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.
![[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
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.