BF2S Forums oops!! more bad news for you "Where is the WMD'S" crowd

Masques wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nicholas Langdon wrote:

im sure there are alot of countries out there with more than a faint idea of how to build a nuclear bomb, of course he(sadam) was looking into it..... as spark said, this dosent mean he had any.

did all of you miss the part that said Iraq was about a year awy from having a nuke...Or do you all have selective reading issues??.........Ya can't really be a year away from having a nuke by just reading the fuckin directions on how to build one.

Earlier in the article it says that the documents were "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war."

Later it says at the time (ie. the time period to which the documents refer, again, BEFORE Desert Storm) Iraq was close to having a nuke. It was not a year away in 2003 or 2002 or 2001 or 2001 or 2000 or 1995 or 1993, it was close before the first Gulf War (ie. before 1991).

Once again for the learning impaired:
Earlier in the article it says that the documents were "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war."

Later it says at the time (ie. the time period to which the documents refer, again, BEFORE Desert Storm) Iraq was close to having a nuke. It was not a year away in 2003 or 2002 or 2001 or 2001 or 2000 or 1995 or 1993, it was close before the first Gulf War (ie. before 1991).

Once again from the article:

n September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier.

I wrote the following for Bubbalos benefit but it looks like you could use a simple analogy as well




If you have been doing drugs, and you get grounded for that by your parents, and they only way you can get realeased to go play outside is to allow your parents full access to your bedroom so they can go through your stuff. Now, all of a sudden, you refuse to let your parents into your room, for weeks you refuse, then you let them in once, but they are not allowed to look in the second drawer down on your dresser. When they insist that they have full access to your dresser, you kick them out of your room. A month later you say they can now come back in and look in your dresser all they want, but, you do not allow them access to your closet. When they insist, you kick them out of your room again. A month later you say they can come back and inspect your closet now, but when they go to look under your bed you refuse to let them amd you throw them out of your room. After about 10 months of these games, they finally say enough, they re-ground you and THEN TAKE full access to your room, just like you agreed on in the first place. What do they find??.....roach clips, papers, books on drugs. EVERYTHING you need to actually roll your your own joints, just no joints. Ya think you have your parents convinced that you were not doing drugs???? 1 + 1 = 2

hope that helps

Anfidurl wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Do I need to post a screen shot of the article open in the background?

I know what the article says. People are a bit miffed over the US's decision to post these manuals on the internet, so am I.

I will quote: "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."

Did you catch that? It says "BEFORE THE 1991 PERSIAN GULF WAR". This merely confirms what we already knew - that Saddam was developing weapons UNTIL c. 1991.

just to clarify, you said we knew he was deloping WMD'S until 91. After 91 he refused to allow UN inspectors into his weapons sites for a decade as allowed by the resolutions. I dunno 'bout you, but for me, 1 plus 1 DOES equal 2.

Yawn. Once again, having the technical knowledge to build an atomic bomb is far from actually being able to:
1) enrich uranium,
2) construct and test-detonate said assembled device.

Even I have an understanding of how it works. Does this mean I could build one? NO.

read up 2 posts then go away

Huh. So it was shut down after it was posted to prevent Iran from getting their hands on it? If it really was useful information for building a nuclear bomb, I bet the Iranians would've already saved it to their military computers.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-05 18:46:33)

Spark wrote:

maffiaw wrote:

I'd like to point (without joining any political faction) that the article states evidence of wmd's before the first gulf war of 1991. the pretence of the current Second Gulf War was that Hussein was still developing wmd's. There is no evidence to suggest that his regime continued this weapons programme after their defeat in 1991.

Correct, affirming what I said earlier.

You (lowing) still haven't acknowledged the difference between KNOWING how to build a bomb and actually BUILDING a bomb.

Spark wrote:

Do I need to post a screen shot of the article open in the background?

Apperently you need a video of you reading the entire article since you only pull the information that support your case from the article.

Spark wrote:

I know what the article says. People are a bit miffed over the US's decision to post these manuals on the internet, so am I.

I will quote: "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."

Did you catch that? It says "BEFORE THE 1991 PERSIAN GULF WAR". This merely confirms what we already knew - that Saddam was developing weapons UNTIL c. 1991.

Maffiaw's post was incorrect, as is your own.  There were documents after 1991.  Did you catch that?  PROGRESS OF IRAQI NUCLEAR PROGRAM CIRCA 1995.  THE FFCD DOCUMENT ALSO HAD THREE DIAGRAMS FOR BOMBS.  THIS DOCUMENT IS DATED TO 1996.  Did you catch that?  There was some information you forgot to read or mention in your post.  So when are we getting the video to prove that you read the entire article, because right now it seems that you only read the first page.

NY Times wrote:

In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier.

The Iraqi document is marked “Draft FFCD Version 3 (20.12.95),” meaning it was preparatory for the “Full, Final, Complete Disclosure” that Iraq made to United Nations inspectors in March 1996. The document carries three diagrams showing cross sections of bomb cores, and their diameters.

Last edited by dubbs (2006-11-05 19:01:39)

Masques wrote:

dubbs wrote:

NY Times wrote:

In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier.

The Iraqi document is marked “Draft FFCD Version 3 (20.12.95),” meaning it was preparatory for the “Full, Final, Complete Disclosure” that Iraq made to United Nations inspectors in March 1996. The document carries three diagrams showing cross sections of bomb cores, and their diameters.

Read that first graf again. Did you not notice the "That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier." or that in the following graf it states that it was a draft version of information provided to the UN in 1996?

Pathetic.

Read it again yourself, it has the potential to be misleading.  The research occured years earlier, means that it could have came in 1993 or earlier.  So there is a chance that this is research from 1991, I give you that.

