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...
You said, "I am sorry", "I apologize", and "there is no hard proof that Saddam had all the components needed for production of the nuclear weapons".
Are you saying that Saddam's regime did not have a capability, and, specifically, parts to produce a nuclear weapon, and that the New York Times did not discover any WMDs?
To help you I will quote the "Duelfer report" (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html#sect2) that you referred to in general so often but never in specific details. Some excerpts:
ISG, however, has uncovered no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapon research and development activities since 1991.
Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991.
ISG has uncovered no information to support allegations of Iraqi pursuit of uranium from abroad in the post-Operation Desert Storm era.
Iraq did not reconstitute its indigenous ability to produce yellowcake.
Post-1991, Iraq had neither rebuilt any capability to convert uranium ore into a form suitable for enrichment nor reestablished other chemical processes related to handling fissile material for a weapons program.
Available evidence leads ISG to judge that Iraq’s development of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment essentially ended in 1991.
It does not appear that Iraq took steps to advance its pre-1991 work in nuclear weapons design and development.
Iraq was ordered to destroy all its programs, materials and documentation. Not merely to stop further development. The idea was not to punish them by moving their buck few fields back in some nuclear Monopoly-like game, but to deny them any chance of having those weapons. Nevertheless, they managed to retain documentation along with some equipment - enough to make UN worry about possible proliferation after it was looted.
On adoption of Resolution 687, work ceased on the test cascade, and the Iraqi Concealment Committee took the decision to hide documents and equipment regarding gas centrifuge research from the UN. ISG analysis suggests that this was motivated by a desire to restart gas centrifuge research and production at a time when sanctions were lifted. However, by late-1991 the IAEA was actively removing and destroying the majority of Iraq's centrifuge research program.
A senior Iraqi nuclear scientist recalled that one of the committee's first decisions was to hide both the EDC's Rashdiyah and Al Furat facilities and strip all nuclear-related material from them. The SSO was responsible for the removal and packaging of EDC documents and equipment.
The scientist also revealed that Iraq intended to build a 100-machine cascade when sanctions were lifted and that the EDC documents and components collected by the SSO in 1991 were to be used in this effort (see Figure 11).
In a separate action, Husayn Kamil ordered the retention of at least one copy of all nuclear-related documents and some centrifuge components by a senior nuclear scientist. In 1995, following Husayn Kamil's defection, the IAEA seized a number of WMD-related documents and items of equipment from the Haidar Chicken Farm. The equipment seized included spools of high tensile, carbon fiber, and other centrifuge-associated components.
In 2003, Al 'Ubaydi publicly revealed that he had retained centrifuge-related equipment and documents at his home throughout the 1990s and during many UN inspections. Al 'Ubaydi stated that this had been done in response to Husayn Kamil's order to keep a copy of all centrifuge-related documents.
You say that Iraq was half-disarmed, where we say it was half-armed. You are trying to make a point that Saddam did not have a gun ready, assembled and loaded, while our point is that - if Saddam did have it ready - it would have been too late. He was ordered not to have gun at all. Not disassembled, not unloaded, not just some components, not even a drawing of a gun. Half-disarmed was half-armed more then tolerable.
Your point thus - is meaningless. Just as we told you before.
P.S. Problem is - your favorite political party does accept this absolutist attitude toward disarmament. However, only when taking away guns from the American citizens. Then, of course, owning a 15-round magazine is a crime and all liberals need no explanations to see it this way. Of course, that is when we talk about a machine gun and a Joe Sxipack. When we talk about Saddam and WMD - hey, so what that he had hidden it! He did not start new development, right?
What "I say" and "my point" are abundantly clear unless you think that "no" and "not" mean "some" and "a little". Read my quotes again slowly. The "Duelfer report" you so wanted me to read says that Iraq was DISARMED (no nuclear arms), DID NOT have parts or materials to build nuclear weapons and DID NOT resume its nuclear program.
If after reading these quotes you still say my point was Iraq was "half-disarmed" and had the "gun" disassembled, you have a reading disability.
