# 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:** 50
**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:** [August 7, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/981 "2013-08-07T13:57:17Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I browsed this thread (I can’t say I read in detail every post by **NotfooledbyW** ) and didn’t notice much that I didn’t agree with. In any case, I’ve a hard time figuring out how you can come to the conclusion that he’s one of the worst new posters. Do you actually read the SDMB? Oh, I occasionally read it, yes. 😛 If this thread and the one linked hasn’t convinced you he’s not one of, if not THE worst new poster on this board then nothing will. I’m as mystified by your response as you seemingly are of me pitting this guy. MMV and all that. For me, coming to this conclusion was pretty easy, but then I suspect you are giving him a pass because you vaguely agree with some of what he’s saying. You might want to read through THIS thread in more detail, however, and note that many in this thread agree with what he’s saying, at least broadly, yet he’s still not winning many supporters for his overall position. ---
**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:** [August 7, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/982 "2013-08-07T14:12:33Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] And there’s XT so confused he says the inspections didnt mean anything. Of course that dumbass support the invasion going in until he realized sometime afterward what a dumbass he was. And I should respect his idiot views on the inspections. [/QUOTE] You would first have to understand what my views are before you could decide if you agreed with them or not, which, sadly, you don’t. But I guess we can wait and see how this whole Iraq business plays out and whether or not Bush et al factors in the inspections in his decision loop for invasion or no invasion and… …oh, wait! We ALREADY invaded! Looking at the calendar it was over 10 years ago! Wow! Fancy that. And Bush et al DIDN’T factor in the inspections, since they dismissed them as flawed! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/983 "2013-08-07T14:44:09Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Do any of Mace’s fellow stooges agree with that statement? > > We cannot justifiably go around overthrowing any government on our own because we think it is not legitimate. I wonder if Mace has any basis or substantiation that what he wrote is legitimate under international or any kind of moral code. > > There must be a threat…and an imminent one not just some perceived threat, or a humanitarian crisis of such magnitude that applying force to remove a sitting government would save more lives than it would take. > > Or the UNSC comes together and decides that Applying Military force is the ONLY way to uphold international law and respect for the law. Then how do you explain Vietnam? ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/984 "2013-08-07T15:36:37Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW (today)] I did not support the AUMF. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW (Post 95)] I supported the vote to use force fully with the understanding that I had seen a change in Bush’s war actions in September 2002 when he put Colin Powell as the face of the pending confrontation against Iraq. [/QUOTE] Apparently everyone else can go home, as **NFBW** has decided to take on the burden of refuting himself. (Although it does leave the lingering mystery of how someone willing to dig up **John Mace** quotes from 2003 can be blithely unaware that people can search through this thread to find his own words.) ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/985 "2013-08-07T17:13:06Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > Apparently everyone else can go home, as **NFBW** has decided to take on the burden of refuting himself. > > (Although it does leave the lingering mystery of how someone willing to dig up **John Mace** quotes from 2003 can be blithely unaware that people can search through this thread to find his own words.) Don’t worry. He’ll tell you that you quoted him out of context. Context of his reality, what ever it happens to be at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/986 "2013-08-07T17:16:21Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > Apparently everyone else can go home, . . . This is a Pitting, not a debate. There is lots more fodder for a Pitting. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/987 "2013-08-07T17:22:58Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > Apparently everyone else can go home, as **NFBW** has decided to take on the burden of refuting himself. > > (Although it does leave the lingering mystery of how someone willing to dig up **John Mace** quotes from 2003 can be blithely unaware that people can search through this thread to find his own words.) Here’s more of my post 95. I can clarify. John Mace can’t. In 95 I said I supported giving Bush the authority to use force to bring Iraq into compliance with international law. And I continue to believe that. My later post you cite is in reference to the actual AUMF language that emerged and was passed. I did not support that version over any other that probably could not pass, but I do defend the fact that it was not a blank check. One point I consistently make is that Iraq was in violation of international law in October 2002 when the AUMF passed, but Iraq was technically not in violation of international law at the time of the invasion. 1442 made that change in status a reality. But did I run out and support the language they came up with to pass an AUMF? No. I think it could have been more specific, but that does not mean it was close to being a blank check for war. And that is the basic argument we are having. > [@](#): > > I am one of the few posters here that believed in September/ October 2002 and continues to believe that Bush, and Democrats and Republicans alike sitting in Congress were correct to vote in favor of granting Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq because at that moment in time Iraq was in violation of international law because of it’s failure to be disarmed and because there were no inspectors inside Iraq working on that disarmament process. > > I believed confronting Iraq was the correct course for Bush to take because of the uncertainty revolving around the potential for Iraq to have chemical or biological weapons and they could be used. I was not concerned about the nuclear issue. > > I recall that you have mentioned that you supported the war at the start but have since turned against it. I take it that means you possibly supported the vote to use force as I did. > > So our differences must revolve around the role of inspections as I see it. > > I supported the vote to use force fully with the understanding that I had seen a change in Bush’s war actions in September 2002 when he put Colin Powell as the face of the pending confrontation against Iraq. When in December the inspections began and it looked like we had the opportunity for peaceful disarmament as I watched deeper into January seeing that inspections were working but there was no back down in the drumbeat in favor of war. