# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/21 "2013-06-20T22:20:10Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > Now that you’re here, he won’t come back. That’s quite an intelligent format for discussing things don’t you think? I guess this is not the place for facts, but I do like a challenge, Is anyone up to bringing facts? ---
**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:** [June 20, 2013, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/22 "2013-06-20T22:21:00Z")
Here’s a fact - no-one is impressed by you. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/23 "2013-06-20T22:40:10Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I’m not sure where to even start with this guy. He has got to be one of the more exasperating new posters we have currently on the board. On par with FXM for pedantry and exasperation. In his two most recent thread, [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=693247) and especially [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=692567), you can see a variety of different posters trying to get through his thick skull…all to no avail, and he constantly shifts the goal posts or digresses into stupid semantic discussions about the meanings of words and when, exactly a scandal becomes a scandal…and what a CT is and why his thread on the IRS incident is a CT, etc etc, blah blah blah. Ironically, some of the folks who seem most exasperated with him are actually nominally on his side…many are Obama supporters and loyal Democrats. Few are actually opposed to his broader view about Bush and the Iraqi war, yet he seems impervious to this and just bulls ahead with his views on things even when he’s been shown to be wrong, or when folks point out the CT aspects of his thread and how ridiculous it is. > > At any rate, just wanted to let off a bit of steam about this guy here before I blow up in GD and get Mod smacked. I realize that this board has a pretty steep learning curve and that this guy doesn’t seem to get it or want to get it, even though broadly his views are politically in line with the boards overall corporate culture. He COULD fit in, but thus far he doesn’t seem to want too, and instead seems to want to butt heads with folks even nominally on his side. The problem seems to be that he has no interest in a dialogue. He just wants to witness his views. It appears he barely reads what other people are saying and doesn’t make any attempt to understand and address other viewpoints. ---
**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:** [June 20, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/24 "2013-06-20T22:42:31Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The problem seems to be that he has no interest in a dialogue. He just wants to witness his views. It appears he barely reads what other people are saying and doesn’t make any attempt to understand and address other viewpoints. Exactly. Case in point, his post in this thread where he asserts a bunch of horseshit that I supposedly said or positions I supposedly hold. It’s what makes him so freaking exasperating. ---
**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:** [June 20, 2013, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/25 "2013-06-20T22:51:00Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] I was sensibly and factually refuting an Iraq invasion supporter when you butted in basically taking sides with the supporter’s myth that Bush supporters typically cite as the excuse that Bush uses to this day to justify deciding to invade. [/QUOTE] I wasn’t taking sides with him, I was telling you that you were wrong. Again. In addition, you seriously need to learn to read with an eye towards comprehension. Seriously. > [@](#): > > Your contention is as false as the rightwinger’s argument and when you get challenged you dropped out. Um no…I didn’t. Your ridiculous assertions had already been shot down previously by other posters in that very thread. Pretty much by that point EVERYONE HAD STOPPED ENGAGING YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. > [@](#): > > I’ll summarize it for all to see on the Bush library thread. Dude, seriously, as I’ve tried to tell you repeatedly, people can actually scroll up and see for themselves. Really, they can. That is if they can slog through all your convoluted horseshit. I’m guessing most simply don’t want to waste the time, and who can blame them? > [@](#): > > It is ultimately an argument that SH didn’t cooperate enough in the final round if inspections immediately enough so Bush had a justifiable reason to kick > inspectors out and start the war. Except, as I’ve pointed out several times, I don’t think bush was justified. You seem basically too stupid to grasp this seemingly simple point. > [@](#): > > Why does XT unwillingly make the case that lets Bush off the hook for making a bad decision? He’s not off the hook, moron. It WAS a stupid decision and one