The document being a draft does not mean that it was not created in 1996.  It just means that the document was not in the final form.  Considering that they had to give the document to the UN in 1996, it would contain information about their weapons since 1991 when the UN forced sanctions on Iraq.  This is no reason to add data that was before the sanctions.

Sylvanis wrote:

And your defining morons and liberals as alike (or the same? I'll give you a little credit) is letting you neck seem a little red.  (BTW I am not liberal, not that it is any of your business)

Seeing "morons" and "letting you neck" used in the same sentence is all I need for my nightly laugh.

Anfidurl wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Do I need to post a screen shot of the article open in the background?

I know what the article says. People are a bit miffed over the US's decision to post these manuals on the internet, so am I.

I will quote: "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."

Did you catch that? It says "BEFORE THE 1991 PERSIAN GULF WAR". This merely confirms what we already knew - that Saddam was developing weapons UNTIL c. 1991.

just to clarify, you said we knew he was deloping WMD'S until 91. After 91 he refused to allow UN inspectors into his weapons sites for a decade as allowed by the resolutions. I dunno 'bout you, but for me, 1 plus 1 DOES equal 2.

Yawn. Once again, having the technical knowledge to build an atomic bomb is far from actually being able to:
1) enrich uranium,
2) construct and test-detonate said assembled device.

Even I have an understanding of how it works. Does this mean I could build one? NO.

Moving on, you have to understand that Saddam also knew how to bluff shrewdly and act as a showman, even if he was too dumb to realize he could not win against the US.

After the Isreali raid on the Osiraq Nuclear Reactor in 1977*, and after the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam had neither the infrastructure nor the capability to construct nuclear weaponry. Locking out the UN weapons inspectors was just a move to make people confused and fearful. Lowing, you may claim 1 and 1 equal two, but in reality the equation consists of units no larger than 0.001, and the sum is unknown.

* http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … irak.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

locking out the UN inspectors was in violation of the UN peact treaty , he had been fucking around like that for 10 years....It was enough....the end.

Masques wrote:

lowing wrote:

locking out the UN inspectors was in violation of the UN peact treaty , he had been fucking around like that for 10 years....It was enough....the end.

Just a question, but would you support a war against Israel under the same pretext?

Israel has NEVER threaten any nation that has not previously FUCKED with it or threatened it. Under the EXACT same circumstances, yup I would...

lowing wrote:

Masques wrote:

lowing wrote:

locking out the UN inspectors was in violation of the UN peact treaty , he had been fucking around like that for 10 years....It was enough....the end.

Just a question, but would you support a war against Israel under the same pretext?

Israel has NEVER threaten any nation that has not previously FUCKED with it or threatened it. Under the EXACT same circumstances, yup I would...

That's not what he asked. He said the same pretext, which is not the same as circumstances, but the same reason. Besides, who was Iraq threatening?

Oh, and if Israel destroyed egypt right now, you'd be cool with it, because egypt fought with them decades ago? I guess you approve of the NK nuking America, after all, we've attacked them before.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Fucking neo-cons...a 3rd year engineering student could build an atomic weapon.  Lack of enriched uranium is the only thing that would prevent an actual bomb from being built.

Oooooh, So Damn Insane has WMDs.  See, the we told you so!  The liberals would have let the world come to and end!

Get a fucking life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Such anger. Damn that rap music.

Ah lowing once again you have proven the right doesn't need to know the facts they can interpret them however they want.

The article says Saddam was a year away from having a nuclear weapon in 1990!!!!!!!!!!! 1990 is not 2003. In 1990 Saddam also had the fourth largest army in the world. Did he have that in 2003? Of course not. In 2003 he was not a year away from building a bomb, he had no chance to build a bomb because his country was so poor, so sanctioned, and so ruined that they had no infrastructure to develop clean water, let alone nuclear weapons.

OMFG HE WAS A YEAR AWAY!!!! STUPID LIBERALS!!!! THIS IS IRREFUTABLE PROOF!!!!!!!!

Lowing you have the intellectual capacity of an eight year old. Next time read the article before posting it. As someone posted above, all this article proves is the Bush administration is stupid enough to post this sensitive material on the internet for so long.

JimmyBotswana wrote:

Ah lowing once again you have proven the right doesn't need to know the facts they can interpret them however they want.

The article says Saddam was a year away from having a nuclear weapon in 1990!!!!!!!!!!! 1990 is not 2003. In 1990 Saddam also had the fourth largest army in the world. Did he have that in 2003? Of course not. In 2003 he was not a year away from building a bomb, he had no chance to build a bomb because his country was so poor, so sanctioned, and so ruined that they had no infrastructure to develop clean water, let alone nuclear weapons.

OMFG HE WAS A YEAR AWAY!!!! STUPID LIBERALS!!!! THIS IS IRREFUTABLE PROOF!!!!!!!!

Lowing you have the intellectual capacity of an eight year old. Next time read the article before posting it. As someone posted above, all this article proves is the Bush administration is stupid enough to post this sensitive material on the internet for so long.

Hi Jimmy, glad you could make it.

1990+1=1991............the start and the signing of the peace treaty that stop the hostilities in Iraq.

1992 is also the start of violations of the UN resolutions


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Securit … lution_687

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0707.htm



so you see Iraq had been in violation for a decade. Iraq had been refusing inspections off and on for a decade. He had not been "good " for 10 years the nall of sudden bush comes in and "invades".

If you really read the damn resolutions, the UN had been on Iraq's ass for years, they just refused to act on it.

Anyway Jimmy, I am sorry you had to come in here and look like a jack off......maybe if you put your snotty ass attitude on simmer for next time you will fair better in here.