The document says 70 tons were destroyed and "a certain quantity" 210 tons produced were used. Non-specific.
Hundreds of tons of un-accounted for pre-cursors, two of which "could still be viable today".
Likely my ass, **** likely.
What part of the following do you not understand?
Quote:
posted by giant
---------------------------
"documentary evidence suggests that Tabun was produced using process technology and quality control methodologies that would result in the agent being degraded to a very low quality through the action of a resulting by-product.
One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl, but there is no evidence that any POCl3 remains unaccounted for....
Another bottleneck for Tabun production would be the limited availability of some key equipment needed for processing and storage of corrosive intermediates.
Iraq?s assertion that it decided in 1986 to stop production of Tabun and concentrate on the production of Sarin is plausible and appears to be supported by UNSCOM?s findings."
Iraq was never able to make Tabun that was viable enough to make is desireable today. While Iraq has some unaccounted for precurssors, this is not the case with all precurssors needed for Tabun, so Iraq can't make it.
All evidence points to a program to develop Tabun being stopped, which would be the best course of action in Iraq's point of view.
This is far from evidence of a threat, and is not treated as such in the document. It is the tying up of loose ends on an obviously discontinued program.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I fail to see how that NW education failed to give you a sense of sarcasm.
Earth to groverat! read it again.
Quote:
Why wasn't he able to give Iraq a clean bill of health, if things are as you would like to portray them?
The UN inspection process was working on verifying the elimination of these weapons. That is very different than saying that 'Iraq is an urgent and immediate threat to the US.'
The UN inspection process was working on verifying the elimination of these weapons. That is very different than saying that 'Iraq is an urgent and immediate threat to the US.'
What progress was this process making? Feel free to quote Blix on the matter.
Also, it's not UNMOVIC's job to determine what is and what is not a threat to the US.
--
tonton:
3 posts in a row, nice work.
Quote:
If Saddam has zero weapons, then he has no offensive capability.
So assuming all weapons were destroyed before the war, how the hell did we "remove" Saddam's "offensive capability"?
"If".
We removed the question, which was the basis for the status of "disarmed".
Quote:
If there were no weapons, how did we take them away?
You think about things far too literally, obvious from quoting the dictionary that you have little clue about the international law and political aspects. Like a child who remains stubbornly wrong.
Quote:
We did not disarm Iraq. Assuming all weapons were destroyed before the war, Iraq had been disarmed before the war started.
Disarmed legally? Not without verification.
Quote:
You used it as an example of the "hundreds of tons" of chemical weapons left unaccounted for.
And I was wrong?
Let giant argue, he obviously knows more about this than you. You've taken enough of a beating, haven't you palooka?
What progress was this process making? Feel free to quote Blix on the matter.
Also, it's not UNMOVIC's job to determine what is and what is not a threat to the US.
--
tonton:
3 posts in a row, nice work.
"If".
We removed the question, which was the basis for the status of "disarmed".
You think about things far too literally, obvious from quoting the dictionary that you have little clue about the international law and political aspects. Like a child who remains stubbornly wrong.
Disarmed legally? Not without verification.
And I was wrong?
Let giant argue, he obviously knows more about this than you. You've taken enough of a beating, haven't you palooka?
None of this matters now. The premise of the attack to disarm was a lie!
None of this matters now. The premise of the attack to disarm was a lie!
groverat,
Your posts are starting to not make much sense. The thing is you don't really have to make this complex. It's really very simple. Bush said there was WOMD and a threat. Now it's apparent there was no such thing shortly before the attack to provoke the attack. Give it up groverat. Focusing on other little points that don't have a direct conection to the original idea that Bush lied and the american people were duped won't change things.
Bush does it yet one more time, now via his repeated claims that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked. This article on a still-classified intelligence report spills the beans.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
The document says 70 tons were destroyed and "a certain quantity" 210 tons produced were used. Non-specific.
Hundreds of tons of un-accounted for pre-cursors, two of which "could still be viable today".
Likely my ass, **** likely.
What part of the following do you not understand?
posted by giant
---------------------------
"documentary evidence suggests that Tabun was produced using process technology and quality control methodologies that would result in the agent being degraded to a very low quality through the action of a resulting by-product.
One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl, but there is no evidence that any POCl3 remains unaccounted for....
Another bottleneck for Tabun production would be the limited availability of some key equipment needed for processing and storage of corrosive intermediates.