You original point was that the "Duelfer report" proved that Saddam was armed or half-armed. A few posts back I read the report out loud to you to show that you lied or was mistaken. Pick one.
Bull. It says that Iraq did not resume production and did not advance further. That was your quote. My quote shows that they have hidden what they had and intended to resume as soon as the inspectors are out. Besides, it is not too hard to realize that if Iraq WAS disarmed, there would be nothing dangerous to loot.
You have a peculiar mental block that we would have been happy to explore if we were psychiatrists. XIX century psychiatrists to be precise.
ISG, however, has uncovered no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapon research and development activities since 1991.
Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991.
Post-1991, Iraq had neither rebuilt any capability to convert uranium ore into a form suitable for enrichment nor reestablished other chemical processes related to handling fissile material for a weapons program.
Iraq did not resume, did not advance, did not have, did not rebuild, did not reestablish, and did not reconstitute. Do you understand English? Iraq's capacity was wiped out and it was not rebuilt. Iraq did not have a capacity.
Not only do your quotes prove nothing but they are also related to pre-1991, and my quotes are post-1991. Why don't you name the source and give some dates too?
Do you understand that looting is dangerous because some parts that are useless in themselves can be useful to a third party outside Iraq with a nuclear program that is underway?
Your last paragraph is so pathetic in the face of the overwhelming evidence that you either lied or don't understand a thing about WMDs in Iraq that I will just let you continue to make a laughing stock of yourself.
Look, as I said - mental block. All your quote says - there was no new development, there was no ready device. So?
Ah, I see - you think that Iraq's capacioty was wiped out. WHEN? By WHOM? Who told you that? Now, try to think, as painful as it is:
Bush 41-st did not "wipe out" anything. In the report you can read about Iraq making an attempt to continue building nuclear weapons after the Gulf War, but before the UN resolution prohibiting it.
UN inspectors did not "wipe out". They claimed they never came across anything to wipe
Bill Clinton did not wipe out - at least, he never claimed that he was even close. He, however, insisted, that there was no wiping and demanded from Iraq to do it
John Kerry claimed that there was not wiping and said in 1997 that we must go in and wipe even without allies.
Duelfer (and Kay) talk about hiding enough to be able to restore the programs. They never say that the programs were "wiped out".
Recently the equipement that you consider wiped - was looted. If you missed the rest of the history, if you were too young then, can I at least hope that you were not literally born yesterday and that you still remember events that happened last week? Do you realize - it is not possible to steal something that had been wiped out many years ago?
Anyway. Every single time we promise everyone in sight that we wioll not argue with "what the meaning of is was" crowd. Every single time we get suckered in. Every single time we regret doing it. So long.
The "Duelfer report" (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html#sect2):
Following the invasion of Kuwait, nearly all of the key nuclear facilities—those involved in the processing of nuclear material or weapons research—were bombed during Desert Storm.
Large quantities of EMIS equipment were unburied and delivered to IAEA for destruction later that year.
After the seizure of documents pertaining to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program in late September 1991, the Iraqis admitted to the existence of the Al Athir. The facility was destroyed by IAEA in April-June 1992.
Iraq resisted a more comprehensive disclosure of its nuclear program until after the defection of Husayn Kamil in August 1995, when a large collection of centrifuge and nuclear program documents and equipment was given to UNSCOM and IAEA.
Efforts that could preserve the progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war included keeping the nuclear cadre engaged in a variety of projects, such as rebuilding of Iraq’s infrastructure. However, the nuclear program was ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.
See, I give sources and links, and everything I say is supported by evidence.
Why did you lie that Duelfer "talks about hiding enough to be able to restore the programs" and "never says that the programs were "wiped out"? Why did you lie that "UN inspectors did not "wipe out", and "claimed they never came across anything to wipe"?
Ok, look, as I said - I have no desire to discuss it further. You apparently can not tell the difference between program stopped and program destroyed. Well, what can I possibly do?
