Hank Fescue

The BBQ Pit
#1

In this thread, you wrote:

You are both a jackass and a moron. What, did you just fall off the Usenet truck? When people ask you questions, do you resort instantly to questioning whether they can read? You must eat a lot of knee.

Conjunctions don’t take objects, asshat. “Completion” is the object of “to”. “Full and verified” is an adjectival phrase that modifies “completion”.

As I wasted my time explaining to you, a reasonable interpretation of the document is that what they are to bring to a full and verified completion is THE DISARMAMENT PROCESS. There’s nothing about any searching for weapons. The document apparently makes Iraq responsible to supply the weapons and destroy them in front of inspectors.

They are inspectors like the Hanes lady, not like Clouseau. It looks to me like their job is to inspect, what, I don’t know… maybe what the document SAYS they are to inspect: THE DISARMAMENT PROCESS.

Take your grammar lesson and shove it up your ass.

#2

While we’re at it, Hank…[ul][]The possessive “its,” has no apostrophe.[]Conjunctions do not take objects. Prepositions and transitive verbs take objects.Objects are nouns. In the quoted section, “verified” is an adjective.[/ul]

#3

They’re they’re Lib and december, dont’ take it so hardly. We all no ya’ll are write. Your always rite about verb tensions and stuff.

Grammarians— their so cute when there angry!

#4

There’s no use explaining it to me. I am missing reading comprehension. […boinking self on head…] Ouch.

#5

Upset now are we? Despite my lack of gramar skills your reading of the rsolution is incorrect. That is what you are really upset about. The phrase indicates that the inspectors are to bring about full disarmamant and verify.

So when someone makes the right call you result to attacking gramar? Thanks for the gramar lessons. I’ll take it to heart. In the end you know the point of the exercise isn’t gramar though. Go fuck yourself.

#6

Hank, the argument is about the meaning of the English language sentences contained in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Necessarily then, grammar becomes central to the argument. Grammar is the set of usage rules through which the users of a language make their meaning clear, and through which those who hear or read that language determine intended meaning. It seems that Lib’s informed opinion includes a learned analysis of the phrasing used in the document, and your informed opinion does not.

Tell me, to whose opinion should I now give more credence? My own reading of the phrase “…decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process” concurs with Lib’s. Since neither of you quoted any of the language deeper in the resolution which established the authority of UNMOVIC and the IAEA within Iraq, the precise phrasing used to describe the “inspection regime” is the only basis by which the reader may judge the relative values of your arguments.
And just in case you didn’t understand or respect any of that, let me quote someone you do appear to respect:

#7

I see- the point isn’t gramar, it’s disarmamant.

#8

“to bring about full and verified completion of the disarmamant”

It aint that hard sugar.

“to bring about” Does that sound like a job of mere observation to you?

#9

:smiley: You’re the one who brought up gammar and used it to attack, assmunch. Read your stupid post.

#10

I didn’t bring up your gramar. Again, I say, “to bring about full and verified” that doesn’t even imply that they are to be the ones to verify. They are to “bring that about”. Make it happen. are you that stupid or just being obtuse?

#11

Can someone dispel my ignorance and explain what this phrase means? I don’t what it’s refering to, but I likes the sound of it.

[homer] mmmm…knee. [/homer]

#12

You poor thing.

Here, let me explain it in small words. Libertarian’s point, the only point he’s been making about the inspectors, is that their function in Iraq is to bring about the disarmament process required by the UN Security Council in resolution 687 and reiterated in 1441 by fully verifying Iraq’a compliance with the requirements of those resolutions, NOT by hunting for prohibited weapons.

In other words, the inspectors are there on authority of the United Nations to inspect and verify Iraq’s own processes of disarmament. They are not there to play “find the weapons.”

Clear now?

#13

It is clear that you don’t understand the small words in the statement at hand. They are there to “bring about” disarmament. How would you “bring about” disarmament if you had full access to the facilities in the country? The facilities that they are snooping around in everyday. Running all around the country side doing what? Looking for camel dung? They are looking for weapons. Got it?

#14

Or the absence thereof.

#15

You know I am also wondering how one would verify that you don’t have any weapons without going out and LOOKING to see if you have any? If we are just going to verify Iraqs process then the job is already done isn’t it? They claim to have destroyed everything they had but we claim they have more so we are to verify that they have more without looking for any more? You are begining to sound more and more stupid by the post. But your gramar is excellent.

#16

Here’s where reading comprehension really comes into play… The precise phrasing is this:

“2. Decides… to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council…”

(Emphasis added by me.)

Now, what exactly was “the disarmament process” that was established by resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions, do you suppose? (Hint: see those “disarmament obligations” mentioned at the beginning of the sentence.)

Here’s UNSCR 687.

Hank, you’re the only one here who seems to think anyone is claiming the inspectors are limited in their methods of verification. Of course they go to suspected sites and look around, as a means of verification. Not so that they can disarm Iraq, but so that they can verify --I repeat, VERIFY-- whether Iraq is complying with their own obligations to disarm.

#17

I’m not sure I agree with anyone here. “Full and verified completion” is not referring to the actions of the inspectors, but to the intention of the UN in setting up an “inpection regime”. IOW, it was thought that the setting up of an inspection regime would be a catylist in bringing about the disarmament.

I think it is understood that this is not because the inspectors will physically disarm Iraq but because Iraq will be more motivated to comply with the process. But it any event, the language does not actually refer to the inspectors doing anything at all, much less disarming Iraq.

#18

It evokes a jerky knee; i.e., knee jerk.

#19

But I agree with you, so how can you disagree with me? :smiley:

#20

hmm… I’m working on it. :slight_smile:

Perhaps I’m confusing you with xeno. My point was that I would not be quibbling about the words “verification” and “disarmament process” since they don’t refer to the actions or methodology of the inspectors anyway.

In any event, we all agree that resolution does not say that the inspectors are to disarm Iraq.