Iraq weapons dossier at-a-glance (UK REPORT)

BBC News ^ | September 24, 2002 | BBC News

[MadIvan]

Here are the main points of the government's 50-page dossier evidence against Saddam Hussein, published on Tuesday.

Current position

• Iraq has "military plans" for the use of chemical and biological weapons, even against his own population
• Some weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them
• Saddam is one or two years off building a nuclear weapon
• Iraq has constructed engine test equipment for a missile capable of striking British military bases in Cyprus, Nato members Greece and Turkey and Iraq's Gulf neighbours and Israel
• Saddam has tried to acquire "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa despite having no civil programme that could need it
• Iraq has "tried covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons".
• Specialists have been recalled to work on a nuclear programme
• It has developed mobile laboratories for military use
• Iraq is preparing to conceal evidence of weapons and incriminating documents from weapons inspectors in the future </UL

  Missile programmes

  • Iraq has retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles, with a range of 650km, capable of carrying chemical or biological warheads
  • It has started deploying its al-Samoud liquid propellant missile and extended its range to at least 200km, beyond the 150km UN limit
  • Iraq has started producing the solid-propellant Ababil-100 and is trying to extend its range to 200km

  Saddam's power

  • Saddam has retained authority over command and control arrangements to use chemical and biological weapons
  • Intelligence reports say he may have delegated authority to his son Qusai
  • Saddam does not regard weapons of mass destruction as a last resort
  • Saddam regards the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles as the basis of Iraq's regional power

  Funding

  • Chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programmes are "well funded"
  • Iraq generates income outside UN control to an estimated $3billion in 2002
  • Illicit earnings are used to maintain Iraq's armed forces and to develop or acquire military equipment including chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic programmes
  • Illicit earnings have increased from around $1bn in 1999 to $3bn in 2002

  Iraq under Saddam

  • Saddam uses patronage and violence to motivate supporters and control or eliminate opposition
  • Saddam practises torture, execution and coercion against enemies
  • He pursues a long-term programme of persecution against Iraqi Kurds, including the use of chemical weapons
  • People are arrested and detained for alleged political or religious activities
  • Executions carried out without due process of law with thousands of prisoners executed
  • Women prisoners at Mahjar are routinely raped by guards
  • Prisoners at Qurtiyya Prison in Baghdad and elsewhere left in metal boxes to die if they do not confess
  • Penalties for criminal offences include amputation, branding, cutting off ears and mutilation
  • "Slander" against Saddam results in having tongues removed
  • Some 40 Saddam relatives, including women and children, killed.

[BigWaveBetty]

You're right. I tend to be too optimistic.

How funny, as PM Blair gives his report at the same time c-span is running yesterday's spew from algore.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Thanks for the summary, but we'll still have some RATS who will dismiss it, demanding "hard proof" before signing off on an attack. And the House of Kofi will ignore this evidence, of course.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Thanks for the summary, but we'll still have some RATS who will dismiss it, demanding "hard proof" before signing off on an attack. And the House of Kofi will ignore this evidence, of course.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Oops! Sorry for the double-post. My computer is acting weird this morning.

[snopercod]

Great stuff. Bump!

[BlessedBeGod]

If you check out the forum on the BBC's web page, the Brits are dismissing it, too. They say it's old news, there's no proof, and it's just a cover for the US and UK to get oil.

[Brian Allen]

<< Read that Schroeder will be visiting Blair today.

Hope Tony asks him how come he sold all those chemical and biological weapons to Iraq!

I'd find it very hard not to spit in Schroeder's face for all the insults he's dished out. It speaks badly of Germany that it reelected someone who ran on an anti-American platform. >>

What was that one about leopards and spots, again?

Read one today about a German government member quoted as saying '"we" got rid of the Russians and now we are getting rid of the Americans, too.'

Question: Germany! Does that mean you will refund Our Beloved FRaternal Republic's taxpayers the confiscated Fifty Billion Dollars -- and countless lives -- that "your" getting rid of the Russians cost "US?"

Thank you, OldFRiend.

Thank you, Ivan.

FReegards -- Brian

[pubmom]

Great thread, Ivan!
Tony did a great job laying out the case against Iraq.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

...demanding "hard proof" before signing off on an attack...

This "demand" from the anti-war pro-islamist left continues to perculate while any open minded review of facts demonstrate that:

1) Iraq possesses Chem/Bio weapons
2) Iraq is working non-stop on Nuke weapons
3) Iraq has used WMD's in the past
4) Iraq's WMD program is fundamentally designed to dupe inspectors

My question is what "hard proof" are they asking for? There is no question on the above facts, but it's impossible to demand "hard proof" that he will use WMD's in the future.

[BigWaveBetty]

If you happened to see CNN they showed some of the opposition who questions regime change. "Who is this person that will take over," said the redheaded guy.

Well golly, let's name him/her/them so Saddam can kill them now.

Who are these idiots and how do they get find their way out the door in the morning each day?

[Rocko]

Bump.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

My question is what "hard proof" are they asking for? There is no question on the above facts, but it's impossible to demand "hard proof" that he will use WMD's in the future.

The beautiful thing about being a liberal is that no amount of facts, proof, or incriminating evidence can change their perceptions. During impeachment, someone said that the House Managers could have shown a video of x42 murdering somebody, and the RATS still would have voted to aquit. In the case of Iraq, Saddam could go on TV tomorrow and state that he has WMD's and intends to use them against America, and the left would still dismiss the charges against him as "unproven".

To be a liberal one need have only two things: blinders and a closed mind.

[tomkat]

anyone not already familiar with the area needs to take a good look at the regional map in #19.

aside from taking out a madman, notice that liberating Iraq will nicely bisect the Salami opposition.
someone asked several weeks ago 'why iraq ?', and i replied, in my best amateur tone, 'strategic asset positioning'.

[piasa]

If you check out the forum on the BBC's web page, the Brits are dismissing it, too. They say it's old news, there's no proof, and it's just a cover for the US and UK to get oil.

Well, if that's the case, then the Green Party and liberal Dems can stop the war and simultaneously come out like heroes for unleashing bountiful supplies of energy they otherwise hold hostage...

All they have to do is back Gulf of Mexico and coastal Californina drilling, and nuclear power... and we can all get started by opening up ANWR promptly!

Notice they don't want to go THAT far to stop a war...

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Great point.

[InvisibleChurch]

katiecouric: Besides the above listing, what proof do you have that Iraq is supporting terrorist activities and amassing weapons of mass destruction within its borders?

[Happygal]

Listening to the news here this morning re:the Shroeder meeting with Blair.
Seems to be a lot of speculation now, that Shroeder has been successfully re-elected, he'll capitulate on his anti-War pre-election campaign and now back any US/Britain action against Iraq.

[MadIvan]

If you happened to see CNN they showed some of the opposition who questions regime change. "Who is this person that will take over," said the redheaded guy.

I suspect that's Charles Kennedy - you can find more about him on this thread:

Kennedy attacks 'imperialist' Bush (HOLD MUH LAGER ALERT)

He's a prat, to say the least.

Regards, Ivan

[CharacterCounts]

Seems to be a lot of speculation now, that Shroeder has been successfully re-elected, he'll capitulate on his anti-War pre-election campaign and now back any US/Britain action against Iraq.

No one in the Bush administraion will care if Schroeder capitulates. He is out in the dark and irrelevant and that is where he will stay.

[MadIvan]

Something the Standard picked up about Iraqi weapons that can be used in crop dusters:

A web of weapons deception (MUST READ)

Regards, Ivan