From: "Robert Comer" 

Why am I not surprised...

- Bob Comer


"Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
news:3e53062b{at}w3.nls.net...
> Got this sent to me today.  Posting for interest as part of this overall
> discussion.
>
> By KHIDHIR HAMZA. ( a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program)
>
> My 20 years of work in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program and military
industry
> were partly a training course in methods of deception and camouflage to
keep
> the program secret. Given what I know about Saddam Hussein's commitment to
> developing and using weapons of mass destruction, the following two points
> are abundantly clear to me: First, the U.N. weapons inspectors will not
find
> anything Saddam does not want them to find. Second, France, Germany, and
to
> a
> degree, Russia, are opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq mainly because
> they maintain lucrative trade deals with! Baghdad, many of which are
> arms-related.
>
> * * *
>
> Since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 we have
witnessed
> a tiny team of inspectors with a supposedly stronger mandate begging Iraq
to
> disclose its weapons stockpiles and commence disarmament. The question
> that nags me is: How can a team of 200 inspectors "disarm"
Iraq when 6,000
> inspectors could not do so in the previous seven years of inspection?
>
> Put simply, surprise inspections no longer work. With the Iraqis' current
> level of mobility and intelligence the whole point of inspecting sites is
> moot This was made perfectly clear by Colin Powell in his presentation
> before the U.N. last week. But the inspectors, mindless of these changes,
> are still visiting old sites and interviewing marginal scientists. I can
> assure
> you, the core of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program has not even been touched.
> Yesterday's news that Iraq will "accept" U-2 surveillance flights is
another
> sign that Saddam has confidence in his ability to hide what he's got.
>
> Meanwhile, the time U.N. inspectors could have used gathering intelligence
> by interviewing scientists outside Iraq is running out. The problem is
that
> there is nothing Saddam can declare that will provide any level of
assurance
> of disarmament. If he delivers the 8,500 liters of anthrax that he now
> admits to having, he will still not be in compliance because the growth
> media he imported to grow it can produce 25,000 liters. Iraq must account
> for the growth media and its products; it is doing neither.
>
> Iraq's attempt to import aluminum tubes of higher tensile strength than is
> needed in conventional weapons has been brushed aside by the IAEA's
Mohammed
> El-Baradei. He claims there is no proof that these tubes were intended for
> modification and use in centrifuges to make enriched uranium. Yet he fails
> to report that Iraq has the machining equipment to thin these tubes down
to
> the required thickness (less than one millimeter)! For an efficient
> centrifuge rotor. What's more, they don't find it suspect that Iraq did
not
> deliver all the computer controlled machining equipment that it imported
> from the British-based, Iraqi-owned Matrix-Churchill that manufacture
these
> units?
>
> Mr. Blix also discounted the discovery of a number of "empty"
> chemical-weapons warheads. What he failed to mention is that empty is the
> only way to store these weapon parts. The warheads in question were not
> designed to store chemicals for long periods. They have a much higher
> possibility of leakage and corrosion than conventional warheads. Separate
> storage for the poisons is a standard practice in Iraq, since the Special
> Security Organization that guards Saddam also controls the storage and
> inventory of these chemicals.
>
> What has become obvious is that the U.N. inspection process was designed
to
> delay any possible U.S. military action to disarm Iraq? Germany, France,
and
> Russia, states we called "friendly" when I was in Baghdad, are also
engaged
> in a strategy of delay and obstruction.
>
> In the two decades before the Gulf War, I played a role in Iraq's efforts
to
> acquire major technologies from friendly states. In 1974, I headed an
Iraqi
> delegation to France to purchase a nuclear reactor. It was a 40-megawatt
> research reactor that our sources in the IAEA told us should cost no more
> than $50 million. But the French deal ended up costing Baghdad more than
> $200 million. The French-controlled Habbania Resort project cost Baghdad a
> whopping $750 million, and with the same huge profit margin. With these
> kinds of deals coming their way, is it any surprise that the French are so
> desperate to save Saddam's regime?
>
> Germany was the hub of Iraq's military purchases in the 1980s. Our
> commercial attach‚, Ali Abdul Mutalib, was allocated billions of dollars
to
> spend each year on German military industry imports. These imports
included
> many proscribed technologies with the German government not looking the
> other way. In 1989, German engineer Karl Schaab sold us classified
> technology to build and operate the centrifuges we needed for our
> uranium-enrichment program.
>
> German authorities have since found Mr. Schaab guilty of selling nuclear
> secrets, but because the technology was considered "dual
use" he was fined
> only $32,000 and given five years probation.
>
> Meanwhile, other German firms have provided Iraq with the technology it
> needs to make missile parts. Mr. Blix's recent finding that Iraq is trying
> to enlarge the diameter of its missiles to a size capable of delivering
> nuclear weapons would not be feasible without this technology transfer.
>
> Russia has long been a major supplier of conventional armaments to
raq  --
> yet again at exorbitant prices. Even the Kalashnikov rifles used by the
> Iraqi forces are sold to Iraq at several times the price of comparable
guns
> sold by
> other suppliers.
>
> * * *
>
> Saddam's policy of squandering Iraq's resources! by paying outrageous
prices
> to friendly states seems to be paying off. The irresponsibility and lack
of
> morality these states are displaying in trying to keep the world's worst
> butcher in power is perhaps indicative of a new world order. It is a world
> of winks and nods to emerging rogue states -- for a price. It remains for
> the U.S. and its allies to institute an opposing order in which no price
is
> high enough for dictators like Saddam to thrive.
>
> Mr. Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, is the
> co-author of "Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi
> Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda" (Scribner, 2000).
>
> Updated February 11, 2003
>
>
> --
> Glenn M.
>
>
> "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3e52dd82$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> > news:3e5205fe$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >
> > > He may not have the proof (might have already fired the warheads or
> > > destroyed them) but they don't know that for sure. I get the feeling
> they
> > > are are wanting proof of destruction at a very specific level (e.g.
> "Have
> > > the destoyed all the chem GBU'es we sent them....?" )
> >
> > I don't think so, I think they know something specific and that's
shaping
> > their view of all the stuff they don't know for sure.
> >
> > > > Imagine the administration coming out and saying now
you know what
we
> > were
> > > > so worried about..
> > > >
> > >
> > > True. What's more noone can throw up their arms & go
"ain't nutting 2
du
> > wiv
> > > us" as.....everyone pace G Bush II was involved in
Reagan's love-in
with
> > > Saddam.
> >
> > Doesn't matter, if we view Saddam as our creation then we must view him
as
> > our responsibility now.
> >
> > > No you didn't (thank God). Bizarrely.....that was the French (sell
> > anything
> > > to anyone the froggies...hell they gave/sold arms to the American
> > > colonists/terrorists..).
> >
> > Fine, we bought them from the french for the israelis (it was our money
> that
> > purchased them).
> >
> > > Also I am unaware of Iraq suddenly turning on you &
threatening you
with
> > > those nukes even if they had em. Didn't threaten the USA with Chem or
> Bio
> > > either. In fact no proof they've gone looking for a fight with the USA
> > > ever....
> >
> > He doesn't have to threaten us, he used them on his own people which is
> > something that's really taboo in this country. (we are big on citizens
> here,
> > you don't do that to your own people with our help or our citizens get
> real
> > upset and want it stopped) Having the kurds fleeing into the mountains
as
> > winter set in on national TV right after the Gulf war had a serious
affect
> > on the attitudes in this county about Saddam. Many of us think that's a
> good
> > enough reason to go after the asshole, but we would like to see it
settled
> > with a single bullet.
> >
> > Geo.
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4