1441, passed in November last year, UN inspectors returned to Iraq four weeks ago.

The United Nations has warned Iraq that a failure to observe its ban on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons will have "serious consequences". The United States is already massing forces in the region for a possible invasion to overthrow President Saddam.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:26 / 17.01.03
The Independent (Friday 17th)

The UN spokesman in Baghdad, Hiro Ueki, said that one of the dozen empty 122mm chemical warheads discovered during an inspection of an ammunition storage area required "further evaluation". But he also said that the UN did not consider the find to be a "smoking gun".

And The Guardian (friday 17th)

"A smoking gun would be if you found a big stockpile with chemicals" an (US- my brackets) official said.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:10 / 17.01.03
My first reaction was 'oh fuck, here we go'. So I'm surprised that the US seem to have been so quiet on this. One possibility I thought of was that they're so dead set on starting the war at the end of January that they don't want to announce that Iraq have broken the conditions before they're ready to attack and things are so far advanced now that they can't get the troops into position before the end of January.

Buy canned goods people.
 
 
rizla mission
14:31 / 17.01.03
The sheer hypocritical absurdity of the serious discussion of the most petty details of this whole Iraq business, whilst North Korea are positively jumping up and down saying "look at us! We're making nuclear weapons!", continues to stagger me into silence.

(Um.. not that I advocate attacking N. Korea or anything of course, but the brilliant timing of their announcements has rendered the already absurd rationale behind the Iraq war doubley absurd, don't you think?)
 
 
persona_o
17:54 / 17.01.03
Of course Iraq has weapons. However, it's harder for the USA to go in now, because the inspectors have proved that... hey! Inspection works! Wasn't it Rumsfeld who said that if the inspectors find nothing, it is proof that Saddam is hiding something? (See this article). There goes that hope.

The bushies have been relying on lies about the inspection process since the beginning.. claiming that Saddam kicked inspectors out of the country, for example. They wanted to go in, take out Saddam, and then find proof regarding weapon violations, after they've installed whatever government (or lack thereof) they wanted in the first place.

But now it seems that these weapons inspections are doing what they are supposed to do; finding suspect weapons, without the need for a bloody conflict. And the states has to stay back and say "Oh... good. You've... found weapons eh?"

This can't last though; how many troops have been deployed... 60,000? More? But the US gov't has to come up with a new excuse. They can't say the inspections have failed.
 
 
Baz Auckland
02:57 / 18.01.03
With all the deployment so far, they'll just invade in the end solely because they've gone through all this trouble preparing for it. I wonder how much all this has cost so far in transport and all the rest for the US military?

I still don't understand how finding empty warheads equals finding anything. Sure if they were full, but...
 
 
SMS
03:21 / 19.01.03
It proves that the report provided was a lie, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. So it doesn't constitute finding anything, really, and I think that's why the administration has been so muted in its response. If we really have set a date for war, I don't think that's going to make our response quieter. It took time before the attack on Afghanistan, but there was no question about that war.

With all the deployment so far, they'll just invade in the end solely because they've gone through all this trouble preparing for it.

Your joking, right? This damned electronic medium makes it difficult to tell.
 
 
SMS
03:46 / 19.01.03
This can't last though; how many troops have been deployed... 60,000? More? But the US gov't has to come up with a new excuse. They can't say the inspections have failed.

What percentage of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction should the weapons inspectors find in order to call it a success?

It seems like President Bush is having trouble accepting that an Iraq with Saddam Hussein as dictator could ever be safe for the world. I think that's the heart of it, and with a policy of regime change, he's more or less said so. If that's the president's goal, then inspections will ultimately fail. Right now, Hussein's power as disctator is dramatically reduced. If we keep weapons inspectors there until he dies of natural causes, then it might stay that way, but that is a kind of minimal occupation few will accept. War isn't a wonderful option either. Aside from the loss of life, installing a new government can be tricky business, and there's no guarantee that it will be more democratic or less anti-American than Hussein.