that cost this country dearly. But you are simply 5 of the stupidest people I’ve seen on this board, and we had Gonzomax as a poster. Well, ok…you might be marginally brighter than the Gonz, but that’s not saying much. > [@](#): > > It would be interesting to find out why XT sides with Adaher and not my totally factually supported view that SH’s cooperation prior to the invasion was sufficient to keep inspections going for a few more months to completion. I didn’t side with him, I pointed out that you were wrong. You remain wrong. And stupid. ---
**Author:** ![R3d\_Anonymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aeb1de/32.png) [@R3d\_Anonymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R3d_Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/26 "2013-06-20T22:58:02Z")
He has a tendency to just hang out in Great Debates and just keep posting long walls of text even if no one is no longer interested in the discussion. If I remember correctly, **tomndebb** once told him to not post anything about the US military for one month or something like that because **NotfooledbyW** just kept going on and _on_. I usually don’t bother reading his posts, but then again, I haven’t been going into GD that much lately, either. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/27 "2013-06-21T01:20:56Z")
When someone chooses a handle that pretty much telegraphs his _raison d’etre_, it’s not a good sign that he’s got anything uniquely worthwhile to contribute (the fact that his _raison d’etre_ is about five years out of date doesn’t help). He has accomplished one valuable thing, though: I am now more likely to check the name of an OP before I bother opening a thread. ---
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/28 "2013-06-21T01:24:59Z")
I’m not fooled by wargs either. ---
**Author:** ![R3d\_Anonymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aeb1de/32.png) [@R3d\_Anonymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R3d_Anonymous)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/29 "2013-06-21T01:29:45Z")
> [@Anonymous User](#): > > He has a tendency to just hang out in Great Debates and just keep posting long walls of text even if **no one is no longer** interested in the discussion. Sorry for the double negative there. It should be “no one is any longer…” ETA: Actually, even that is an awkward sentence. It would be best to reword it as, “…even if no one is interested in the discussion anymore.” ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/30 "2013-06-21T01:53:55Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I assume when you say “Messiah mythology” you are referring to the mythology that anyone on the left actually treats Obama like the Messiah, and by “kool-aide drinkers” who “buy into this mythology” you are referring to yourself. I consider the following thought process to be cultish: “Hmm, someone made an accusation against Obama.” “We know that anyone who makes an accusation against Obama is a right-winger.” “Right-wingers always lie regarding Obama.” “Therefore, the accusation is a lie.” Some people think that because it involves steps and reasoning, they are actually critically evaluating every accusation and coming to an independent conclusion. But, the fallacy in step 2 closes the loop every time and results in an outcome of “no accusations against Obama can possibly be true, and anyone who makes them must be a right-winger acting out of a desire to turn American into Romneyland.” The above thought process is laid out, explicitly and implicitly, in every single discussion with the administration’s defenders. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/31 "2013-06-21T02:46:04Z")
Then it should be easy to find and link examples. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/32 "2013-06-21T02:49:44Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > I consider the following thought process to be cultish: > > “Hmm, someone made an accusation against Obama.” > “We know that anyone who makes an accusation against Obama is a right-winger.” > “Right-wingers always lie regarding Obama.” > “Therefore, the accusation is a lie.” > > Some people think that because it involves steps and reasoning, they are actually critically evaluating every accusation and coming to an independent conclusion. But, the fallacy in step 2 closes the loop every time and results in an outcome of “no accusations against Obama can possibly be true, and anyone who makes them must be a right-winger acting out of a desire to turn American into Romneyland.” > > The above thought process is laid out, explicitly and implicitly, in every single discussion with the administration’s defenders. Bullshit. Your nonsense argument breaks down as: [ul] [li]Someone is defending the Obama administration[/li][li]The Obama administration is inherently evil[/li][li]Therefor the Obama administration cannot be honestly defended[/li][li]It only follows that the defender has “drank the cool aid” and “believe Obama is the Messiah”[/li][/ul] This little gem in particular would be beyond funny if it wasn’t so damn sad: > [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > The above thought process is laid out, explicitly and implicitly, in every single discussion with the administration’s defenders. Your dumb fucking ass managed to take a perfectly good pitting of an idiot like **NotfooledbyW** and actually out-stupid him. Congratulations! You _ **started** _ at mouth-breathing, uneducated, ill-informed simpleton and managed to start digging your way _ **down** _. Quite an accomplishment. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/33 "2013-06-21T03:15:39Z")