If you insist that all the WMD programs were demolished - more power to you. Of course, you would have to beleive that the ONLY reason that Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 (it was in 1998, right?) was to distract the nation from Lewinsky scandal, that when Kerry suggested in 1997 we must go in Iraq and force it to disarm - he knowingly lied, that UN issued multiple resolution, demanding Iraq to be disarmed for no reason whatsoever and that New York Times publishes absolutely not credible stories about looting of equipment that could be used for nuclear weapons production - stories, that are obviously lies - but, hey, a true believer is a true believer.
The second paragraph is entirely your concoction. Don't attribute it to me.
I state and the evidence given supports it that the US and the UN inspectors destroyed or ended all of the significant Iraq's effort to develop nuclear weapons after 1991. A thorough investigation conducted in the two years following the American invasion in 2003 confirmed that Saddam's nuclear effort and facilities were non-existent.
Could Saddam rebuild his nuclear capacity from scratch if he was left alone? Yes, he could but it would take him many years in the ideal conditions whereas no country would interfere with his effort. Nevertheless, the argument is not about the expediency of the American invasion but about establishment of a specific fact of whether Saddam's nuclear capabilities were destroyed after 1991 and were found to be so after 2003. The answer is yes.
As for why the looting of some parts in recent weeks can be of proliferation significance even though Saddam's nuclear capabilities were destroyed and these parts could not be used by Saddam to develop a nuclear weapon, I explained it earlier. A third party that has an ongoing nuclear program could use these parts to build on the foundation it already has. Any such possibility is of proliferation significance.
Bullshit. The only way you can claim that Saddam could not use that equipment for production, while someone else could - is if that someone else is better equipped then Saddam. Do you mind telling me - who do you have in mind?
Separately, here is a good advice: open up dictionary, find the words "to end" and "to destroy" and find their meaning. It seems that you really think those are synonyms. There is a difference there, that may seem hard to grasp at first, but with time and effort - you may get it. Also, read carefully the part of the report that I quoted and think as hard as you can about the meaning of the pieces I emphasized with the bold font.
I can claim that Saddam could not use that equipment for production, while someone else could exactly because that "equipment" or "parts" were the only things left. Everything else was destroyed.
Prove here and now that the "parts" in question are critical or even significant for rebuilding a nuclear capability or refute the Duelfer report's account of how Saddam's nuclear capability was destroyed after 1991.
Material things were destroyed and human efforts ended as the Duelfer report, which you like to refer to but never quote, proves beyond doubt. Do you understand what "destroyed" and "ended" mean now?
Bullshit. Destroyed by whom? Not by USA, since USA did not destroy much after 1991. Not by UN inspectors since they did not destroy a single thing. Not by Saddam, since he did not show any shred of evidence of an act of destruction. Duelfer report mentions some things that were destroyed in 1991. He also talks about programs stopped and materials hidden. He talks about attempts to preserve key elements in order to resume programs after the end of inspections. Me thinks you have some sort of automatical shutdown switch in your brain that activates as soon as you eyes see a phrase like this.
Your claim that besides some equipement left, everything else was destroyed - is the best one I have heard after "it's not over till it's over".
Everything was destroyed except what was left. Yep. It's winner.
Destroyed by whom? Not by USA, since USA did not destroy much after 1991. Not by UN inspectors since they did not destroy a single thing. Not by Saddam, since he did not show any shred of evidence of an act of destruction.
I can give you evidence for as long as it takes for meaning to transpire in your brain.
Following the invasion of Kuwait, nearly all of the key nuclear facilities—those involved in the processing of nuclear material or weapons research—were bombed during Desert Storm.
Large quantities of EMIS equipment were unburied and delivered to IAEA for destruction later that year.
After the seizure of documents pertaining to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program in late September 1991, the Iraqis admitted to the existence of the Al Athir. The facility was destroyed by IAEA in April-June 1992.
Iraq resisted a more comprehensive disclosure of its nuclear program until after the defection of Husayn Kamil in August 1995, when a large collection of centrifuge and nuclear program documents and equipment was given to UNSCOM and IAEA.
Your claim that besides some equipement left, everything else was destroyed - is the best one I have heard after "it's not over till it's over".