Let inspectors work for a while and then breath a sigh of relief? Maybe.
 
 
Hieronymus
19:32 / 24.01.03
I'm getting dizzy.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
12:20 / 25.01.03
Absolutely ridiculous. During the lead-up to the first Gulf War the Allies took drugs and things, and had various means of protecting themselves against chemical/bactereological attack, you didn't get John Simpson saying "Well, this clearly shows that America is going to use chemical weapons against the Iraqi's". What next? The top story on CNN being "We've seen proof that the Iraqi army is being given guns. This clearly shows they are going to fight our troops, whereas if they didn't have anything to hide they'd obviously spontaneously die on the spot"?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:32 / 25.01.03
Unfortunately subscriber-only online, therefore no link, but this week's New Statesman has a good Mark Thomas piece on America's own biological/chemical weapons programme, and how much of it's almost certainly illegal.
 
 
John Adlin
18:44 / 25.01.03
Ahhh yes but America are the GOOD Guys.

Latest news was that a handwritten report leaked to the BBC says thet Saddam Has been issuing his troops with Chemical warfare suits.
My initial thought was "How Convinient."
 
 
SMS
02:41 / 26.01.03
I don't know how convenient it is, really. It's unlikely Hussein is trying to help rally American support against him by issuing chemical warfare suits. More likely, he wants to use it as a deterrent. Allied troops may have a significant advantage on the battle field in extreme conditions, but chemical weapons would certainly increase casualties. Iraq might also be using this as a way to rally the citizens against "an evil U.S. invasion" (not at all a quote) by telling them to prepare for horrible chemical assaults. If Husein were a really bad guy, he might even use chemicals against his own people and tell them we did it.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:32 / 27.01.03
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has just issued a fairly damning report on Iraq's "disarmament" . From the transcript I've linked, the following excerpt clearly indicates that Iraq has offered no proof that it has abandoned its chemical weapons programs -

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs
were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about
1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. . .

I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has
declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist. . . .

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as reported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As a part of its 7 December 2002 declaration Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24th of January this year to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared." This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.


This report, coupled with France and Germany's recent counterproductive public assertions that they will in no circumstances support a UN resolution asking for war against Iraq, shows that Saddam has no incentive to cooperate with ongoing inspections regime.

Does this change anyone's mind about military action in Iraq? Thoughts, comments?
 
 
gridley
16:41 / 27.01.03
yeah, Todd, it does make me a little more sympathetic to the war effort. At the very least, it makes me feel somewhat less guilty for being from the aggressive country in this particular scenario.

It would make me feel even better if America got rid of it's own stock of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and such before starting wars over other countries having them.... ugh....
 
 
Baz Auckland
15:56 / 02.02.03
In a bizarrearticle found this morning on the Independent site, it seems like Blair is trying to connect:

a)28 Pakistani men arrested with a "photograph of Britain's chief of defence staff, Sir Michael Boyce, in their possession."
b)The assassination attempt they were plotting
and
c)Iraq

(of course the connection is obvious, right?)
 
 
Hieronymus
11:37 / 05.02.03
US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix
 
 
Baz Auckland
14:20 / 05.02.03
Powell's on TV as I type, giving the evidence against Iraq. I last 2 minutes and shut it off. Even if he's right, I just didn't want to listen to it. grrr.
 
 
netbanshee
14:24 / 05.02.03
If anyone's interested, a few sites I've seen allow streams to the content. There's a local NPR station in Philly that's streaming now. An example is under radio live...

So far there's quite a bit of info being spoken there...
 
 
Papess
15:04 / 05.02.03
Powell has just finished his address to the UN and yeah, the evidence is compelling. Satellite images are quite powerful, especially with collaberating eyewitnesses.

It must be a truly repulsive situation if even Iraqi military officers are willing to reveal top secret information despite penalty of death, to the American government.
 
