So from the Blair Dossier we have photographs of a missile engine test site (page 29 Figure 6 of the Dossier) that clearly shows a new engine test bed constructed by the Iraqi's after UNSCOM had supervised the dismantling of the other two engine test beds. JIC evaluation of the new test bed, based on size and position, indicated that this could be used for testing more powerful engines than would be required for missiles that Iraq would be permitted to retain.

From Dr. Hans Blix's Report to the UNSC on the 27th January we have the discovery in Iraq of 380 rocket engines (sorry got the figure wrong in my post above) that had arrived in Iraq post 1998 in clear contravention of existing UN sanctions. UNMOVIC also found technical evidence of moves on the part of Iraq to increase the diameter of existing Al-Samoud II and Al-Fatah missiles from the allowed 600mm to 760mm - again in clear contravention of a UNSC Resolution that restricts any Iraqi missile to a maximum range of 150km and a maximum outside diameter of 600mm. Documentary evidence is currently in the possession of UNMOVIC that Iraq has carried out a test firing of both missile types at ranges greater than the 150km allowed under UNSC stipulations.

I would venture to suggest that there is not a vast difference between what UNMOVIC have discovered with regard to Iraq's missile programme and the evaluation made by JIC. McGrath of Harlow contends that this does not constitute a counter example - I'd dearly then love to know what would. The JIC evaluation presented by Tony Blair to the House of Commons also predicted the shift by those involved with the Iraqi missile programme from liquid fuelled to solid fuelled engines. 380 of them have been illegally imported by the Iraqi's. The reasoning given by the JIC is that solid propellant affords greater ease of storage, handling and MOBILITY. They are also quicker to take into and out of action and can stay at a high state of readiness for longer periods.

Other inconsistancies include the removal from inspected sites of equipment, decommissioned under UNSCOM supervision, to other locations where the equipment previously decommissioned has been repaired and put back into use - currently the useage of this equipment is still under investigation.

What degree of co-operation is being enjoyed by UNMOVIC is due solely to the current military presence in the region. The cost of keeping them there being marginally greater than if they were quartered in their normal bases.

Still not addressed by MGOH is the request for details relating to governmental interference with UNMOVIC inspections on the part of the USA and UK.

No doubt Saddam's leading apologist will come up with something given time, but I tend to think that nothing UNMOVIC reports, no matter how damning, or no matter how thought provoking, will ever be sufficient.

I would ask JennyO for some examples of US use of weapons of mass destruction please?? Don't trot out Hiroshima and Nagasaki - completely different scenario to what is faced by the world today.