Here is what I said:
As for why the looting of some parts in recent weeks can be of proliferation significance even though Saddam's nuclear capabilities were destroyed and these parts could not be used by Saddam to develop a nuclear weapon, I explained it earlier. A third party that has an ongoing nuclear program could use these parts to build on the foundation it already has. Any such possibility is of proliferation significance.
Tell me, if someone tells you that he had lost a tooth, does it mean that you are going to be convinced that this person has no teeth at all? Well, ok, I am going to be fair. Not one tooth. Ten! Ten teeth! Imagine that someone shows you ten teeth lying neatly on the table - will you consider this a proof that the guys has no teeth remaining? Well, if that is the case, I have a nice bridge for sale and it is a bargain!
As a result of Desert Storm and IAEA inspection efforts, Iraq’s indigenous yellowcake production capability appears to have been eliminated.
Bomb damage in 1991 destroyed the uranium extraction facility at the Al-Qa’im Superphosphate Fertilizer Plant.
During the years of intrusive inspections, the IAEA also closed and sealed the Abu Skhair mine to curtail Iraq’s secondary pilot plant production capability for acquiring uranium.
As a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and its aftermath, much of Iraq’s residual potential uranium conversion capability was destroyed.
Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991.
I've given you plenty of evidence that Iraq's nuclear capability was destroyed by 2003. If you want I can continue to give this evidence to you because I understand it may time to sink in. You will go on talking about teeth and I will go on give you evidence and quotes.
However, if you don't want to look like a complete fool when you try to say Iraq had any part of its nuclear capability left that was of meaningful threat by 2003, the onus is on you tell me exactly what part it was and why it constituted threat. Go ahead. Until then it's either ignoramus or lier.
As a result of Desert Storm and IAEA inspection efforts, Iraq's indigenous yellowcake production capability appears to have been eliminated.
The meaning of this statement is that it seems that Iraq lost one of the possible sources of fission materials
Bomb damage in 1991 destroyed the uranium extraction facility at the Al-Qa'im Superphosphate Fertilizer Plant.
Translation: certain facility was destroyed. Not "all of them". Not "majority of them". No. Just one.
During the years of intrusive inspections, the IAEA also closed and sealed the Abu Skhair mine to curtail Iraq's secondary pilot plant production capability for acquiring uranium.
Now, this phrase not only talks about closing just one mine, it also uses the word "to curtail" which does not mean "to eliminate", but specifically "to reduce". There is a huge difference between the "elimination" and "reduction".
As a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and its aftermath, much of Iraq's residual potential uranium conversion capability was destroyed.
Now, this one is a beauty. Of course, if only you knew that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was not a part of 1991 Gulf War, but that it is the name of the war of 2003 - you would have never used this quote to prove your point. Hey, tell me, smart guy, how come we managed to destroy "residual potential uranium conversion capability" if, according to you - there was NOTHING left? Do you understand the meaning of the words "residual", "potential" and "capability"? Do you understand that they mean "something that was still there that could have been used..."?
Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991.
Again, translation: Iraq did not have a nuclear bomb ready (which nobody ever claimed that he did) and it did not try to restore what was destroyed. Which does not mean "Iraq did not try to preserve" what was left. Remember my teeth analogy? When someone looses 10 teeth and does not try to get implants - it does not mean that he lost all teeth, and it does not mean that he is not trying to save the 18 teeth that he kept.
Now, your "evidence", as I said, is not an evidence that all Iraqi WMD capabilities were destroyed by 2003. It is an evidence that you can not read or can not comprehend what you read. I am not sure how you could possibly pass SAT exam (that is - if you did) if you can not tell the difference between "it appears we destroyed some" and "we definitely destroyed all". You even manage to post a quote about something being destroyed during the war of 2003 to prove that it was destroyed before the war of 2003!
I am quite done here. You see, my ability to prove something relies on an ability of my opponent to comprehend.
You fall into the same trap again and again. You so want to prove that Iraq had a nuclear capability by 2003 that you highlight my words without reading them.