 
Mr Tricks
15:36 / 05.02.03
Listening to it on the radio makes it hard to "see" some of those visual aids...

Noticed that the UK foreign Minister seemed almost MORE gung-ho than Powel.

Personally I remain skeptical and still wonder whay this info wasn't given to the weapon Inspectors...

Another internet broadcast here.
 
 
Baz Auckland
15:51 / 05.02.03
I couldn't watch the evidence because I feel like I can't trust the USA, which may or may not be a bad thing, but it makes it hard for me to listen to their evidence.
 
 
Jack Fear
16:05 / 05.02.03
Holy shit!

Colin Powell's on the UN floor with a vial of fucking anthrax in his hand!



Didn't they frisk this guy before they let him in?
 
 
Papess
16:23 / 05.02.03
Colin Powell's on the UN floor with a vial of fucking anthrax in his hand!

Jack, I found this very strange myself. The incredible irony in light of the weapons inspections. Was that a little dig?

Just bizarre.
 
 
BrianFitzgerald
13:37 / 06.02.03
Well, I'm convinced. Who needs concrete evidence and/or facts when you've got a nice PowerPoint presentation?
 
 
BrianFitzgerald
13:51 / 06.02.03
Oh, and regarding Mister Powell's possession (flaunting?) of a vial of anthrax...haven't y'all learned yet that it's only bad if someone who's not a high-ranking member of the Bush Gang has/does it? Biological/chemical/nuclear weapons? Civilian casualties in the name of Our Just and Holy Cause? Drugs? All unspeakably evil when possessed or dealt out by people who aren't part of the dominant oligarchy, but necessary tools of government when used by the Inner Party.
 
 
Jack Fear
14:28 / 06.02.03
Yeah yeah yeah yeah, oh my sides, very droll et fucking cetera. Bush BAD, we fucking KNOW, we're fucking PAST that. Now can you get the jerking of your knee under control and say something useful?

Jeezus.
 
 
BrianFitzgerald
16:35 / 06.02.03
"Holy shit!

Colin Powell's on the UN floor with a vial of fucking anthrax in his hand!"

--Yeah, sorry. Tough to keep pace with such useful tidbits of intelligence.

"Didn't they frisk this guy before they let him in?"

--Right. No droll comments. Again, my bad.

"Jeezus."

--So in summation: honest reaction to the topic by people not telling Jack Fear what a brilliant guy he is=bad; cutesy-poo phonetic spellings of biblical characters' names=okay.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:03 / 06.02.03
Sigh.

Yes, that's right, it's all about me, and my ego.
How utterly transparent I am.
 
 
BrianFitzgerald
18:35 / 06.02.03
So the topic abstract says "Keep this thread updated with news and views on this development."

So I make a couple of comments to the effect that
a) I don't believe Powell made an effective argument, and
b) I think it's crazy that Powell can wave around what very well may have been anthrax in front of the UN security council, when most of us can't take toenail clippers on airplanes anymore.

Does this not count as "views" for some reason?

I'm sorry that I missed the memo about how "we" got past the fact that Bush is bad, Jack. I'm sorry you think my writing style is droll (how about if I start my posts with SIGH... or JAY-SIS from now on?). I'm sorry that you can't simply ignore posts that, in your opinion, are not useful.

Please enlighten this poor miscreant. Help me to understand the ways of the world. Please let me know what opinions "we" are allowed to express here from now on. Please teach me the wit and wisdom necessary to use "fucking" three times in one 4-line post. I'm so relieved that nobody ever needs to mention the hypocrisy of the Bush administration ever again; please let me know how "we" realized that that particular concern was no longer relevant.

Apologies to everybody else.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:58 / 06.02.03
I apologize, Hermit.

I'm just in a bad mood today, and your post just read, to me, like boilerplate for ten thousand posts I've read before. And I should have ignored it, and on another day I might've, but today I lashed out instead.

That's my problem, and not yours.

