Link does not work.
The New York Times has discovered the WMD recently too.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

When NYT says this:

...looters... dismantled and removed... 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!

No, seriously.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

You know, when you play the three shells game the whole idea there is that your hand is supposed to be faster then the eye of a person you are trying to trick. I mean - when you cheat without any skill and/or panache, it is looks disrespectful. Consider the pieces you had to rip out of the original quote (highlighted in red):

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

Of course, it is easy to conclude from the original, that Saddam did, in fact, retained "tons of" machinery in his most important weapon installations. Otherwise, there would have been nothing to loot. Besides, anyone with at least half brain still functioning could go and read an original New York Times article, where the dangers of looted materials falling into the wrong hands are described. For those whose mental abilities are insufficient to read an article that long, we have given some selected quotes in our post.

You pick just one of them, dowdify it by stripping important details and then try to argue that it means something else... well, it was very amateurish attempt at cheating. Looks kind of stupid.

No, seriously.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

OK. Here is another go if you don't get it.

When NYT says this:

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!

No, seriously.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

No, seriously.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Please give evidence from the NYT article or any other reputable source that Saddam was able to produce a nuclear weapon at the time of the invasion.

I know you're good at assuming but prove for once you're good at thinking too.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

There is not kick because your analogy is false.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

No, seriously.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I am still waiting for you to give evidence that supports your statements made and quoted in the beginning of this thread.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

...but I can’t make you read.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Let's try again.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Excuse me, but I told you many times already - I will not help you read. Do your own homework.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I've done my homework.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

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@lj up and convince everybody else.
Otherwise, it looks like chistyakov@lj's favorite bluff: "Читайте Маркса, там все написано".

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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"?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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@lj 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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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@lj 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...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

No, not at all. Answering my question above will.

To help you I will quote the "Duelfer report" 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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

You have to name sources when you quote.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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:

1. 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.


2. UN inspectors did not "wipe out". They claimed they never came across anything to wipe


3. 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


4. John Kerry claimed that there was not wiping and said in 1997 that we must go in and wipe even without allies.


5. Duelfer (and Kay) talk about hiding enough to be able to restore the programs. They never say that the programs were "wiped out".


6. 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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

The "Duelfer report":

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"?

Are you a pathological lier or an ignoramus?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

Do you see the light now?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"Duelfer report":

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Ok, you know what? let me help you out!

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Actually, I forgot two things:

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?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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".

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

As arbat would say
So you are not him? Or this is an extreme case of split personality disorder?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Was it you who was obsessed with a question of what sex arbat@lj belongs to?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Why are you answering a question with a question?

I am asking a very simple thing - is the person who wrote "As arbat would say" on behalf of "philyopain" the same person who writes on behalf of "arbat"? I have strong suspicions that it is so (including, but not limited, to common mistakes in English previously found by me and exact identity of political views). If my suspicion is correct, than the person writing both these journals is a Gollum self-referring as "my precioussss".

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

And we gave a very simple answer - we are here not to mingle, but to discuss certain topics. If you want to discuss those, you will have to do that on their merit. Our personal information we consider irrelevant.

We are somewhat surprised how obsessivley you are trying.
As for your assumptions... well, we do not give a shit.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Okay buddy, here's a challenge: I read them and it's not there. Prove me I'm an idiot.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I don't think you want a proof of that. Better ask for the quotes again. :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I thought it was an offer he won't be able to resist :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

You forgot to ask me if I care.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Я гналась за Вами десять дней чтобы сказать Вам что Вы мне безразличны!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Yep.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

4. All of the above

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Paul Wolfowitz is replacing James Wolfensohn as the new president of the World Bank.

I certainly like Wolfowitz a lot, but the linguist in me is puzzled... what's that about the World Bank, which attracts the Wolf* pattern :-)

Christopher Hitchens