It was post #055 on 06/09 at 11:10 PM when Adaher 06-09-2013 11:10 PM began with a line of logic that that I began to challenge, “… BUT, if Saddam had completely complied, given the level of doubts in the US over the justifications for war, it would have been very hard for Bush to go ahead with it.” When Adaher stated “If” as "If Saddam had ‘completely complied’ it is a suggestion that Saddam did not comply. But the truth is there is no evidence that Saddam was not in compliance with the demands of the UNSC at anytime between December and March just prior to the war. -NF 06/20 My response to Adaher came in post #056 on 06/10 at 06:35 AM. I made this statement of Fact: “Saddam Hussein did completely comply prior to the invasion.” I stated this reinforcement to that fact, “Since Bush went the diplomatic route he was assenting to be swayed by what the weapons inspectors would determine.” That sets up my reasoning in determining that Saddam did comply (cooperation-wise) prior to the invasion. I wrote this, “Blix said prior to the invasion that Iraq’s cooperation was proactive - inspections were working.” \*\*\*-NF 06/20 I have heard no dispute about my facts so far: In that same post, I made a further point that Iraq really was cooperating, I say proactively as early as December 2002: “With the fact that in December 2002 Iraq offered to allow the CIA enter Iraq to look for WMD … makes it fully a stretch of the imagination to declare that Iraq did not try to cooperate to avoid war and let diplomacy prevail.” And this I believe is a hearty blow to Adaher’s unjustified excuse making for GW Bush’s decision to kick the inspectors out and start a war. -NF 06/20 I wrote, “And what abolishes I believe your idea here is that the official response from the White House to the offer to bring the CIA in was 'let the UN handle it.” So Adaher replies with this gem, in post #057 on 06/10 at 06:47 AM, “Problem is, Saddam didn’t even comply completely according to Blix. It may have seemed like enough to reduce the pressure for war in the minds of those opposed to the war, but it wasn’t what Bush had demanded.” Adaher is wrong since there is no doubt that Saddam began to cooperate, pro-actively prior to the date that Bush kicked the inspectors out, and that is according Dr, Blix himself. It still will take a few months to finish the inspections to get to full compliance. -NF 06/20 In Post #058 on 06/10 at 07:05 AM I continued to argue against Adaher’s false arguments when I wrote, “You must be referring to Blix’s professional position that the disarmament process was not complete and it would take a few more months to complete.” \*\*\*-NF 06/20 And here I brought the issue of a ‘deadline’ into the discussion, because there was none: "Neither Bush, nor Congress nor UN Res 1441 set a deadline or timeline for when the inspection process had to be completed. The demand on SH was to demonstrate a willingness to get to that deadline and have sanctions lifted and a long term monitoring regime set up. According to the international law in place it would have had to be the UNSC to declare SH in Material Breach of his FINAL Opportunity to comply, not what George W Bush felt or thinking that it had to be finished by March 17 2003. Bush’s WH said let the UN handle it not the CIA." \*\*\*-NF 06/20 Now does anybody have a problem with what I’ve written thus far? And then Adaher comes back with this, a bit screwy reply in post #059 on 06/10 at 07:09 AM: "That’s what Blix said in his last briefing. His first briefing was a lot more scathing: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ks-Saddam.