I purposefully quoted the Duelfer report that said that Operation Iraqi Freedom destroyed much of Iraq's residual potential uranium conversion capability. One of the reasons for starting the war was the view that some capacity in Iraq could potentially be used for developing a nuclear weapon, and that is why during the war most of that capacity was destroyed. When investigators went in after the war they found that the destroyed capacity was negligible, which is specified in the Duelfer report (http://www.livejournal.com/users/cema/180566.html?thread=1062486#t1062486).
Of course, Iraq had something left by 2003, some "residual" capacity, and I have said it all along. However, the Duelfer report does not say once that this capacity was significant and could be used by Saddam to develop a nuclear weapon. That is what I am arguing here too: by 2003 there was no meaningful nuclear capacity in Iraq because it was either destroyed in the first Gulf War or by international inspectors. The Duelfer report supports this view.
You, however, in spite of all the evidence and numerous quotes, continue to claim that something was left in Iraq by 2003 that constituted a serious nuclear threat and was a meaningful capacity. You did not prove it, did not give evidence, did not name any source. Sounds like empty talk but I am willing to continue to stick your nose in it.
One more time: you claim that Iraq had a nuclear capacity by 2003. You didn't give one piece of evidence, you did not describe the nature of that capacity, you did not quote one source. If you don't prove what you have carelessly and persistently said for so long, you are either an ignoramus or a lier. Go ahead, I am waiting.
First, I have to admit, you showed courage in admitting that at least until 2003 it was not known if Saddam disarmed. I did not know you were capable of admitting that whatever the reality was, Bush had all the good reasons to attack.
Second, you will have to forgive me, but I am afraid that you will go back and claim that even before 2003 it was clear that Saddam was 100% harmless. In this case, I shall repeat the question: why did Clinton bomb Iraq?
Please get it. Make your best effort and get it: I am not discussing reasons for bombing Iraq, or invading Iraq, or hating Iraq, or loving Iraq. I am not discussing Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Saddam Hussein or George Bush. Focus. Think. Do your best thinking. Try.
I am discussing the establishment of a simple fact: did Iraq have any meaningful nuclear capability from 1991 to 2003 or not. You claimed boldly that it did. I proved thoroughly and exhaustively that it did not.
If you can't counter my arguments, say so but don't digress because it's useless: I am not going to bite.
What you proved is that you can not tell the difference between phrases "some programs were stopped, some hidden and we can not find evidence that any program continued" and the phrase "all programs were destroyed".
![[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
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
Are you saying that Saddam's regime did not have a capability, and, specifically, parts to produce a nuclear weapon, and that the New York Times did not discover any WMDs?
no subject
will this clarify our position?
no subject
To help you I will quote the "Duelfer report" (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html#sect2) that you referred to in general so often but never in specific details. Some excerpts:
no subject
You say that Iraq was half-disarmed, where we say it was half-armed. You are trying to make a point that Saddam did not have a gun ready, assembled and loaded, while our point is that - if Saddam did have it ready - it would have been too late. He was ordered not to have gun at all. Not disassembled, not unloaded, not just some components, not even a drawing of a gun. Half-disarmed was half-armed more then tolerable.
Your point thus - is meaningless. Just as we told you before.
P.S. Problem is - your favorite political party does accept this absolutist attitude toward disarmament. However, only when taking away guns from the American citizens. Then, of course, owning a 15-round magazine is a crime and all liberals need no explanations to see it this way. Of course, that is when we talk about a machine gun and a Joe Sxipack. When we talk about Saddam and WMD - hey, so what that he had hidden it! He did not start new development, right?
no subject
What "I say" and "my point" are abundantly clear unless you think that "no" and "not" mean "some" and "a little". Read my quotes again slowly. The "Duelfer report" you so wanted me to read says that Iraq was DISARMED (no nuclear arms), DID NOT have parts or materials to build nuclear weapons and DID NOT resume its nuclear program.
If after reading these quotes you still say my point was Iraq was "half-disarmed" and had the "gun" disassembled, you have a reading disability.
