# NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475 "2013-06-20T16:02:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/301 "2013-06-30T22:18:56Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Absolutely Correct. And the UNSC never voted one way or another, right? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2013, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/302 "2013-06-30T23:03:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > And the UNSC never voted one way or another, right? Absolutely Right! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/303 "2013-07-01T00:25:20Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Absolutely Right! So, how are you determining these “facts” that could only be known if the UNSC voted? Since they never voted, there is no way to determine if Iraq was in compliance or not. You are factually incorrect when you state that Iraq was in compliance. And you are not even factually correct when you state that Blix’s comments imply that he thought they were. Here’s the reality: Blix was never going to say one way or another. It wasn’t his job. He gave the UNSC the info they needed, and they were the ones to determine compliance. But plenty of people were afraid to even hint at noncompliance (even if they thought that was the case0 lest someone like Bush take that as an approval of the use of military force. The UNSC council is as political, if not more so, than the US Congress. The 5 permanent members are voting what is in their own interests, not what the facts actually say. SH could have spit in Blix’s eye, and China was never going to agree to the use of force to depose him. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/304 "2013-07-01T02:06:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, how are you determining these “facts” that could only be known if the UNSC voted? First: Because it was reported before the invasion by Blix that Iraq had begun, at the end of January, to cooperate actively at resolving longstanding issues dating back to the 1992 unsupervised destruction of VX and other chemical weapons. That was what was left for Iraq to do under Res 1441, because they had been providing cooperation on access to sites and setting up infrastructure from the very start, also according to Blix. Second: Read the language of 1441, and most importantly the beginning and end of this phrase in paragraph 12, “\*\*Decides to convene immediately \*\*… \*\*in order to secure international peace and security” \*\* > [@](#): > > 1. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below; > > 2. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution; > > 3. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; > > 4. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; It was a judgment call. That was a ‘sane’ way to decide if war was necessary. What Bush judged was insane. (not the disease… the utter incoherence of Bush’s final days of decision.) So you asked how I know Iraq was in compliance with 1441. It is because in the judgment of the UNSC (because they did not decide to convene a meeting) there was no need “to convene immediately” for any relatively minor infractions or ommisions that did not over-ride the major objective to **“secure international peace and security”** through the inspection process. Summary of the second way to know: There was no ‘need to convene’ in the judgment of the UNSC. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Since they never voted, there is no way to determine if Iraq was in compliance or not. How can there be no way to determine since I’ve just told you two ways. The decision to accept the immediacy as fitting of Iraq’s tardy arrival of active cooperation on longstanding issues, also falls into the judgment of the majority of UNSC members. All they had to do was decide if Iraq’s later decision to cooperate on resolving old issues was conducive to the securing of “international peace and security”. And apparently it was. So to argue that the ten to twelve or so UNSC members at that time were wrong to make the judgment they did about what would better keep “international peace and security”, you are doing Bush, Blair and any other sympathetic war monger leader the benefit of the doubt that the war mongers were interested in peace and security while the opposing nations were not. You must be suggesting that they were only doing it out of some kind of fear or something. Who knows what your mind produces. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > You are factually incorrect when you state that Iraq was in compliance. Your arguments have not produced one lick of credible logic or reasoning for your unsupportable opinion. Iraq was in compliance because the level of unprecedented cooperation actually received was plenty enough to secure “international peace and security” through the continuation of 1441 and the peaceful inspections that were ongoing at the time apparently in the minds of the UNSC members. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > And you are not even factually correct when you state that Blix’s comments imply that he thought they were. I have not stated that Blix’s comments implied anything other than a reasonable interpretation of everything Blix said. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Here’s the reality: Blix was never going to say one way or another. It wasn’t his job. He gave the UNSC the info they needed, and they were the ones to determine compliance. However Blix did say one way or another on several issues, and he said it was not his call. I agree with him on that and apparently so do you. So what is the issue? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > But plenty of people were afraid to even hint at noncompliance (even if they thought that was the case) lest someone like Bush take that as an approval of the use of military force. They didn’t think that was the case and they shouldn’t have, unless you agree with Bush’s thinking. So what is your point. And who are you to go around stating what ‘plenty of people’ on the UNSC were afraid of? Who are you anyway to know such things. You said 'plenty of people ‘WERE’ afraid as if you know it. That is silly. And even if you did know what these people were thinking, How’s come Bush didn’t know what you know when he agreed to the terms of 1441 as written? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > The UNSC council is as political, if not more so, than the US Congress. So, what is the point. I think they made the right call to seek the continuation of inspections to keep international peace and security instead of resorting to war or any other sever consequences they could think of. Yepp. Inspections were the way to keep going. Don’t you agree with that John Mace. If not, why? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > The 5 permanent members are voting what is in their own interests, not what the facts actually say. SH could have spit in Blix’s eye, and China was never going to agree to the use of force to depose him. The majority of nations in the world appear to me to have dealt with reality during the first three months of 2003. SH did not spit in Blix’s eye did he? Why should China agree to use force if reality had shown the Chinese that Iraq was cooperating proactively and better than ever. What nation that opposed the UNSC authorizing war after Iraq was reported to be providing active cooperation for several weeks, do you think committed a selfish vote in their own interest, as if voting for Iraq to be in non-compliance would have been the right decision to avoid the appearance of voting in self-interest. How do you arrive at these arguments? Iraq was cooperating actively several weeks before Bush’s FINAL DAYS OF DECISION. And you know that don’t you. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/305 "2013-07-01T02:32:19Z")
As Blix said, the cooperation was not immediate. You can deny that all day long, but he’s on record. Walls of text do not alter that fact. No immediate cooperation. Sorry if that one fact destroys your entire argument, but that’s what happens when you are more invested in a particular outcome than in understanding the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/306 "2013-07-01T02:48:53Z")
NFbW, you keep stating that the Security Council “decided” to continue inspections, or that “not convening” is a reflection of the UNSC approving of the status quo. Those are faulty assumptions. You agree that the UNSC is the only body with the power to authoritatively make a decision one way or another. That’s correct. The thing is, they didn’t make a decision. Perhaps there was no decision to make. But that’s irrelevant. There was no vote for or against Iraq’s compliance with 1441, which means that the UNSC simply had no position on the matter. If I don’t vote in an election, that doesn’t mean that someone is correct to call me an Obama supporter or a Romney supporter. It doesn’t mean I like the status quo or that I’m protesting the status quo. It means that I took no position on the election. Since it is clear that the UNSC would have been deadlocked on any further resolution, due to the vetoes of the P-5 on either side of the issue, the UNSC simply had no position on inspections working or not working. You’re simply projectng your own views onto others. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/307 "2013-07-01T11:11:10Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > NFbW, you keep stating that the Security Council “decided” to continue inspections, or that “not convening” is a reflection of the UNSC approving of the status quo. Those are faulty assumptions. > > You agree that the UNSC is the only body with the power to authoritatively make a decision one way or another. That’s correct. The thing is, they didn’t make a decision. Perhaps there was no decision to make. But that’s irrelevant. There was no vote for or against Iraq’s compliance with 1441, which means that the UNSC simply had no position on the matter. > > If I don’t vote in an election, that doesn’t mean that someone is correct to call me an Obama supporter or a Romney supporter. It doesn’t mean I like the status quo or that I’m protesting the status quo. It means that I took no position on the election. > > Since it is clear that the UNSC would have been deadlocked on any further resolution, due to the vetoes of the P-5 on either side of the issue, the UNSC simply had no position on inspections working or not working. You’re simply projectng your own views onto others. You have presented a thoughtful argument so could you respond to this? Did DeVillipin and Canada’s PM take a position on the matter of preferring to continue inspections in large part because of reports of Iraq’s unprecedented level of cooperation? One had veto power and one does not. Canada was a strong ally with the US and UK in Afghanistan in March 2003. So do you think Canada and France’s rejection of Bush and Blair’s call that Iraq was not complying sufficiently and thus the need for severe consequences being applied was based upon their self interest and a pure denial or rejection of the overall facts being reported by the two inspecters. Remember the IAEA inspected had barely any problem with Iraq’s cooperation with his agency. And a point of order for XT. A unanimous vote is not a requirement for The UNSC fifteen member body: > [@](#): > > Voting Procedures: > Article 27 of the charter regulates voting procedures in the Security Council. It says: > > 1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote. > 2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members. > 3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI…a party to a dispute shall refrain from voting. This means that on nonprocedural issues, such as a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, nine members of the Security Council must vote for it-and none of the permanent-five members may veto it-if it is to pass. Abstentions, however, are not considered vetoes. > **[How the UN Security Council Works](https://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unsc.htm)** > > Background document on the functions of the UN Security Council. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/308 "2013-07-01T12:53:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > As Blix said, the cooperation was not immediate. You can deny that all day long, but he’s on record. Walls of text do not alter that fact. > > No immediate cooperation. Sorry if that one fact destroys your entire argument, but that’s what happens when you are more invested in a particular outcome than in understanding the facts. Even the most stupid imbecile attending this discussion could see that I have never denied that Blix said that active cooperation was not immediate. You are repeatedly too stupid to put the word ‘active’ in front of the type of cooperation that Blix was addressing. So your claim that I deny what Blix said about immediate cooperation is false. Your argument therefore is worthless. On top of that you have your head up your ass to think that you can define as not immediate Iraq’s active cooperation coming three months after the start of resumed inspections that were absent for four years. And overall the inspection process was ten years of lack of full cooperation. So three months was not ‘immediate’ enough for you so the UNSC members must take John Mace’s definition of immediate as expressed in 1441. Just who do you think you are? Merrium Webster? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/309 "2013-07-01T13:13:33Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Did DeVillipin and Canada’s PM take a position on the matter of preferring to continue inspections in large part because of reports of Iraq’s unprecedented level of cooperation? Sure, and they had other reasons, too. However, as much as I agreed with them in their opposition to the war, their position does not speak for the UNSC. I believe you’re heading down the road of the fallacy of composition. If you aren’t familiar with it, the fallacy of composition is a logical error in which one examines a few pieces of a whole, and then drawing a conclusion about the whole. Like if I looked at the prices of a catalytic converter and a transmission for a Camry, I could not conclude that a Camry is an expensive car based on the cost of those two parts. So, one cannot look at the views of a couple members of the UNSC and draw a conclusion about the views of the UNSC. The fact of the matter is that the UNSC did not reach any conclusion on compliance with 1441, plus there’s no way they could have because of the veto situation. Therefore, the views of two members of the UNSC does not reflect upon the judgment of the whole UNSC. That is why I differentiate between my opinion that the war was unjustified, and the factual matters of what the UNSC decided – which was nothing. > [@](#): > > One had veto power and one does not. Canada was a strong ally with the US and UK in Afghanistan in March 2003. So do you think Canada and France’s rejection of Bush and Blair’s call that Iraq was not complying sufficiently and thus the need for severe consequences being applied was based upon their self interest and a pure denial or rejection of the overall facts being reported by the two inspecters. I don’t understand what you’ve written, so I can’t respond. Others have urged you to be concise, but that second sentence is a run-on that is terribly unclear. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/310 "2013-07-01T13:17:59Z")
