In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms
Then what kind of denial or mental anguish does a person have to be in to conclude this from the above:
...Saddam had retained capabilities that could have allowed him to produce nuclear arms!
Well, yeah, you know, you are right. This particular quote does not prove that those tons of equipment were enough to produce nuclear arms. It does prove that Saddam did violate the UN resolution on WMD technologies, but to conclude that he would have been able to produce WMD one needs some additional information. I kind of assumed that you read the full article in the New York Times and, may be, Duelfer's report. To think about it, I am not sure why would I assume that.
Please give evidence that anybody was saying that Saddam was able to produce a nuclear weapon at the time of the invasion. The idea was not to make sure that Saddam could not produce this weapon right at that moment, but to make sure he could not produce the WMD - period.
Let me offer you an analogy that would clarify the situation for you: imagine a murderer, who is out on parole. Of course, there is a condition - he must not have any weapons and/or ammunition and he must submit to a search every time his parole officer chooses to do so. First, the murderer refuses to be searched. Then he kicks the parole officer from his house. Finally, when the local SWAT storms the house, they find disassembled rifle, few disassembled guns; empty shells, bullets, gunpowder and a press to make gun rounds; they also find some traces of high-explosives and so on. A firearm expert among the police looks at this and writes in the report "it would have taken the perpetrator no more then one day to assemble all his guns and to make enough rounds for all the empty magazines he had".
Of course, any idiot can claim that there was no violation of a parole, since those were parts of the weapon, parts of the ammunition, and, at the time of the SWAT attack - the parolee would not be able to produce an assembled, loaded gun. But, here is the kicker: I do not write for idiots. I count on those who read me to be capable not only of reading Duelfer's report and/ or a newspaper article, I also want those, who can figure out things, for example, those who know that it is possible to assemble gun from parts.
You didn't provide any evidence that Saddam was able to make a nuclear weapon but your original statement was that finding of "high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms" implied that "Saddam had retained capabilities that could have allowed him to produce nuclear arms".
If you can prove that the equipment that is claimed to be have been looted in Iraq after the invasion is to a nuclear weapon as a "disassembled rifle" to a "loaded rifle" you will avoid an obvious conclusion about one of the following:
You know, you should try reading something. Start with that article in the New York Times where they talk about the threat of proliferation due to the described looting, or, may Hitchenson article. It would be the best, of course, if you read Duelfer's report. And I do not mean - read the Cliff notes provided by the New York Times under the heading "the gun was NOT loaded". I mean - the unabridged version. One for adults. Then, try to think about the things you read, but not like a Chamberlain, Kennedy and Kerry, but like a responsible person. Imagine, that you are the President, who has knowledge of history, brains and the sense of duty and responsibility - would you dismiss the possibility of Saddam making a weapon within couple of years as insignificant, or would you see it as warranting forceful action?
And, until you do - try not to use wrods like "brainwashed", "IQ" and "lie" in a conversation. It's just embarassing.
You said that "Saddam had retained capabilities that could have allowed him to produce nuclear arms" because some "high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms" was looted in Iraq after the invasion. Then you said that those "parts" are to a nuclear weapon as a "disassembled rifle" to a loaded rifle.
(You also said that "The New York Times has discovered the WMD" but I will take it to be an emotional slippage on your part.)
You made some statements about the nature of the parts suspected to have been looted in Iraq that unless proven indicate you possess one or more of the three qualities I mentioned in a previous post.
Obviously, since you keep referring me to certain documents, a college-level task of backing up your bold claims with quotes from your sources is not beyond your intellect. The longer you persist in refusing to do so, the more you will substantiate my suspicions with regard to you listed earlier.
It is your turn to show that you are not one of the three unpleasant things I said you probably were by showing us by what nature "parts" that equipment reportedly looted in Iraq was capable of producing were enough to make a nuclear weapon.
I am too lazy to dig up the "unabridged versions", but I'll still be curious to find out who is right (and so are many other readers, I am sure).
Why don't you just give the quotes from the real sources and settle it once and for all? If you actually have read them and they actually say what you claim they say, it can't possibly be that difficult. And that will be the definitive way to shut bulatych up and convince everybody else. Otherwise, it looks like chistyakov's favorite bluff: "Читайте Маркса, там все написано".
No, excuse me, but I am not going to. It is not Marx. It is a small report. And a couple of articles. I am not referring you to a huge volume where one small line or just a page has discusses the issue. I am referring you to the documents that are dedicated to the issue - from the beginning to the end.
You may ask me to provide references, but, once they are given, you can not say "oh, I have no time to browse through this big document, can you, please, point to a couple of phrases I need to know"?
I am challenging your statement that the "parts" that could be produced from the equipment reportedly looted were enough to produce a nuclear weapon. You just made another statement that's not true: the documents you mentioned are not dedicated to resolving this issue.