As for my "Holy shit!" comment, I was channeling the spirit of Get Your War On for a moment.

All that being said, I don't know if it does any good to keep picking the same scabs: the "haven't y'all learned yet" struck me (in my predisposed-to-be-pissed-off state) as patronizing. That there is a double standard at play comes as no surprise to anyone: let's take that as a given and discuss how to work within and/or change that framework. Trotting out (frankly dumb) rabble-rousing phrases like "Bush Gang" does not promote a reasoned debate: you're setting up a straw man, a caricature of Evil Capitalists coasting to power on rails greased with the Blood of the Workers.

The truth, of course, is far more complex than that: both sides of the debate, pro-war and anti-war, admit that there's a case to be made either way, that this is not a no-brainer. And I'm in no mood for glib attempts to portray it as such from any portion of the ideological spectrum: the caroion soundbites of the Left are as noxious as those of the Right.

So let's delve into the grays...

You thought Powell's presentation was short on facts, and relied too heavily on SFX?

What facts would you have liked to see? What would constitute a smoking gun, for you?

Or are you disinclined to accept any evidence the administration might present, simply because you distrust the source?
 
 
alas
21:49 / 06.02.03
Or are you disinclined to accept any evidence the administration might present, simply because you distrust the source?

"The first casualty of war is the truth." This administration has repeatedly shaped the facts to fit what they want to believe, particularly the connection to Al-Queda, which many of their own experts still don't credit, let alone international experts: "We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda," said Jean-Louis Bruguiere, the French judge who is the dean of the region's investigators after two decades fighting Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorists. "And we are working on 50 cases involving Al Qaeda or radical Islamic cells. I think if there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever."

Brugiere is the man who warned the US in advance of the possibility of the 9/11 attacks. He is probably the world's leading expert on Al-Qaeda and interntational terrorism. He made this statement in November, 2002, and he repeated it yesterday after Powell's talk. Where are there strong links to Al-Qaeda? Oh Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. It's not that it's impossible for the Bush administration to tell the truth. But it's pretty close to impossible.

W's dad's war against Iraq was a multi-media hoax that purported to be almost completely "clean." It wasn't. The Clinton Administration knowingly bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan it knew wasn't a military installation. The Bushies have been exaggerating and selectively presenting the truth from the beginning, and the person they put in charge of Afghanistan is an employee of American multinational oil concern UNOCAL.

There's a lot of very good reasons to be extremely skeptical of this administration as a source of intelligence, and there's plenty of evidence that the US media isn't asking the hard questions it should be.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:03 / 07.02.03
Soemtimes the instruments of power are sinister and seemingly omniscient. At other times they are just funny. Latest on the UK intelligence report, that Colin Powell held up as proof of Iraq's WMDs? It's copied off the Internet. Rock.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:07 / 07.02.03
Had a brief discussion with insane Iranian housemate and other housemate last night that went something along the lines of-
iIh: "I think we're living in a parallel world"
Me: "Yes, what the fuck is going on? This makes no sense"
oh: "what will you do if conscription happens (no real belief that it ever will)?"
iIh: "Turn around and shoot behind me!"

Sorry about the rot I just had to share that.
Thing is she was serious, definite divide in loyalty going through her head, she's actually started watching the news and listening when I explain left wing vs. right wing politics to her. I'm concerned. She never used to watch the news with me and now it's channel 4 at 7pm every week night.

I think that the above links (and iIh's sudden change in behaviour) conclusively prove that I am in fact living in a parallel world without any sense, this year is getting increasingly surreal, I don't understand why I get out of bed in the morning.
 
 
Mr Tricks
15:47 / 07.02.03
I'm not sure if this has been brought up before... but I thought it worth mentioning



"Five years before Saddam Hussein’s now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld’s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed “topics of mutual interest,” according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. “[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,” Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. “It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.”


No real surprise here... but it's nice to see news of it getting around.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply