Posted on 09/30/2001 6:18:07 AM PDT by vannrox
SADDAM HUSSEIN has directed his top scientists to work exclusively on expanding his chemical and biological weapons arsenal, one of the regime's former senior scientists has told The Telegraph. He said Saddam has ordered the nuclear weapons programme to be shelved because it had proved too expensive. The disclosures by the nuclear physicist, a recent Iraqi defector, will add to the alarm of Western leaders who last week issued a warning of the prospect of chemical attacks on European and American targets. Military experts said Saddam's decision could have been linked to the attacks on New York's World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, which investigators believe were planned years in advance Over the past six months about 3,000 physicists and chemists have been working flat out on secret programmes to develop both toxins and the means to deploy them to lethal effect, according to Dr al Sabiri (not his real name). The scientist formerly worked at the Atomic Energy Organisation in Baghdad, but defected because of his growing horror of the regime. "I created death in Iraq. I had to get out," he said. Details of Dr al Sabiri's defection cannot be revealed because of fears for his safety. "I was asked to examine hundreds of complicated and dangerous toxins," he said. "They were very easy to use to create germs. You could put them in water or steam, throw them in the air or use them in the soil. We developed nerve gas, botulism and anthrax. "One day a light green yellow substance, which was crystallised and packed in tins, arrived. Suddenly intelligence men came in and rushed it away. I later found out they were working on some secret project." All these substances were tested on Iraqi prisoners, mainly Kurds and Shi'ites in Radwania jail, in west Baghdad. The projects are headed by Prof Shaher Mahmoud al Jibouri, a chemist and secret service agent. Senior Western intelligence officers confirmed the experimentation on prisoners. "Between April and May this year, 30 prisoners died after being used in experiments," said one. Earlier this month The Telegraph revealed that at least 20 Iraqi soldiers had died and about 200 were injured after a chemical weapons training exercise had gone wrong. Dr al Sabiri spent five years in the organisation's Neutron Analysis and Activation Department. Scientists, paid about £10 a month, worked exclusively on analysing substances, mostly imported, in order to copy and produce more. Using a small nuclear reactor, they are able to establish the exact composition of a substance. There was a shortage of material, which was why he was told to copy the samples that he was given. At one stage he was asked to reproduce a wax, crucial for use in firing ballistic missiles. This he did with the help of several Bulgarian scientists. "Ballistic missiles," he said, "is just one method they want to use to spread the poisons." More importantly, he said, the regime is currently working on adapting 12 pilotless aircraft, last used in the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s. "Engineers are now working on developing their range. So far they have managed a range of 700 miles," he said. "The planes could easily reach Israel, Iran, Turkey or Saudi Arabia. The idea is to use them to deploy the toxins." Most of the parts, he added, were imported A senior Western intelligence officer said last night that at least 30 front companies, mainly pharmaceutical firms, are under investigation for supplying Iraq. They are based in Italy, Thailand, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates. The companies cannot be named for legal reasons. The defector's disclosures refute comments by Tariq Aziz, Iraqi deputy prime minister, who last week denied that the regime had any biological weapons. Last week Paul Wolfowitz, the United States deputy defence secretary, told Nato colleagues of "the alarming coincidence between states that harbour international terrorists and those states that have active, maturing programmes of WMD [weapons of mass destruction]." American hardliners are said to be keen to attack Iraq as soon as possible, and believe that aerial bombardment is sufficient. British defence advisers, however, have warned Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, against this. It is unwise, they say, while there is no suitable successor to Saddam. One intelligence official added: "The other problem is, we have no idea where Saddam is."
Everyone knows that biological weapons are the poor mans nukes. This shouldn't come as a great suprise to anyone.
Saddam should have been stopped during the Gulf War.
The insanity of this logic has always left me speechless. We don't want to kill one of the most dangerous madman dictators in the history of the world because he doesn't have a successor?
We don't want to "destabilize" the region? YOU CALL THAT PART OF THE WORLD STABLE?
I don't recall that concept stopping the allies from going after Hitler!
I agree with the destruction doctrine. Machievelli says to either be nice or destroy. Poking a stick at a bear is about as stupid as it gets. As for how to keep back Iran, that is the sticky part. An occupation of Iraq would certainly be another Vietnam. So we keep a military presence nearby. Perhaps we could relocate our NATO troops to Kuwait. The Kuwaitis certainly want stability. Then, if Iran invades, we can liberate Iraq rather than occupy. And we cripple Iran if it dares to invade. It would mean brutal civil war in Iraq. But I see no better answer.
It's a gamble. Kuwait would never agree to this unless we open the pandora's box by weakening Iraq to the point of an Iranian invasion. But sometimes, you have to hope that someone will do the logical thing.
The only one who prevented it was Bush I - to protect his "coalition." Bush II is also a big "coalition" man.
And still there are pro-Palestinian Jew-hate'n Freepers like A+Bert who say that we bring it on ourselves. They argue that we're at fault for "starving babies" with our sanctions on Iraq.
Several times I told them that Iraq would go nuclear and threaten the US if we lifted sanctions, and they either claimed it to be an absurdity or acted like it was never mentioned. They just changed the subject. Does not compute…
I understand that reasoning very well. But, I think that the time is near where we will be prepared to install another government in Iraq to counter Iran, possibly putting our military on the line to protect it. I do not agree that, "An occupation of Iraq would certainly be another Vietnam." Saddam rules by force and fear alone. Anti-American protests are staged and attendance is mandatory. The kind of ignorant anger that's nurtured is relatively easy to redirect. I think once Saddam's people fear us more than him, his house will crumble in a heartbeat.
Bingo!! Coalition being the key word.
Consider, why would we need occupation forces? To impose our will on a conquered people. We would have no more success occupying Iraq than Israel is having with the PLO. Iran would support rebel activity, you could take that to the bank.
Nor do I like poking a stick at a wild bear in the woods, which is even more goofy. So, we let Saddam collapse, let the Iraqis work it out among themselves as to who takes control, possibly guide the least evil war lord into gaining control, and if Iran tries to exploit that mess, we liberate Iraq from Iranian attack.
Not to conquer, simply to demonstrate our commitment to Iraq as an independent state to Iran. It may not be the best solution for a number of reasons, but it's at least worth serious consideration. Perhaps some kind of UN presents would be more appropriate, but that brings with it other issues.
I agree that occupying Iraq is not the answer, but I don't think the Israel and the PLO is a good example. A government can probably be conscripted form pro-western formally middle class residents and ex-patriots. I don't sense a large genuine anti-western attitude among educated Iraqis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.