You original point was that the "Duelfer report" proved that Saddam was armed or half-armed. A few posts back I read the report out loud to you to show that you lied or was mistaken. Pick one.
no subject
You have a peculiar mental block that we would have been happy to explore if we were psychiatrists. XIX century psychiatrists to be precise.
no subject
Iraq did not resume, did not advance, did not have, did not rebuild, did not reestablish, and did not reconstitute. Do you understand English? Iraq's capacity was wiped out and it was not rebuilt. Iraq did not have a capacity.
Not only do your quotes prove nothing but they are also related to pre-1991, and my quotes are post-1991. Why don't you name the source and give some dates too?
Do you understand that looting is dangerous because some parts that are useless in themselves can be useful to a third party outside Iraq with a nuclear program that is underway?
Your last paragraph is so pathetic in the face of the overwhelming evidence that you either lied or don't understand a thing about WMDs in Iraq that I will just let you continue to make a laughing stock of yourself.
no subject
Ah, I see - you think that Iraq's capacioty was wiped out. WHEN? By WHOM? Who told you that? Now, try to think, as painful as it is:
Anyway. Every single time we promise everyone in sight that we wioll not argue with "what the meaning of is was" crowd. Every single time we get suckered in. Every single time we regret doing it. So long.
no subject
Why did you lie that Duelfer "talks about hiding enough to be able to restore the programs" and "never says that the programs were "wiped out"? Why did you lie that "UN inspectors did not "wipe out", and "claimed they never came across anything to wipe"?
Are you a pathological lier or an ignoramus?
no subject
If you insist that all the WMD programs were demolished - more power to you. Of course, you would have to beleive that the ONLY reason that Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 (it was in 1998, right?) was to distract the nation from Lewinsky scandal, that when Kerry suggested in 1997 we must go in Iraq and force it to disarm - he knowingly lied, that UN issued multiple resolution, demanding Iraq to be disarmed for no reason whatsoever and that New York Times publishes absolutely not credible stories about looting of equipment that could be used for nuclear weapons production - stories, that are obviously lies - but, hey, a true believer is a true believer.
no subject
I state and the evidence given supports it that the US and the UN inspectors destroyed or ended all of the significant Iraq's effort to develop nuclear weapons after 1991. A thorough investigation conducted in the two years following the American invasion in 2003 confirmed that Saddam's nuclear effort and facilities were non-existent.
Could Saddam rebuild his nuclear capacity from scratch if he was left alone? Yes, he could but it would take him many years in the ideal conditions whereas no country would interfere with his effort. Nevertheless, the argument is not about the expediency of the American invasion but about establishment of a specific fact of whether Saddam's nuclear capabilities were destroyed after 1991 and were found to be so after 2003. The answer is yes.
As for why the looting of some parts in recent weeks can be of proliferation significance even though Saddam's nuclear capabilities were destroyed and these parts could not be used by Saddam to develop a nuclear weapon, I explained it earlier. A third party that has an ongoing nuclear program could use these parts to build on the foundation it already has. Any such possibility is of proliferation significance.
no subject
Separately, here is a good advice: open up dictionary, find the words "to end" and "to destroy" and find their meaning. It seems that you really think those are synonyms. There is a difference there, that may seem hard to grasp at first, but with time and effort - you may get it. Also, read carefully the part of the report that I quoted and think as hard as you can about the meaning of the pieces I emphasized with the bold font.
no subject
Prove here and now that the "parts" in question are critical or even significant for rebuilding a nuclear capability or refute the Duelfer report's account of how Saddam's nuclear capability was destroyed after 1991.
Material things were destroyed and human efforts ended as the Duelfer report, which you like to refer to but never quote, proves beyond doubt. Do you understand what "destroyed" and "ended" mean now?
no subject
Your claim that besides some equipement left, everything else was destroyed - is the best one I have heard after "it's not over till it's over".
Everything was destroyed except what was left. Yep. It's winner.
no subject
I can give you evidence for as long as it takes for meaning to transpire in your brain.Your claim that besides some equipement left, everything else was destroyed - is the best one I have heard after "it's not over till it's over".