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ks-Saddam.html) The British PM’s office said it well: “We always thought this was likely to be part of the drip feed of concessions,” the Prime Minister’s spokesman said. “This is how Saddam plays the concession game. It is not the full, immediate co-operation that the UN demands.” This is where Adaher is citing a pure falsehood. Tony Blair’s spokesman has no say in what the UN Demands. The UNSC did not ever determine that Iraq did not meet the 'full, immediate co-operation that the UN Demands. -NF 06/20 \*\*\*-NF 06/20 If anyone has a source telling me that Tony Blair’s spokesman got to decide what the UNSC was demanding, please bring it to me. -NF 06/20 And so I wrote in response to Adaher’s make believe re-write of history and re-write of UN Resolution 1441. In Post #061 on 06/10 at 07:54 AM I asked Adaher, “Was it the British PM’s office running the inspections?” \*\*\* NF 06/20 And then I stated what XT decided to pounce upon: “Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war.” But first here comes Ravenman in post #063 on 06/10 at 09:44 AM > [@](#): > > In Hans Blix’s book, “Disarming Iraq,” pages 193-194, Blix recounts a meeting with Tony Blair on February 20. Blix writes: “I said… that while I appreciate the intelligence we received, I had to note that it had not been all that compelling… Personally, I tended to think that Iraq still concealed weapons of mass destruction, but I needed evidence.” > > And as Blix was recounting his March 7th update to the UNSC, Blix stated: > > I stressed that it was for the Council to assess… whether Iraq had cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” as required under Resolution 1441. I noted nevertheless that although Iraq had become “active” or even “proactive,” these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution could not be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. The Council, not I, was to make the overall judgment. > > It’s also a fact that Blix considers the war to be “unjustified.” But it is not accurate to state, or at least imply, that Blix either knew that there were no WMD, or was on the verge of giving Iraq a clean bill of health, or had really made up his mind one way or another. It’s very clear that he wanted to work in Iraq for a few more months before coming to any final conclusions, but he remained suspicious that Iraq was hiding something. > > So let’s let Blix speak for himself, rather than making him out to be as anti-war as, say, someone like me. \*\*\* NF 06/20 So here it starts with XT lurking in the darkness. I wrote all I wrote, and then I wrote this, “Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war.” And from that Ravenman reads into that, this: “So let’s let Blix speak for himself, rather than making him out to be as anti-war as, say, someone like me”. I wasn’t making Blix out to be anti-war like Ravenman, whatever that is. Blix had a job to do. And he did in fact declare from the start that he was getting access to all sites, and that was unfettered, and he did state before the war that Iraq could be considered to be cooperating proactively. Ravenman actually cites the quote where Blix said Iraq is cooperating proactively. That any sane person could be interpreted as saying that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war. My statement is correct based upon Iraq being declared by Blix to be cooperating including pro-active cooperation. \*\*\* NF 06/20 In post #065 on 06/10 on 01:07 PM I replied reasonably to Ravenman explaining my view: > [@](#): > > I don’t see how my comment you addressed presupposes that Blix had reached a conclusive opinion on his work or that he was particularly more anti war or not. > > My statement I believe is quite fair and realistic: > > “Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war.” > > Blix expressed a view that unfettered inspections were working so it stands to reason that he did not believe that Bush and Blair should have fettered them up and start a war. > > Is my statement accurate or not as written? -NFBW \*\*\* NF 06/20 And so in post #066 on 06/10 at 03:47 PM XT decided that I needed to cite what Ravenman had already cited. Blix said Iraq was cooperating proactively prior to the invasion. Proactive cooperation means that Blix thought the inspections were ‘working’. Note that XT asks for more than my statement contained. This is the kind of dishonesty I have had to deal with since arriving here. XT takes my statement and Turns it into, " but I’ve never seen a statement where Blix … felt… that the inspections **were working to his complete satisfaction**. I base my statement on the fact that Blix was preparing to finish the inspections within months with the Proactive Cooperation on Substance he had received toward the end of February and that he spoke of the preparations for setting up the long term monitoring program which is with an eye looking toward the nearing end of the inspections process moving to the next phase … Long Term Monitoring. And what is this ‘black and white pictures’ crap that XT brings up. What the hell is that? I love to have a reasoned discussion about this stuff, but come on XT. This is pathetic: > [@](#): > > #066 XT 06-10-2013 03:47 PM “Do you have a cite (prior to the war) where Blix said that the inspections were either unfettered OR that they were working? I agree that he didn’t feel there was ample evidence to go to war over, but I’ve never seen a statement where Blix was that open that he felt SH or Iraq were cooperating to a level he was comfortable with and that the inspections were working to his complete satisfaction. To me, from memory, his stance was much more nuanced than you seem to be attempting to portray it…shades of gray, instead of the black and white picture you seem to be trying to assert. -XT #066 06-10-2013 03:47 PM According to Blix he never cited Iraq for blocking access to cites and he said the cooperation on process was always good with a few minor issues that needed to be resolved. Here is what I cited, > [@](#): > > “It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course.” > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/27/in...hell-nati.