And I am laughing really hard at how your argument is reduced from "Saddam did not have a gun" to "well, some parts may have been missing!"
Funny. People who would argue that an American citisen who owns a machine-gun without some small part (say, a trigger) still must be arrested - do go on mumbling about how unnecessary the war with Saddam was.
Anyways, I am done here. As arbat would say, let's hope that if someone will ever tries to rape you - there will be one of us nearby. We are not going to wait for the proof that the rapist is potent and ready to go all the way. We will just resque you.
Find a single "argument" I made or changed in this thread with respect to whether Saddam had a nuclear weapon (what you call "a gun") or not.
You refused to prove your statements about the nature of "parts" that could have been manufactured in Iraq, which alone is enough to call you a lier. However you didn't stop there, and went right ahead and started lying about the contents of this thread.
It makes one wonder if you are determined to earn the other two distinctions from the list above too.
Oh, I am sorry. I thought you meant to make an argument that the war was unjustified, or that Saddam did not violate UN resolutions on WMD, or that he was not a threat, or that Bush lied. I was under impression (apparently, wrong one) that you are one of those idiots who print articles "Oh, there were no stockpiles!" and then complain that Bush lied that Saddam was anything more then a nuisance. I apologize.
If all you wanted to point out was that there is no hard proof that Saddam had all the components needed for production of the nuclear weapons up and running and ready for big time right at the moment when war started - then, yes, there is no direct proof. You should have told me from the get go that this meaningless statement is all you wanted to state. I would have given it to you right away.
P.S. Jeez! When dyak said that once the terrorist turns on the clocking device on the bomb - nobody can prevent a murder, because the terrorist has already tuned it on and this action can not be undone, and hence - can not be prevented - I thought that his mental problem was unique...
What's not there? No information on materials, equipment and documentation on WMD production? No mention of how long it would have taken Saddam to start production if the "inspectors" left?
Or you are going to do what New York Times did when the report was first published - "hey, there were no big stockpiles of ready, assembled WMD!"
Then what? You will explain that every word "big", "ready" and "assembled" counts? Look, I have been having this discussion too many times. People like you are never satisfied. I can point to the bodies of those who were slaughtered by SAddam's chemical weapons and you will claim that there were no weapons. I can point to some munitions with Sarin found in Iraq, and you will say "oh, come on, this is just one shell - it's there by accident. May be it fell of a turnip truck!" I am showing you an article, that describes equipment - not just some dual-use things, but something that when lost, makes UN inspectors talk about threat to non-proliferation - and yet you insist that may be, just may be, some small detail is missing.
Who the fuck cares? If a murderer in the example above claimed that couple of screws and a pin from the trigger assembly is missing - would you say "oh, that's a whole different thing! Of course, then this is not a gun! It is 100% safe and there is no violation of a parole, you are free to do whichever you were doing with that lathe and drill and whatever equipment you have".
Anyways, I am not able to change your convictions. You think that Saddam had no WMDs and was not even remotely close to making them and nobody will convince you otherwise. Idiot or not, you are a true believer. I know better then to argue with one. No, strike that - I should have known better.
What's up with the rants, mon? I don't have any convictions, and I have nothing invested in this argument. I just asked for supporting evidence. I'm sure I can go out and get it myself: read this article and that, or else go to Iraq and do my own investigations, but I really don't care enough for any of it. I am just an innocent passerby, curious as to which one of you two is right. If you're right, so much the better - give those damn quotes and I'll be the first to applaud you and boo Bulatych.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
When NYT says this:Then what kind of denial or mental anguish does a person have to be in to conclude this from the above:No, seriously.
no subject
No, seriously.
no subject
I know you're good at assuming but prove for once you're good at thinking too.
no subject
Let me offer you an analogy that would clarify the situation for you: imagine a murderer, who is out on parole. Of course, there is a condition - he must not have any weapons and/or ammunition and he must submit to a search every time his parole officer chooses to do so.
First, the murderer refuses to be searched. Then he kicks the parole officer from his house. Finally, when the local SWAT storms the house, they find disassembled rifle, few disassembled guns; empty shells, bullets, gunpowder and a press to make gun rounds; they also find some traces of high-explosives and so on. A firearm expert among the police looks at this and writes in the report "it would have taken the perpetrator no more then one day to assemble all his guns and to make enough rounds for all the empty magazines he had".
Of course, any idiot can claim that there was no violation of a parole, since those were parts of the weapon, parts of the ammunition, and, at the time of the SWAT attack - the parolee would not be able to produce an assembled, loaded gun. But, here is the kicker: I do not write for idiots. I count on those who read me to be capable not only of reading Duelfer's report and/ or a newspaper article, I also want those, who can figure out things, for example, those who know that it is possible to assemble gun from parts.
