# 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:** 27
**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 15, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/521 "2013-07-15T16:57:21Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You are exposed. You can’t even go a single post without posting more of your lies. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/522 "2013-07-15T18:14:47Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You can’t even go a single post without posting more of your lies. Your lie is that Blix did not state that Iraq had achieved cooperation that he would call proactive. And you know that he said it. Where have I ever lied at all? Why do you deny that Blix recognized proactive cooperation and said so? That is a bizarre lie for you to keep repeating when you know it is not true. You appear to be invested in wanting Bush to be able to justify his decision to kick inspectors out and blame it all on Saddam Hussein. I hope you figure out why you do it someday. ---
**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 15, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/523 "2013-07-15T18:24:09Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Where have I ever lied at all? … > > **You appear to be invested in wanting Bush to be able to justify his decision to kick inspectors out and blame it all on Saddam Hussein.** I hope you figure out why you do it someday. You lie in that very post. I never said such a thing, never implied such a thing, and in fact have strenuously argued against such a position. But you throw all that out and lie about what I’ve posted. This is the problem with you maintaining that what you post are facts, not opinions. When you refuse to be corrected about things – like what other posters have said – you are engaging in compulsive lying. You’re a dishonest, dirty, lying poster, and nobody should take anything you say seriously, because you fabricate most of your “facts.” ---
**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 15, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/524 "2013-07-15T18:58:35Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That is what Blix said. Now what is innacurate about coting this and saying that Blix saw Iraq as cooperating “even proactive” by some time in February? > > Your reply that Blix never said it at all is absurd. > > Are you still denying that Blix said, agreed, assessed that Iraq was cooperation was active or even proactive? > > You have no credibilty if you continue to deny the truth about what Blix clearly said. > > You are exposed. Hey, dumb-ass. When Blix said the Council would make the overall judgement, he was talking about everything-- the proactive cooperation as well as the lack of immediate response. Blix was advising the Council what he thought, but deferring to them to make the decision. So yes, Blix said the cooperation could be called proactive. Yes, Blix said that it could not be called immediate. That was Blix’s position. He said both those things. But the UNSC did not rule on them one way or another before Bush invaded. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/525 "2013-07-15T21:53:41Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > > > Do you deny that Blix said Iraq had been (cooperating) actively, even proactive, prior to the invasion? > > > [@Ravenman](#): > > > > Yes. I deny it. > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > So yes, Blix said the cooperation could be called proactive. Thank you Mace! You have admitted and professed the truth as I have been telling you. Iraq was cooperating sufficient to the UNSC well before Bush decided to invade. Some of the proactive cooperation may not have been immediate in Blix’s opinion, but immediate is not a precise measurable term. And there was no set time for Iraq to get to the level of cooperation that they did. So with your admission that you know that Blix said Iraq was cooperating proactively do you agree that Iraq was cooperating sufficiently under the 1441 mandate, and therefore the majority of the UNSC members were correct to continue inspection under 1441 and deny Bush and Blair’s request to authorize war by setting an impossible arbitrary deadline for Iraq to be declared in Full Compliance with all relevant UNSC Resolutions? How do we get Ravenman to quit denying that Blix said Iraq was cooperating in proactive ways for a month at least prior to the start of the US invasion. And also, do you think Bush was enforcing UN Res 1441 when he attacked Iraq in March 2003? Bush was required by the AUMF to ‘enforce’ ALL UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. I believe Bush defied 1441 which cannot mean he enforced it. So what do you think - did Bush enforce 1441 or did he not? ---
**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 15, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/526 "2013-07-15T22:03:16Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Thank you Mace! You have admitted and professed the truth as I have been telling you. Another falsehood. **John** was pointing out your lie of omission. He said it twice in his post, and you aren’t quoting that part, are you? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/527 "2013-07-15T22:33:12Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Another falsehood. **John** was pointing out your lie of omission. He said it twice in his post, and you aren’t quoting that part, are you? What lie of omission? Do you continue to deny that Blix said Iraq was cooperating proactively? I have acknowledged often that Blix thought it was not immediate, but not being immediate in no way means that proactive cooperation did not happen or that Blix publically state that he recognized it. So why did you deny that Blix said it? ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/528 "2013-07-16T01:38:48Z")
Can I change my username to NotfooledbyNotfooledbyW? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/529 "2013-07-16T01:58:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Can I change my username to NotfooledbyNotfooledbyW? Kidchameleon Sure but you’d be admitting that you are FooledbyRavenman. Which Ravenman you gonna believe… The one in June citing Blix saying Iraq’s cooperation was proactive but not immediate. Or the one in July who denied that Blix said that Iraq’s cooperation was immediate? > [@Ravenman](#): > > Another falsehood. **John** was pointing out your lie of omission. He said it twice in his post, and you aren’t quoting that part, are you? Why are you leaving out the fact that you cited Blix saying exactly what you now deny that he ever said it? Why aren’t you quoting Blix now like you did before. > [@](#): > > And as Blix was recounting his March 7th update to the UNSC, Blix stated: > > “Cite” 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. “ Cite” -Ravenman blt063 06-10-2013 09:44 AM And as to your bogus claim that I lied by omission for leaving out once in a while what Blix said about the cooperation not being immediate - that is more evasion on your part since I mention that Blix said that plenty of times. Here’s one: > [@](#): > > Blix said he would not call the proactive cooperation he was seeing in February “immediate” but he did say also that it was not his call. He deferred the defining of immediate to the members of the UNSC and they did not see it as a cause > To cease 1441. So you have failed to make a case that what Blix said means anything or explain why you are so inclined to take Blix out of context just as so many Bush lovers do. ---
**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 16, 2013, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/530 "2013-07-16T02:27:45Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Sure but you’d be admitting that you are FooledbyRavenman. Which Ravenman you gonna believe… The one in June citing Blix saying Iraq’s cooperation was proactive but not immediate. Or the one in July who denied that Blix said that Iraq’s cooperation was immediate? > > Why are you leaving out the fact that you cited Blix saying exactly what you now deny that he ever said it? Why aren’t you quoting Blix now like you did before. > > And as to your bogus claim that I lied by omission for leaving out once in a while what Blix said about the cooperation not being immediate - that is more evasion on your part since I mention that Blix said that plenty of times. We all know what Blix said. I’m the one who provided most of the quotes. Quotes that you didn’t even know existed, so you twist the plain meaning of them to match what you wanted him to say. And after what, 11 pages of this nonsense, I still haven’t heard you provide one convincing fact that anything you say isn’t a total lie. Not. One. Fact. It’s amazing how a poster can write so much and not have even one shred of evidence on his side. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/531 "2013-07-16T04:15:26Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > We all know what Blix said. I’m the one who provided most of the quotes. Quotes that you didn’t even know existed, so you twist the plain meaning of them to match what you wanted him to say. I don’t have any lies on this thread or any other. That would be you Ravenman. You just added another one. (do you see how to be specific when you call someone a liar - here is how it is done) You just wrote that I did not know the some Blix quotes existed until you posted them in June. That is a lie. I have been citing the “proactive cooperation” Blix quote for years. I referred to it last February in the Hubris Thread: > [@](#): > > . Bush determined to kick them (inspectors) out after Saddam was cooperating proactively according to Dr Blix. -Ntfldbw 02-22-2013 10:52 PM Why Blix’s statement about Proactive Cooperation is so important. It is because Bush could lie about intelligence he had about WMD, but he should not get away with lying about Iraq’s cooperation. Bush was supposed to give all his intelligence to the Weapons Inspectors, so it is hard for me to believe they had any ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE let alone believe it. It was cooperation that Iraq was required to do to avoid war. Any denial that Iraq was proactively cooperating prior to the invasion gives Bush and Invasion supporters their false sense that he was justified to act and the blame for Bush’s tragic mistake can be pinned on Saddam Hussein. The fact that Blix said that the proactive initiatives Iraq had taken late in the process were regarding longstanding unresolved issues, means that anyone citing this statement from Blix as evidence that Iraq was not cooperating is lending support to Bush’s lies about Iraq’s cooperation overall. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And I’m speaking as someone who does not believe that Bush and others lied. Lying to me means that they knew the truth and chose to say something else. I think that they really, truly, honestly believed that the WMD were well-hidden and Blix was simply being played for a fool. But in my book, I don’t think that they are redeemed in any way by being wrong as opposed to being liars. -Ravenman > > It is possible that they were just wrong to think they knew for certain that Iraq was hiding WMD in March 2003; but it is impossible for them to be mistaken that Iraq was not proactively cooperating in the opinions of the chief weapons inspectors and at least nine of the fifteen members on the UN Security Council. > > Bush lied about Iraq’s cooperation on March 17, 2003, and has been lying successfully since to so many who are in that sense fooled by Dubya. - NotfooledbyW 03-09-2013 05:12 PM Anyone opposed to the US invasion of Iraq and having such contempt for anyone who points out the indisputable ‘set of Bush lies about Iraq’s cooperation’ should at least be able to explain why. ---
**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 16, 2013, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/532 "2013-07-16T11:27:09Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Any denial that Iraq was proactively cooperating prior to the invasion gives Bush and Invasion supporters their false sense that he was justified to act and the blame for Bush’s tragic mistake can be pinned on Saddam Hussein. Yawn… another post, another fabrication. Yep, and the sun rose in the east today, too. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/533 "2013-07-16T12:16:04Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Sure but you’d be admitting that you are FooledbyRavenman. Which Ravenman you gonna believe… You are stupid, the world isn’t entirely binary, asshole. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/534 "2013-07-16T12:22:17Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Yawn… another post, another fabrication. Yep, and the sun rose in the east today, too. What is fabricated? You denied that Blix said Iraq was cooperating proactively - it is written here. It is a fact that Bush often tells the lie that Iraq did not cooperate. So why wouldn’t the collective denial by so many others such as yourself Ravenman that Blix never said that Iraq was cooperating proactively, ultimately help Bush sell his entire package of Filthy Iraq invasion lies? You are in some serious denial. ---
**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 16, 2013, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/535 "2013-07-16T12:32:30Z")
So was the invasion justifed or not? One-word answers only, please. ---
**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 16, 2013, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/536 "2013-07-16T13:11:39Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > What is fabricated? You denied that Blix said Iraq was cooperating proactively - it is written here. It is a fact that Bush often tells the lie that Iraq did not cooperate. So why wouldn’t the collective denial by so many others such as yourself Ravenman that Blix never said that Iraq was cooperating proactively, ultimately help Bush sell his entire package of Filthy Iraq invasion lies? > > You are in some serious denial. I’m not denying what Blix said. I’m denying what YOU say. Unless… Hans Blix? Is that you? No? Ok, you’re still full of crap. ---
**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 16, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/537 "2013-07-16T13:52:40Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Thank you Mace! You have admitted and professed the truth as I have been telling you. Nope, because you left out the most important part of “the truth”. It matters not if SH was adhering to A, B, and C of 1441 if he was not also adhering to D, E and F. Note what 1441 says" _" 4. 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"_ > [@](#): > > Iraq was cooperating sufficient to the UNSC well before Bush decided to invade. That’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. But you are not welcome to state it as a fact. Reasonable people can disagree about that. And, for the nth time, one can think SH was not in full compliance and still think the invasion unwarranted and/or unwise. > [@](#): > > Some of the proactive cooperation may not have been immediate in Blix’s opinion, but immediate is not a precise measurable term. And there was no set time for Iraq to get to the level of cooperation that they did. As I have been saying all along, given the choice between believing Blix and believing some anonymous internet poster (that is, you), I’m going to believe Blix. But you’re wrong, again, about there being no timetable in 1441. As already note, it says: _" Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; "_ And we know that Blix reported, after Iraq submitted their report 30 days later: > [@Hans Blix](#): > > On 7th of December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441, and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. > > This is welcome. > > One might have expected that in preparing the declaration Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM documents 9994 and the so-called Amorim report of March 1999. These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited. > > \ > > Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number. So, yes, there was a deadline in 1441 and Iraq did not meet it, since it did not eliminate any of the open questions UNSCOM had prior to 1441 being issued. > [@](#): > > So with your admission that you know that Blix said Iraq was cooperating proactively do you agree that Iraq was cooperating sufficiently under the 1441 mandate, In my opinion, no. And just some of the proof is presented above, per what Blix reported. But the key question to ask is: “sufficient” for what? I, personally, think there was no justification for the invasion, so it really doesn’t matter how “sufficient” the cooperation was. I was not fooled by W back in Oct of 2002, so I’m not invested in having to justify supporting the AUMF as you are. > [@](#): > > and therefore the majority of the UNSC members were correct Another fabrication from you. We don’t know what “the majority” thought because there was not a vote. We know what one or two of them thought on either side of the issue, but not “the majority” > [@](#): > > And also, do you think Bush was enforcing UN Res 1441 when he attacked Iraq in March 2003? Bush was required by the AUMF to ‘enforce’ ALL UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. I believe Bush defied 1441 which cannot mean he enforced it. He was not required to enforce “all”, he was authorized to enforce “all”, which means he was authorized to enforce each and every one, individually. > [@](#): > > So what do you think - did Bush enforce 1441 or did he not? I think a case can be made either way, but the much stronger case is that he did not. As I noted earlier, I think 1441 was worded in such a way that is was virtually impossible for Iraq to be in full compliance. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/538 "2013-07-16T15:02:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So was the invasion justifed or not? One-word answers only, please. **NotfooledbyW** isalyingmoroon. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/539 "2013-07-16T15:34:59Z")
I’m beginning to suspect that **NotFooledByW** thinks that if he just argues this point long enough, he can will the Iraq war into retroactively never having happened. (It’s the only reason _I_ can think of to keep beating a dead horse 10 years after the fact.) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/540 "2013-07-16T16:15:37Z")
> [@](#): > > As I noted earlier, I think 1441 was worded in such a way that is was virtually impossible for Iraq to be in full compliance. -John Mace I will get back to your long response sometime soon, but the above comment shows you still do not get what 1441 was. It was the UNSC, including the USA, giving Iraq a final opportunity to be brought into full compliance with all the preceding resolutions the UNSC passed. Iraq was not required to be in ‘full compliance’ under 1441. Iraq was required to submit a declaration within 30 days and Iraq did. Blix said it did not provide new information but that did not mean Iraq did not meet that deadline. That deadline passed and inspections continued and no move was made by any UNSC member to cease 1441 and end inspections. As it turns out there were no omissions because Iraq had no WMD to declare. So Iraq complied with its 30 day deadline and submitted the documents and meanwhile immediately provided full cooperation on access to sites. That is not in dispute. But where John Mace is denying a fact about 1441 is when he says Iraq had to become fully compliant under 1441 within a certain time or by any certain date. 1441 was a bridge to full compliance for Iraq to get there by demonstrating sufficient cooperation for the UNSC to be assured that all the matters would be resolved. And it was the clear judgment of the majority of the UNSC members Iraq’s cooperation level was sufficient for them to believe that the process was definitely headed toward full compliance without any need for war. John Mace cannot cite where 1441 required Iraq to be in full compliance by March 17. 2003 but keeps writing as if it did. That is a huge hole in Mace’s entire attempt at an argument. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=28)