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/27/in...hell-nati.html) Blix was not satisfied with Iraq’s cooperation on substance until Perhaps March. But that is not the issue in determining that Bush had a good reason to start a war. Blix never cited lack of cooperation on substance being a breach of UN Res 1441. He said he would let the UNSC decide that. They did not decide that it was. The cooperation on Process was sufficient to get the Inspection Process done but it might take a little longer. So my point that there was no deadline matters. Cooperation on Process was the key to avoiding war and Blix got it early on. Blix tells us in Ravenman’s cite and in the NYT link, that cooperation on substance not only arrived prior to Bush deciding to kick the inspectors out and start a war, but that they were working on resolving the remaining issues. And Blix states emphatically that in his very own words, that “cooperation on substance _is needed_ in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course.” And he said he got it… He got it. XT do you know what that means to your argument that I am all screwed up in the head, or lying about what Blix thought? It means the inspections were unfettered and working prior to the invasion. Your big move was to asked me for "a cite (prior to the war) where Blix said that the inspections were either unfettered OR that they were working? Blix got the Proactive Cooperation **prior to the war** … How more ‘unfettered’ do you think the inspections had to be? Your request to me was quite stupid. Since Ravenman posted the answer prior to your demanding a cite. And so the debate moved to a matter of 'well SH did not cooperate ‘immediate’ enough. And that argument is even dumber than most. Here’s where XT tried to weasel out of his demand for a cite that answered .. because Blix did get proactive cooperation ‘before the war’… XT’s weasel words are … well it was too late … No it wasn’t… Unless you think Bush should be excused for attacking Iraq because Iraq did not cooperate ‘fast enough’. That ridiculous argument matches Adahers. Sorry XT, it does. > [@](#): > > #074 XT 06-10-2013 04:55 PM > I posted this link earlier. Please read it: > [Security Council 7 March 2003](http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm) > Blix clearly states that Iraq is fully cooperating, that he expects the remaining issues can be resolved in a matter of a few months, and that the continued presence of the UN team will prevent Saddam from resuming prohibited programs. > The quote from Ravenman about this report does not contradict any of those points; it only acknowledges that Iraq’s cooperation was not immediate. To someone like Bush, I suppose that is a pretext for war. To any sane person, it is a ridiculous reason to invade. - Originally Posted by TonySinclair (Post 16369092) > I’ve only skimmed it (sorry I missed your link earlier btw), but this is dated the 7th of March, 2003…12 days before the invasion, when it was quite clear that the trigger had already been pulled. By that point, nothing Blix could have said would have made any difference. > I agree with you that it wasn’t a good pretext for war, but I don’t think this really backs up the assertion that “Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war”, merely that by the 12th Blix was reasonably happy with the progress, that he still had reservations and needed more resources and specifically more time. Certainly he DID need all of those, but by the 12th of March it was too late by half a year to be even as cautiously optimistic as your cite shows he was at that time…hell, it might have been too late a year before. Certainly, by the time we were already deploying substantial forces in the area the die was cast unless something extraordinary occurred, such as Saddam and his sons unilaterally agreeing to abdicate and leave the country. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/34 "2013-06-21T03:37:29Z")