Some conclusions
You didn't provide any evidence that Saddam was able to make a nuclear weapon but your original statement was that finding of "high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms" implied that "Saddam had retained capabilities that could have allowed him to produce nuclear arms".
If you can prove that the equipment that is claimed to be have been looted in Iraq after the invasion is to a nuclear weapon as a "disassembled rifle" to a "loaded rifle" you will avoid an obvious conclusion about one of the following:
1. You are a lier.
2. You have an extremely low IQ.
3. You are brainwashed to insanity.
Re: Some conclusions
Start with that article in the New York Times where they talk about the threat of proliferation due to the described looting, or, may Hitchenson article. It would be the best, of course, if you read Duelfer's report. And I do not mean - read the Cliff notes provided by the New York Times under the heading "the gun was NOT loaded". I mean - the unabridged version. One for adults. Then, try to think about the things you read, but not like a Chamberlain, Kennedy and Kerry, but like a responsible person. Imagine, that you are the President, who has knowledge of history, brains and the sense of duty and responsibility - would you dismiss the possibility of Saddam making a weapon within couple of years as insignificant, or would you see it as warranting forceful action?
And, until you do - try not to use wrods like "brainwashed", "IQ" and "lie" in a conversation. It's just embarassing.
No, seriously.
Re: Some conclusions
I can lead a camel to water...
Re: I can lead a camel to water...
You said that "Saddam had retained capabilities that could have allowed him to produce nuclear arms" because some "high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms" was looted in Iraq after the invasion. Then you said that those "parts" are to a nuclear weapon as a "disassembled rifle" to a loaded rifle.
(You also said that "The New York Times has discovered the WMD" but I will take it to be an emotional slippage on your part.)
You made some statements about the nature of the parts suspected to have been looted in Iraq that unless proven indicate you possess one or more of the three qualities I mentioned in a previous post.
Obviously, since you keep referring me to certain documents, a college-level task of backing up your bold claims with quotes from your sources is not beyond your intellect. The longer you persist in refusing to do so, the more you will substantiate my suspicions with regard to you listed earlier.
Re: I can lead a camel to water...
Re: I can lead a camel to water...
It is your turn to show that you are not one of the three unpleasant things I said you probably were by showing us by what nature "parts" that equipment reportedly looted in Iraq was capable of producing were enough to make a nuclear weapon.
no subject
Why don't you just give the quotes from the real sources and settle it once and for all? If you actually have read them and they actually say what you claim they say, it can't possibly be that difficult. And that will be the definitive way to shut
Otherwise, it looks like
no subject
You may ask me to provide references, but, once they are given, you can not say "oh, I have no time to browse through this big document, can you, please, point to a couple of phrases I need to know"?
no subject
no subject
Funny. People who would argue that an American citisen who owns a machine-gun without some small part (say, a trigger) still must be arrested - do go on mumbling about how unnecessary the war with Saddam was.
Anyways, I am done here. As
no subject
You refused to prove your statements about the nature of "parts" that could have been manufactured in Iraq, which alone is enough to call you a lier. However you didn't stop there, and went right ahead and started lying about the contents of this thread.
It makes one wonder if you are determined to earn the other two distinctions from the list above too.
no subject
If all you wanted to point out was that there is no hard proof that Saddam had all the components needed for production of the nuclear weapons up and running and ready for big time right at the moment when war started - then, yes, there is no direct proof. You should have told me from the get go that this meaningless statement is all you wanted to state. I would have given it to you right away.
P.S. Jeez! When
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
So you are not him? Or this is an extreme case of split personality disorder?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Or you are going to do what New York Times did when the report was first published - "hey, there were no big stockpiles of ready, assembled WMD!"
Then what? You will explain that every word "big", "ready" and "assembled" counts? Look, I have been having this discussion too many times. People like you are never satisfied. I can point to the bodies of those who were slaughtered by SAddam's chemical weapons and you will claim that there were no weapons. I can point to some munitions with Sarin found in Iraq, and you will say "oh, come on, this is just one shell - it's there by accident. May be it fell of a turnip truck!" I am showing you an article, that describes equipment - not just some dual-use things, but something that when lost, makes UN inspectors talk about threat to non-proliferation - and yet you insist that may be, just may be, some small detail is missing.
Who the fuck cares? If a murderer in the example above claimed that couple of screws and a pin from the trigger assembly is missing - would you say "oh, that's a whole different thing! Of course, then this is not a gun! It is 100% safe and there is no violation of a parole, you are free to do whichever you were doing with that lathe and drill and whatever equipment you have".
Anyways, I am not able to change your convictions. You think that Saddam had no WMDs and was not even remotely close to making them and nobody will convince you otherwise. Idiot or not, you are a true believer. I know better then to argue with one. No, strike that - I should have known better.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2005-03-22 05:58 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
Re: Some conclusions