# 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:** 28
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/541 "2013-07-16T16:46:16Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > 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. Once again, another egregious misrepresentation at what **John Mace** has written. It’s like you can’t even go a full post without working in some mendaciousness. You know what it reminds me of? Sarah Palin and death panels. Yes, the health care law has a provision on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. We can quote the law and read the words in black-and-white. But some yahoo comes up with a whole different version of what those words mean, and no amount of correction or factual intervention can correct that narrowminded, intentionally ignorant rhetoric. Was Sarah Palin judged to be simply mistaken about those supposed death panels? Was it simply a matter of misinterpretation? Or subjective opinion? Or just the typical Washington positioning on issues? No. Willful distortion of what other people have said or written, whether it is in the ACA, 1441, or this message board, despite repeated correction, is a lie. PolitiFact’s judgment is that Palin’s intentional misreading and misleading constitutes a [pants on fire](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/) lie. That’s the same thing that is happening here. What Sarah Palin is to death panels, **NFbW** is to the Iraq war. It’s not simply holding a different political position, or having a different view: it’s just a load of pants-on-fire lies that gets endlessly repeated. And every single post that repeats the same fictional version of history – like that the majority of the UNSC concluding one thing or another in March 2003 – is just pouring more fuel on the burning pack of lies that gets shoveled in to every single post he makes. ---
**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, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/542 "2013-07-16T16:49:24Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m not denying what Blix said. I’m denying what YOU say. My question and your reply are written down here. If you wish to continue to pretend you wrote something else, then nothing will stop you. If you are not personally ashamed of being dishonest there is not much that can be done to stop your dishonesty. But now if you accept that Blix recognized that Iraq’s cooperation was indeed proactive, I will ask you why you think Blix’s view that the late initiatives by Iraq, being ‘not immediate’ means that Iraq was, (A) not cooperating or (B) not in compliance with 1441? ---
**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, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/543 "2013-07-16T16:59:51Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. -Ntfldbw > > Once again, another egregious misrepresentation at what John Mace has written. It’s like you can’t even go a full post without working in some mendaciousness. -Ntfldw Once again Ravenman makes a claim that comes with no backup as to why my statement is a misrepresentation of what John Mace wrote. Ravenman cannot explain the misrepresentation so he goes off on some Sarah Palin diversion. Show me the points of your argument instead of filling up space about Sarah Palin. ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/544 "2013-07-16T17:14:19Z")
Shut. The. Fuck. Up. You. Stupid. Troll. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/545 "2013-07-16T17:18:02Z")
Y’all may as well clear out. Let me deal with him. ---
**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, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/546 "2013-07-16T17:22:21Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > 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. IMO, it was virtually impossible for Iraq to be in full compliance with all those resolutions. > [@](#): > > 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. No, they were required to submit full and complete information, not recycled B.S. > [@](#): > > 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. Blix said it wasn’t “immediate”, so pardon me if I believe him rather than you. > [@](#): > > 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. If I said that (and I don’t think I did), it was a mistake. Iraq had 30 days to comply with one part of 1441. But note also that 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…"_ > [@](#): > > 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. A “final chance” is not a bridge. It’s the destination. > [@](#): > > 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. No one believes you about that because you have not provided a cite. There is no point in your repeating this unsubstantiated claim. > [@](#): > > 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. No, I don’t, but it really doesn’t matter. As noted, partial non-compliance is declared to be in additional material breach. The plain reading of the text of 1441 and the plain reading of Blix’s statements tell us that Blix thought Iraq was not in compliance. But of course he’s not going to explicitly say that since only the UNSC council can determine it. But you can’t read his comments without realizing that he’s saying he, personally, thinks they did not fully comply with paragraph 3. And I agree with him. ---
**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, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/547 "2013-07-16T20:27:48Z")
> [@](#): > > IMO, it was virtually impossible for Iraq to be in full compliance with all those resolutions. -John Mace Since you are so fond of citing Blix then you should respect all his statements invluding the ones where he says that within a few months beyond March 2003 and with Iraq’s continued proactive cooperation it would take a mere three months or so for Iraq to be in full compliance and long term monitoring would be completely set up. What you think John Mace means nothing. Iraq was never required to be in full compliance with all resolutions by any date certain under the mandate of 1441. It is s non-issue as a matter of Iraq being in compliance with 1441. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/548 "2013-07-16T20:56:08Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > 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.) Has anyone seen the _Cheers_ episode with John Cleese? He plays a psychiatrist friend of Fraiser’s who does marriage counseling. He sees Sam and Diane and tells them it’s his opinion they are not compatible and should not get married. Diane can’t accept this and repeatedly tries to convince Cleese he’s wrong. It goes on until he “agrees”. Here’s the episode: https://www.youtube.com/embed/iBXpRhGJNUI?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque Go ahead and fast forward to 22:30 to see how it plays out. ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/549 "2013-07-16T21:43:07Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Since you are so fond of citing Blix then you should respect all his statements invluding the ones where he says that within a few months beyond March 2003 and with Iraq’s continued proactive cooperation it would take a mere three months or so for Iraq to be in full compliance and long term monitoring would be completely set up. Blix never said that, and only the UNSC could determine whether Iraq was in “full compliance”. There is no way Bush was going to allow a vote of “full compliance” to get passed. Bush, or any other US president could always find some technicality to use as a claim that SH was NOT in full compliance. There was too much stuff that seems to have just been “lost” and SH would not be able to account for 100% of his so-called WMDs. ---
**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, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/550 "2013-07-16T22:03:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Blix never said that, and only the UNSC could determine whether Iraq was in “full compliance”. . Blix said this : "“Disarmament, and at any rate verification, cannot be instant, It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.” You should read this: > **[Blix wants months - and Straw offers 10 days](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/07/politics.iraq)** > > Despite a report from the chief UN weapons inspector describing Iraqi cooperation as "active or even proactive", America and Britain today pushed for a resolution giving Iraq a maximum of 10 days to comply fully with UN demands to disarm. What happened to Bush’s attempt to get verification of disarmament done in ten days instead of what Blix wanted which was a few months? ---
**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, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/551 "2013-07-16T22:15:25Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Blix said this : > > "“Disarmament, and at any rate verification, cannot be instant, It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.” > > You should read this: > > [Blix wants months - and Straw offers 10 days | World news | The Guardian](http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2003/mar/07/politics.iraq) > > What happened to Bush’s attempt to get verification of disarmament done in ten days instead of what Blix wanted which was a few months? Oh, I’ve read every word. Several times. First off, “disarmament” is only part of the UNSC resolutions. SH also had to account for any and all WMDs that he claimed were already destroyed. That’s the technicality that a US president could always latch onto to say that SH was not in compliance w/ UNSC resolutions. Secondly, you didn’t quote the whole paragraph. In fact, you reported from a secondary source rather from the transcript itself and you modified the quote so it looked like one sentence instead of two separate sentence fragments: > [@](#): > > How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can – cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months. Emphasis added. “Key”, not “all”. Blix never used the term “full compliance”. And that’s because he was only talking about the disarmament effort (and at that, only the “key” aspects of it) and not the verification of WMDs alleged to have been destroyed already. But also because Blix would never explicitly use that term. He knows that only the UNSC could make that determination. And you and I both know the US (and Britain) have veto power over any resolution passed by that council. And note that he said “resolve”. You are assuming that the “resolution” was going to conclude that compliance had been achieved. That’s not necessarily so in every case. ---
**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, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/552 "2013-07-16T22:21:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by John Mace > Blix never said that, and only the UNSC could determine whether Iraq was in “full compliance”. . I never said anyone other than the UNSC could determine Iraq’s compliance or non-compliance. Why was that comment inserted here? ---
**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 17, 2013, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/553 "2013-07-17T00:01:58Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I never said anyone other than the UNSC could determine Iraq’s compliance or non-compliance. Why was that comment inserted here? You said: > [@](#): > > Blix… says that …it would take a mere three months or so for Iraq to be in full compliance… My editing was careful done to clarify, not obscure, the claim you made. He never said or predicted that they would “be in full compliance”. In fact, he’s too good at his job to make the mistake of saying something like that. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/554 "2013-07-17T07:28:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Emphasis added. “Key”, not “all”. Blix never used the term “full compliance”. And that’s because he was only talking about the disarmament effort (and at that, only the “key” aspects of it) and not the verification of WMDs alleged to have been destroyed already. But also because Blix would never explicitly use that term. He knows that only the UNSC could make that determination. And you and I both know the US (and Britain) have veto power over any resolution passed by that council. > > And note that he said “resolve”. You are assuming that the “resolution” was going to conclude that compliance had been achieved. That’s not necessarily so in every case. Do you really have any idea what Blix meant by “key remaining disarmament tasks”? it appears you are just making crap up in your head again. Blix uses the phrase “list of key remaining disarmament tasks” He always uses the term ‘remaining’ doesn’t he. You complain that Bilx didn’t say “all” remaining issues, but you did not mention Blix’s explanation of what the "key remaining disarmament tasks’ purpose and evolution were all about. Why don’t you read this again, and then I will ask about your statement about that appears to be quite full of it as we generally expect of you John Mace: > [@](#): > > Mr. President, > > Members of the Council may relate most of what I have said to resolution 1441 (2002), but UNMOVIC is performing work under several resolutions of the Security Council. The quarterly report before you is submitted in accordance with resolution 1284 (1999), which not only created UNMOVIC but also continues to guide much of our work. Under the time lines set by the resolution, the results of some of this work is to be reported to the Council before the end of this month. Let me be more specific. > > Resolution 1284 (1999) instructs UNMOVIC to “address unresolved disarmament issues” and to identify “key remaining disarmament tasks” and the latter are to be submitted for approval by the Council in the context of a work programme. UNMOVIC will be ready to submit a draft work programme this month as required. > > UNSCOM and the Amorim Panel did valuable work to identify the disarmament issues, which were still open at the end of 1998. UNMOVIC has used this material as starting points but analysed the data behind it and data and documents post 1998 up to the present time to compile its own list of “unresolved disarmament issues” or, rather, clustered issues. It is the answers to these issues which we seek through our inspection activities. > > It is from the list of these clustered issues that UNMOVIC will identify the “key remaining disarmament tasks”. As noted in the report before you, this list of clustered issues is ready. > > UNMOVIC is only required to submit the work programme with the “key remaining disarmament tasks” to the Council. As I understand that several Council members are interested in the working document with the complete clusters of disarmament issues, we have declassified it and are ready to make it available to members of the Council on request. In this working document, which may still be adjusted in the light of new information, members will get a more up-to-date review of the outstanding issues than in the documents of 1999, which members usually refer to. Each cluster in the working document ends with a number of points indicating what Iraq could do to solve the issue. Hence, Iraq’s cooperation could be measured against the successful resolution of issues. > > I should note that the working document contains much information and discussion about the issues which existed at the end of 1998 – including information which has come to light after 1998. It contains much less information and discussion about the period after 1998, primarily because of paucity of information. Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programmes have continued or restarted in this period. It is further contended that proscribed programmes and items are located in underground facilities, as I mentioned, and that proscribed items are being moved around Iraq. The working document contains some suggestions on how these concerns may be tackled. > > Mr. President, Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc. > > How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes. You wrote, " And that’s because he was only talking about the disarmament effort (and at that, only the “key” aspects of it) and not the verification of WMDs alleged to have been destroyed already." You state that with absolutely no basis in fact. Blix’s words (see underlined above) that the list of KEY ISSUES/TASKS is clearly about unresolved issues that existed prior to 1998 such as the unilateral unwitnessed destruction of chem weapons in the early nineties, and all the issues that have come up since 1998 when inspectors were not on Iraqi soil. And if what I’ve shown you thus far is not enough, Blix talked directly about Iraq’s initiatives that were absolutely about the 1991 unilateral destruction and how to quantify and verify that Proscribed weapons were in fact destroyed. Read this and weep Mace. > [@](#): > > There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving on and may yield results. > > Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax, said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced. > > With respect to VX, Iraq has recently suggested a similar method to quantify a VX precursor stated to have been unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. You digging a hole deeper and deeper… It will all cave in soon. And for what. To argue points that help Bush justify his stupid decision to end all this peaceful inspection and Iraq cooperation stuff. Again. Why do you do it. All those lame brains peeking in ought to start wondering the same thing. What is wrong with stating the obvious truth that Iraq was cooperating with UN inspectors better than ever … and within a few more months … had Bush not decided to invade… Iraq would have been verified disarmed and long term monitoring would have been set up. And what is this nonsense? You wrote, "But also because Blix would never explicitly use that term. (“full compliance”) He knows that only the UNSC could make that determination. And you and I both know the US (and Britain) have veto power over any resolution passed by that council. How in the hell could you even think you know that Blix would not use that term if he had all the answers and he felt verification was complete? And what would a US and UK veto do to stop Blix from stating that Iraq was fully and verified disarmed? Have you lost your mind? It looks like Blix was given more power than you think in UN Res 1284. > [@](#): > > 1. Expresses its intention, upon receipt of reports from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and from the Director General of the IAEA that Iraq has cooperated in all respects with UNMOVIC and the IAEA in particular in fulfilling the work programmes in all the aspects referred to in paragraph 7 above, for a period of 120 days after the date on which the Council is in receipt of reports from both UNMOVIC and the IAEA that the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification is fully operational, to suspend with the fundamental objective of improving the humanitarian situation in Iraq and securing the implementation of the Council’s resolutions, for a period of 120 days renewable by the Council, and subject to the elaboration of effective financial and other operational measures to ensure that Iraq does not acquire prohibited items, prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq, and prohibitions against the sale, supply and delivery to Iraq of civilian commodities and products other than those referred to in paragraph 24 of resolution 687 (1991) or those to which the mechanism established by resolution 1051 (1996) applies; > > 2. Decides that in reporting to the Council for the purposes of paragraph 33 above, the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC will include as a basis for his assessment the progress made in completing the tasks referred to in paragraph 7 above; > > 3. Decides that if at any time the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC or the Director General of the IAEA reports that Iraq is not cooperating in all respects with UNMOVIC or the IAEA or if Iraq is in the process of acquiring any prohibited items, the suspension of the prohibitions referred to in paragraph 33 above shall terminate on the fifth working day following the report, unless the Council decides to the contrary; > > 4. Expresses its intention to approve arrangements for effective financial and other operational measures, including on the delivery of and payment for authorized civilian commodities and products to be sold or supplied to Iraq, in order to ensure that Iraq does not acquire prohibited items in the event of suspension of the prohibitions referred to in paragraph 33 above, to begin the elaboration of such measures not later than the date of the receipt of the initial reports referred to in paragraph 33 above, and to approve such arrangements before the Council decision in accordance with that paragraph; > > 5. Further expresses its intention to take steps, based on the report and recommendations requested in paragraph 30 above, and consistent with the purpose of resolution 986 (1995) and related resolutions, to enable Iraq to increase its petroleum production and export capacity, upon receipt of the reports relating to the cooperation in all respects with UNMOVIC and the IAEA referred to in paragraph 33 above; > > 6. Reaffirms its intention to act in accordance with the relevant provisions of resolution 687 (1991) on the termination of