You have another error XT that I just noticed. “quite clear that the trigger had already been pulled.” > [@](#): > > I’ve only skimmed it (sorry I missed your link earlier btw), but this is dated the 7th of March, 2003…12 days before the invasion, when it was quite clear that the trigger had already been pulled. By that point, nothing Blix could have said would have made any difference. -XT #074 XT 06-10-2013 04:55 PM That is bogus because on March 7th Bush authorized or sent Colin Powell to the UNSC with a draft resolution. That resolution contained language that would allow SH to stay in power. If Bush would allow SH to stay in power… It is certainly not clear that the ‘trigger had already been pulled’. Look it up. Early March 2003, Draft Resolution… Bush and Blair couldn’t get the votes… But SH could have stayed in power. That also means that Bush didn’t have the smoking gun intel that Iraq was hiding the ‘most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN inspectors’ … If he had it he would not have made an offer to let SH Stay in power. And then remarkably Bush announced that he had intel that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding lethal WMD from UN inspectors. Think about that… instead of attacking me… Why don’t you. No really think about it. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/35 "2013-06-21T03:51:01Z")
tl;ts;dr ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/36 "2013-06-21T04:27:27Z")
NFBW: Do everyone, especially yourself, a favor: learn what a paragraph is. I’d make a suggestion about learning Logic also; however, in your case it’s incredibly obvious that boat sailed long, long ago. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2013, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/37 "2013-06-21T04:42:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > He reminds me of old **gonzomax** - same sort of pigheaded cluelessness. Although old **gonzo** wasn’t dishonest - just out of his depth. (Although when my dog pees on the fire hydrant, he creates an environment where **gonzo** would have been out of his depth.) I almost thought he was a **gonzo** sock, but the posting style is different, and at least **gonzo** would give up eventually. **FooledByEverythingUnderTheSun** is like a cross between **gonzomax** and the Every Ready Bunny. The idiocy keeps going and going and… It takes a special talent, in a certain version of the term “special”, to bring together long standing rivals on this MB. And as much as I think **Human Action** is a reasonable poster here, those two should just get a room. DNFTT and all that. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/38 "2013-06-21T04:46:18Z")
> [@](#): > > … but this is dated the 7th of March, 2003…12 days before the invasion, when it was quite clear that the trigger had already been pulled. By that point, nothing Blix could have said would have made any difference. > > I agree with you that it wasn’t a good pretext for war, but I don’t think this really backs up the assertion that “Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war”, merely that by the 12th Blix was reasonably happy with the progress, that he still had reservations and needed more resources and specifically more time. > > Certainly he DID need all of those, but by the 12th of March it was too late by half a year to be even as cautiously optimistic as your cite shows he was at that time…hell, it might have been too late a year before. > > Certainly, by the time we were already deploying substantial forces in the area the die was cast unless something extraordinary occurred, such as Saddam and his sons unilaterally agreeing to abdicate and leave the country. -#074 XT 06-10-2013 04:55 PM. To XT my statement is a bogus, lying, distortion of what Blix said or thought prior to the start of the invasion, “Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war”. To XT this is accurate:" [Security Council 7 March 2003](http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm) Blix clearly states that Iraq is fully cooperating, that he expects the remaining issues can be resolved in a matter of a few months, and that the continued presence of the UN team will prevent Saddam from resuming prohibited programs." Can anyone posting on this thread see the difference in context or substance between the two statements posted above? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/39 "2013-06-21T04:52:47Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > NFBW: Do everyone, especially yourself, a favor: learn what a paragraph is. I’d make a suggestion about learning Logic also; however, in your case it’s incredibly obvious that boat sailed long, long ago. So Monty refer to my previos post. Do you deal in facts with logic or just fling insults about it? Tell the difference in meaning between mine and what Tony Sinclair Linked to. Are you on the field it in the stands? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/40 "2013-06-21T05:05:29Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Here’s a fact - no-one is impressed by you. I expect you will be impressed with my facts see previous posts here since I doubt you will even try to refute any of them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=3)