I’m not defining it as “not immediate”. Those were Blix’s words, which you choose to ignore because they don’t mesh with your faulty world view. I’m sorry, but you are simply wrong. Everyone in this thread is telling you that you are wrong. There was no vote in the UNSC, and it doesn’t matter what the French said in public because the vote was never taken. Bush and Blaire were convinced that Iraq was not in compliance. Their opinion is at least as relevant as that of the French. Im very sorry that this causes cognitive dissonance on your part, but that’s just something you will learn to deal with. And, as mentioned before, you are making the false assumption that an opinion that Iraq was not in compliance w/ 1441 is the same as a vote for war. Certainly that was Bush’s position, but it needn’t be anyone else’s. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/311 "2013-07-01T13:32:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And, as mentioned before, you are making the false assumption that an opinion that Iraq was not in compliance w/ 1441 is the same as a vote for war. Certainly that was Bush’s position, but it needn’t be anyone else’s. Exactly. My view is that it would be far preferable to keep Saddam in a box by whatever means possible for as long as possible. Hypothetically, had the UNSC declared that Iraq was in full compliance with the inspectors, the next step would have been for Iraq to argue that the inspectors had completed their work and that they should leave. I think it would have been a profound mistake to start an international debate about how long inspectors should stay. Because that, too, would have fed into the Bush camp’s view of war being the only way to settle the Iraq issue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/312 "2013-07-01T13:38:36Z")
And, as I stated several times, it is my view that it was virtually impossible for Iraq to “fully comply” with the various UNSC resolutions. They were never going to be able to account for all the so-called WMDs they had over the years. Yes, keep SH in a box like we had him, and he’s no danger to us. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/313 "2013-07-01T13:50:31Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] And a point of order for XT. A unanimous vote is not a requirement for The UNSC fifteen member body: [/QUOTE] Finally looked that up, did you? Did you read this part? > [@](#): > > There are 15 members of the Security Council. **This includes five veto-wielding permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States** —based on the great powers that were the victors of World War II. > [@](#): > > 1. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI…a party to a dispute shall refrain from voting. **This means that on nonprocedural issues, such as a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, nine members of the Security Council must vote for it-and none of the permanent-five members may veto it-if it is to pass. Abstentions, however, are not considered vetoes** My emphasis. Did you have anything else you wanted to bring to our attention that shows you still don’t get it, or was that the big one? I’m sort of busy today. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/314 "2013-07-01T16:08:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t understand what you’ve written, so I can’t respond. Others have urged you to be concise, but that second sentence is a run-on that is terribly unclear. Fair enough, I will rephrase that part this evening to where I think you’ll understand. I am drawing your attention toward the genuine test of UNSC member’s attention. That was the US and UK’s draft resolution offered around March 7. Bush and Blair withdrew the draft resolution because they did not have nine members to vote in favor of it. One huge setback for Bush and Blair was the Canadian PM’s public opposition to the draft Resolution. From memory I believe that Bush and Blair originally pledged to force a vote regardless of expected outcome to put members on record as to whether Iraq was complying with 1441 or not. They could not get the nine members needed to win so they withdrew their draft resolution and we all know what they did. It was not the threat of veto that forced a retreat on Bush’s draft resolution. It was the majority view that Iraq was doing what was required and peaceful inspections were working toward a final conclusion that protects international peace and security. I will explain further this evening and respond to your other well expressed comments. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/315 "2013-07-01T16:21:09Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Finally looked that up, did you? Did you read this part? > > My emphasis. Did you have anything else you wanted to bring to our attention that shows you still don’t get it, or was that the big one? I’m sort of busy today. So what is your point? You said UNSC required a unanimous vote. Nine out of fifteen is one more than a simple majority. That is not a unanimous vote. You attacked me but you are the one who got it wrong: > [@](#): > > "So, along with myriad other things, you don’t understand how the UNSC works either. It’s not majority vote. I has to be unanimous. " You are absolutely wrong. Your credibility takes another well deserved hit. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/316 "2013-07-01T16:52:20Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > From memory I believe that Bush and Blair originally pledged to force a vote regardless of expected outcome to put members on record as to whether Iraq was complying with 1441 or not. They could not get the nine members needed to win so they withdrew their draft resolution and we all know what they did. It was not the threat of veto that forced a retreat on Bush’s draft resolution. It was the majority view that Iraq was doing what was required and peaceful inspections were working toward a final conclusion that protects international peace and security. There are substantial and consequential differences between these three statements: 1. War is not justified. 2. The inspections are working. 3. Iraq is fully complying with 1441. If you assert opinion #1, I doubt anyone here would disagree with you. Opinion #2, some might disagree whether the goal of inspections – basically, to document every aspect of suspected WMD programs – could ever be achieved. Opinion #3, I don’t know of any member of the Security Council who actually stated that particular view. But you are claiming that the 9 members of the Security Council held opinion #3. I can’t find evidence of that. In his [February speech](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/france_2-14.html), de Villepin pointedly said that new Iraqi commitments to aid cooperation “must be verified as facts,” in other words, that promises of Iraqi cooperation must be backed up by action. Then, in March, [de Villepin](http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Speech-by-M-Dominique-de-Villepin,4917.html) made no mention of Iraqi cooperation being complete or sufficient… only that inspections were progressing. In short, I still maintain that you are projecting your own views onto others who did not say what you think they said. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/317 "2013-07-01T17:04:13Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] So what is your point? You said UNSC required a unanimous vote. Nine out of fifteen is one more than a simple majority. That is not a unanimous vote. [/QUOTE] My point is you can’t read. It requires a unanimous vote of the permanent members, any of which could veto anything with a single vote. It’s not 9 out of 15, it has to be 5 out of 5 (unless someone abstains, but that’s not what you were talking about). So, bringing this back to the discussion at hand, France could have vetoed any initiative that would have meant that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441 if it would result in military action, and in fact they said straight up that they would. Conversely, the US could have vetoed any initiative that said Iraq was in compliance if that meant that military action was off the table. Q.E.D. there was NEVER going to be an actual ruling on this from the UN wrt 1441 because there were diametrically opposed sides. Bringing it back to YOUR assertion of ‘fact’, since the UNSC never DID make a ruling, it’s pure speculation on your part that Iraq was in compliance. > [@](#): > > You attacked me but you are the one who got it wrong: No…I wasn’t. You were and remain wrong on this. You simply don’t get it and frankly I don’t see how you ever will, since multiple people have tried to explain it to you and you still don’t get it. > [@](#): > > You are absolutely wrong. Your credibility takes another well deserved hit. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/318 "2013-07-01T18:41:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > There are substantial and consequential differences between these three statements: > > 1. War is not justified. > 2. The inspections are working. > 3. Iraq is fully complying with 1441. To comply with your format, I suggest the use of more specific statements that reflect my overall perspective and the perspective of many at the time when inductions were taking place. 1. War was not justified if Iraq was cooperating in line with 1441. 2. The 1441 inspections reflected that SH was cooperating with unprecedented positive behavior and actions prior to the start of the war. 3. Iraq complied with the demands of 1441 to fully cooperate and was therefore not in violation of its 1441 obligations or UNSC demands as outlined in Res 1441. I believe regime change/ war would have been justified if SH/ Iraq continued to demonstrate contempt for international law and UN authority. Paragraphs 2 and 3 better reflect the statements of fact that I have been expressing . If you agree or disagree with these modifications, please key me know. I still will be responding to your comments when I have more time. > [@Ravenman](#): > > But you are claiming that the 9 members of the Security Council held opinion #3. I can’t find evidence of that. I am not claiming they held your version of #3. Their actions and refusal to act enforce the fact of my version of #3. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/319 "2013-07-01T19:05:09Z")
There are a whole lot of people who do not like Bush but this cat is in a league of his own, with Hillary Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/320 "2013-07-01T19:09:19Z")
Oh, I don’t think Hillary Clinton made a point of not only being divorced from reality, but taking out a restraining order against it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=17)