prohibitions referred to in that resolution ; You see, It would not give Iraq much incentive to comply if Iraq cooperated and came clean, but the US and UK could keep the sanctions and oil embargoes going anyway. So Blix could report the monitoring and verification program was in place and Iraq was complying with everything and sanctions etc would be lifted… I don’t see where a vote was required. This could have been amended later… but it makes sense to do it this way. ---
**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 17, 2013, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/555 "2013-07-17T13:46:18Z")
You’re just cherry-picking again and throwing up a wall of text, connecting the dots in a way that only seem to think make sense, apparently in order to justify in your mind why you were fooled by W in Oct 2002. Blix never used the term “full compliance”, as you claimed. That term has a very specific meaning, and Blix is not the guy who determines when that is achieved, so he is no position to predict when it will occur. He can predict when he thinks he’s done as much as he can, but only the UNSC members, with all permanent members agreeing, can decide that or predict when it will happen. Perhaps you were Fooled By W _yet again_ if you think Bush would ever agree to sign a UNSC resolution saying Iraq was in “full compliance”. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/556 "2013-07-17T23:29:13Z")
[quote=“John\_Mace, post:555, topic:661475”] Blix never used the term “full compliance”, as you claimed. That term has a very specific meaning, and Blix is not the guy who determines when that is achieved, so he is no position to predict when it will occur. /QUOTE] Do you know what ‘verified disarmament’ means in the following statement: “a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.” Blix does not have to state whatever the hell you think is a special meaning of “FULLY COMPLIED” to be looking forward to the day in a few months when ‘verified disarmament’ might be achieved. And you remain ignorant of the fact I have shown you if you still think that Bush would have had a resolution to veto if Blix and El Beradai were to have been allowed those three more months to achieve ‘verified disarmament’ and the terms of Res 1284 were set into effect. Look again at Res 1284 that I posted earlier. That is not a wall of text, it is a repudiation of your bull crap and shows you know nothing about which you speak. And since you are now claiming that the phrase I used has a ''specific meaning" it is incumbent of you to define what that “specific meaning” and how that meaning is universally required to be applied in all conversations and discussions. I was asserting what what I believe Blix would consider to be full compliance according to 1282 and other resolutions and his role as Chief Inspector of UNMOVIC. You are now arguing that if Iraq continued with pro-active cooperation for a few more months and Blix was able to verify disarmament and set up long term monitoring and inspections, then Bush could ‘veto’ that reality away. But the truth is, realistically and technically you are wrong because there would be nothing to veto in the first place, but secondly your are a fool to suggest as a big Bush butt kissing Bushie would complain that the all powerful and magnificent Bush could make an argument stick that Iraq was still not cooperating and was a threat to the world so war would be necessary. Bush can only make an argument such as that stick when stupid people fall for it. Guess what Mace? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/557 "2013-07-18T02:49:06Z")
> [@](#): > > If I’m “defending” anything, I’m defending Blix’s bold face truth that Iraq’s cooperation was neither immediate nor total. He did know that it wasn’t immediate or total because he explicitly said it wasn’t. -John Mace You are not defending anything of the sort against my points because I do not at all disagree that Blix said Iraq’s cooperation was neither immediate or total. That is not where the disagreement is and it is not where it was. Blix was not talking about ‘all’ cooperation. He was talking about initiatives mostly on old unresolved issues regarding the unilateral destruction of chemical weapons in 1991 or 1992. The UNSC members never concluded that the pace of cooperation on those matters rose to the level of material breach of 1441. And there was no date certain for that level of cooperation to be reached. You are defending, however just as Adaher does, - the legitimacy of the invasion itself. I know that inspections that reduced the threat as Blix’s inspections had done blow up your bogus and mindless and groundless idea that invading Iraq was somehow legitimate. And that is what this is about isn’t it Mace. I have to spend some time replying to all the other posters who have expressed an interest in my postings. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > “Cite” Originally Posted by XT (Post 16398368) I’m not sure where to even start with this guy. \<\> …butt heads with folks even nominally on his side. “Cite” > > 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. - Little Nemo 06-20-2013 06:40 PM Since this thread, Little Nemo, is supposedly about my posting and XT started it, I will attempt to respond to all that has been posted to me or about me here: In answer to your comment, I am probably the only one here that is attempting to understand and address the viewpoints of others. Others, such as John Mace, who thought at the time that invading Iraq was legitimate. Since John Mace and many others butting heads with me think the war was legitimate I am definitely not on their side and never would or will be. There was no legitimate reason to a rational mind to decide to invade Iraq when UN Inspectors had reduced any threat potential from Iraq and WMD to somewhere near zero by March 2003 after Blix stated that Iraq was cooperating proactively but not what he considered to be immediate on one part of the inspection process. Mace expressed that his mind and Dick efn Cheney’s mind were one with Iraq with regard to it’s legitimacy and how Bush should have gone ahead and done it. Mace even wrote a letter for Bush on how he should have approached Iraq - an approach that should not have included bothering with “mice” UN inspectors who were up against the “cat” Saddam Hussein. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > RF wrote: PS I realize that you say “you never bought the WMD” bit, but since you apparently supported the invasion, I’d be curious to know what possible legal[/u[ reason you can come up with. > > This is the tack I wish Bush had taken towards invading Iraq: > > It was a mistake not to take out Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War in 1990. It was a mistake to think that we could just contain him with our No Fly Zone, etc., forever. We have inspectors running around Iraq playing an impossible game of cat and mouse with perhaps the most brutal dictator in the world today. We have no idea what weapons he has, although we have his proven track record of trying to obtain WMDs to bully his neighbors. So, we are going to take out this dictator, who is a plague on his people and on humanity as a whole. We are going to make up for the mistake we made a decade ago. And I say to Saddam, you have “x” amount of time to surrender or go into exile. We would like to avoid war, but we are now determined that you will no longer brutalize your own people and threaten the stability of the Middle East and, as a consequence, the stability of the rest of the world. Very Truly yours, G. W. Bush" –John Mace 07-19-2003, 04:19 PM ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/558 "2013-07-18T03:12:04Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So was the invasion justifed or not? One-word answers only, please. Here’s what John Mace said: > [@](#): > > You will note that while many countries did not approve of the US’s action in Iraq, not one country officially came in on the side of Iraq. Not one. I think I outlined fairly well what the US’s justifications were, and while Bush did a lousy job articulating things, it does all come down to the Gulf War of the 90s and subsequent resolutions passed to enforce the permanent disarmament of S.H.s regime. It was clear to me that S.H. did his best to violate the letter and the spirit of that disarmament plan, and therefore the US was justified in invading. - John Mace 07-20-2003 02:44 PM Read More: 20030718a1045 Going to war under false pretenses – Bob Graham -Impeachment justified (["Going to war under false pretenses" -- Bob Graham / Impeachment justified? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=198596)) You may also see if you read what Mace wrote that he has had problems with understanding the realities surrounding the US invasion of Iraq. Mace said in July 2003 that “not one country officially came in on the side of Iraq. Not one.” which is absurd. Everyone knew about the French and should have known that the majority of members on the UNSC came out for continued inspections and not war. That of course was considered by post-inspection war mongers in 2003 to be ‘on the side of Iraq’. ---
**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 18, 2013, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/559 "2013-07-18T04:33:11Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You are defending, however just as Adaher does, - the legitimacy of the invasion itself. … > In answer to your comment, I am probably the only one here that is attempting to understand and address the viewpoints of others. Others, such as John Mace, who thought at the time that invading Iraq was legitimate. Wow, those are three whopping lies right there. Aren’t you ever embarrassed by what you write? > [@](#): > > Since John Mace and many others butting heads with me think the war was legitimate I am definitely not on their side and never would or will be. I’ll say this again: you agree more with Bush than John or I ever did. You’re as responsible for the war as any average citizen is, so you should look deep into your soul and acknowledge your mistakes which cost thousands of American lives. Shame on you. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/560 "2013-07-18T09:48:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Perhaps you were Fooled By W _yet again_ if you think Bush would ever agree to sign a UNSC resolution saying Iraq was in “full compliance”. Bush has no say on the matter if the Chief Inspectors of IAEA and UNMOVIC report Iraq’s to be fully complied with its disarmament obligations. No phony claim of a wall of text here for Mace to hide behind when he cannot respond. Just the facts as written in Res 1284 which created UNMOVIC. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=29)