Iraq?s assertion that it decided in 1986 to stop production of Tabun and concentrate on the production of Sarin is plausible and appears to be supported by UNSCOM?s findings."
----------------------------
from page 68 of the document you so frequently erroneously cite: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/doc...200
3.pdf
Iraq was never able to make Tabun that was viable enough to make is desireable today. While Iraq has some unaccounted for precurssors, this is not the case with all precurssors needed for Tabun, so Iraq can't make it.
All evidence points to a program to develop Tabun being stopped, which would be the best course of action in Iraq's point of view.
This is far from evidence of a threat, and is not treated as such in the document. It is the tying up of loose ends on an obviously discontinued program.
Originally posted by groverat
I fail to see how that NW education failed to give you a sense of sarcasm.
Earth to groverat! read it again.
Why wasn't he able to give Iraq a clean bill of health, if things are as you would like to portray them?
The UN inspection process was working on verifying the elimination of these weapons. That is very different than saying that 'Iraq is an urgent and immediate threat to the US.'
The UN inspection process was working on verifying the elimination of these weapons. That is very different than saying that 'Iraq is an urgent and immediate threat to the US.'
What progress was this process making? Feel free to quote Blix on the matter.
Also, it's not UNMOVIC's job to determine what is and what is not a threat to the US.
--
tonton:
3 posts in a row, nice work.
If Saddam has zero weapons, then he has no offensive capability.
So assuming all weapons were destroyed before the war, how the hell did we "remove" Saddam's "offensive capability"?
"If".
We removed the question, which was the basis for the status of "disarmed".
If there were no weapons, how did we take them away?
You think about things far too literally, obvious from quoting the dictionary that you have little clue about the international law and political aspects. Like a child who remains stubbornly wrong.
We did not disarm Iraq. Assuming all weapons were destroyed before the war, Iraq had been disarmed before the war started.
Disarmed legally? Not without verification.
You used it as an example of the "hundreds of tons" of chemical weapons left unaccounted for.
And I was wrong?
Let giant argue, he obviously knows more about this than you. You've taken enough of a beating, haven't you palooka?
Originally posted by groverat
giant:
What progress was this process making? Feel free to quote Blix on the matter.
Also, it's not UNMOVIC's job to determine what is and what is not a threat to the US.
--
tonton:
3 posts in a row, nice work.
"If".
We removed the question, which was the basis for the status of "disarmed".
You think about things far too literally, obvious from quoting the dictionary that you have little clue about the international law and political aspects. Like a child who remains stubbornly wrong.
Disarmed legally? Not without verification.
And I was wrong?
Let giant argue, he obviously knows more about this than you. You've taken enough of a beating, haven't you palooka?
None of this matters now. The premise of the attack to disarm was a lie!
Originally posted by jimmac
None of this matters now. The premise of the attack to disarm was a lie!
groverat,
Your posts are starting to not make much sense. The thing is you don't really have to make this complex. It's really very simple. Bush said there was WOMD and a threat. Now it's apparent there was no such thing shortly before the attack to provoke the attack. Give it up groverat. Focusing on other little points that don't have a direct conection to the original idea that Bush lied and the american people were duped won't change things.
Something wrong here since this is a picture of the man
If you don't like the specific facet of the issue I'm discussing, don't read it.
Go scream into your pillow.
-
Anders:
click
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
What a freaking liar this man is. George W. Bush makes Bill Clinton look like the epitome of honesty.
Originally posted by groverat
If you don't like the specific facet of the issue I'm discussing, don't read it.
How can he know he doesn't like it until he reads it?
How can he know he doesn't like it until he reads it?
Because he knows generally what my posts are going to say in this thread.
Originally posted by groverat
Because he knows generally what my posts are going to say in this thread.
It sounds like you're asking him (everyone?) to let you post what you want without criticism, especially when they disagree.
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:
If you don't like the specific facet of the issue I'm discussing, don't read it.
Go scream into your pillow.
-
Anders:
click
That was pathetic. I can always tell when you've run out of ideas. Three words groverat : Give it up!
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:
Because he knows generally what my posts are going to say in this thread.
That's because you keep saying the same thing. It's just in a different way each time.
They all lead to the wrong conclusion.
Can we get a lock here?
PS : Safari final version rocks ; it's the first time i use it. Adios IE
Taking orders from the rat now Powerdoc? ***teasing***
Originally posted by Anders
No it isn´t
Taking orders from the rat now Powerdoc? ***teasing***
no, just waiting the first occasions to close this thread for at least the ten last days . ..