Here is what I said:Do you see the light now?
no subject
no subject
However, if you don't want to look like a complete fool when you try to say Iraq had any part of its nuclear capability left that was of meaningful threat by 2003, the onus is on you tell me exactly what part it was and why it constituted threat. Go ahead. Until then it's either ignoramus or lier.
no subject
The meaning of this statement is that it seems that Iraq lost one of the possible sources of fission materials
Translation: certain facility was destroyed. Not "all of them". Not "majority of them". No. Just one.
Now, this phrase not only talks about closing just one mine, it also uses the word "to curtail" which does not mean "to eliminate", but specifically "to reduce". There is a huge difference between the "elimination" and "reduction".
Now, this one is a beauty. Of course, if only you knew that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was not a part of 1991 Gulf War, but that it is the name of the war of 2003 - you would have never used this quote to prove your point. Hey, tell me, smart guy, how come we managed to destroy "residual potential uranium conversion capability" if, according to you - there was NOTHING left? Do you understand the meaning of the words "residual", "potential" and "capability"? Do you understand that they mean "something that was still there that could have been used..."?
Again, translation: Iraq did not have a nuclear bomb ready (which nobody ever claimed that he did) and it did not try to restore what was destroyed. Which does not mean "Iraq did not try to preserve" what was left. Remember my teeth analogy? When someone looses 10 teeth and does not try to get implants - it does not mean that he lost all teeth, and it does not mean that he is not trying to save the 18 teeth that he kept.
Now, your "evidence", as I said, is not an evidence that all Iraqi WMD capabilities were destroyed by 2003. It is an evidence that you can not read or can not comprehend what you read. I am not sure how you could possibly pass SAT exam (that is - if you did) if you can not tell the difference between "it appears we destroyed some" and "we definitely destroyed all". You even manage to post a quote about something being destroyed during the war of 2003 to prove that it was destroyed before the war of 2003!
I am quite done here. You see, my ability to prove something relies on an ability of my opponent to comprehend.
no subject
I purposefully quoted the Duelfer report that said that Operation Iraqi Freedom destroyed much of Iraq's residual potential uranium conversion capability. One of the reasons for starting the war was the view that some capacity in Iraq could potentially be used for developing a nuclear weapon, and that is why during the war most of that capacity was destroyed. When investigators went in after the war they found that the destroyed capacity was negligible, which is specified in the Duelfer report (http://www.livejournal.com/users/cema/180566.html?thread=1062486#t1062486).
Of course, Iraq had something left by 2003, some "residual" capacity, and I have said it all along. However, the Duelfer report does not say once that this capacity was significant and could be used by Saddam to develop a nuclear weapon. That is what I am arguing here too: by 2003 there was no meaningful nuclear capacity in Iraq because it was either destroyed in the first Gulf War or by international inspectors. The Duelfer report supports this view.
You, however, in spite of all the evidence and numerous quotes, continue to claim that something was left in Iraq by 2003 that constituted a serious nuclear threat and was a meaningful capacity. You did not prove it, did not give evidence, did not name any source. Sounds like empty talk but I am willing to continue to stick your nose in it.
One more time: you claim that Iraq had a nuclear capacity by 2003. You didn't give one piece of evidence, you did not describe the nature of that capacity, you did not quote one source. If you don't prove what you have carelessly and persistently said for so long, you are either an ignoramus or a lier. Go ahead, I am waiting.
no subject
First, I have to admit, you showed courage in admitting that at least until 2003 it was not known if Saddam disarmed. I did not know you were capable of admitting that whatever the reality was, Bush had all the good reasons to attack.
Second, you will have to forgive me, but I am afraid that you will go back and claim that even before 2003 it was clear that Saddam was 100% harmless. In this case, I shall repeat the question: why did Clinton bomb Iraq?
no subject
I am discussing the establishment of a simple fact: did Iraq have any meaningful nuclear capability from 1991 to 2003 or not. You claimed boldly that it did. I proved thoroughly and exhaustively that it did not.
If you can't counter my arguments, say so but don't digress because it's useless: I am not going to bite.
no subject
no subject