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/988 "2013-08-07T17:47:51Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Here’s more of my post 95. I can clarify. John Mace can’t. In 95 I said I supported giving Bush the authority to use force to bring Iraq into compliance with international law. And I continue to believe that. My later post you cite is in reference to the actual AUMF language that emerged and was passed. I did not support that version over any other that probably could not pass, but I do defend the fact that it was not a blank check. > > One point I consistently make is that Iraq was in violation of international law in October 2002 when the AUMF passed, but Iraq was technically not in violation of international law at the time of the invasion. 1442 made that change in status a reality. > > But did I run out and support the language they came up with to pass an AUMF? No. I think it could have been more specific, but that does not mean it was close to being a blank check for war. And that is the basic argument we are having. I still don’t see how you can square this with post 157. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/989 "2013-08-07T18:00:11Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **digs** Post #99 > > You just canNOT let go of an issue, can you? > > > > Dude, are you autistic? Serious question. > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **NotfooledbyW** Post #100 > > If you have engaged in a discussion, and while minding your own business with a few other intelligent engaging decent folk, and then along comes some buttwipe know it all, who takes a shot at one of your statements telling you that you essentially have lied by distorting that **persons’s cockamamie version of reality** , and that rude untruthful interloper goes around telling many blind uninformed souls that you could not defend such an indefensible lie, hollering cite, cite, cite as every other word (my hyperbole license is intact) although in the midst of the rude and malicious interruption, another poster of fine reputable persuasion and upbringing informs said interloper that the questioned statement matches the truth of the matter without a stitch of reservation, and then this rude pontificating mugger ignores the truth blaring before his eyes and he pits you hoping to bring derision and ridicule to one who merely told the truth, that you would let it go. > > > > Serious question. if you would let it go, are you a man or are you a mouse? My emphasis. After looking at Post #95, I noticed this nugget, which seems to explain the obsession. Isn’t this what is called projection? Apparently **NotfooledbyW** needs to prove himself an anti-mouse by fighting the Balrog of Bush’s lies: “I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. Bush’s lies cannot pass. Your dark ignorance will not avail you, SDMB. Go back to the Shadow!”\* He has be wronged, gentlemen. Wronged! And he will have his satisfaction if it takes 50 pages. \*Note: this is not actually a quote by **NotfooledbyW** on the board, AFAICT (although in his mind is anyone’s guess), but quotation marks used to indicate speech. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/990 "2013-08-07T18:57:14Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > But did I run out and support the language they came up with to pass an AUMF? No. I think it could have been more specific, but that does not mean it was close to being a blank check for war. And that is the basic argument we are having. Would you say the original version that Bush presented to Congress _was_ a blank check for war? ---
**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:** [August 7, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/991 "2013-08-07T19:02:49Z")
Seriously, dude. This thread has dragged on for 20 pages now. This is _well_ past the point where any reasonable person would shake the dust from his sandals and move on. You’ve spent 20 pages, hundreds of posts, and enough text to fill a mid-size novel in order to argue semantics over a _fait accompli_ that occurred ten years ago, and you’re treating it like a personal vendetta against a handful of posters who you’ve apparently gone through archive binges on looking for ‘incriminating’ quotes from a decade ago, as if they’d personally insulted your honor as a gentleman and you were in need of satisfaction. You’ve not posted in any other thread than this one for two weeks, your last post outside this thread was to resurrect a ten-year-old thread about _the exact same topic_, and to date you have managed to convince absolutely nobody that your bewildering, incoherent, self-contradictory train of insane moon logic is correct. _Just fucking let it go._ ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/992 "2013-08-07T19:12:07Z")
Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering Bush; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned Bush! Thus, I give up the spear! ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/993 "2013-08-07T19:17:45Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > You’ve not posted in any other thread than this one for two weeks… Not that we’re complaining about that part, mind ye. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/994 "2013-08-07T19:20:42Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > Don’t worry. He’ll tell you that you quoted him out of context. Damn, you’re good. Can you give me the next set of Powerball numbers? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/995 "2013-08-07T20:36:11Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > . . . We cannot justifiably go around overthrowing any government on our own because we think it is not legitimate. . . . Agreed. The illegitimacy of a regime is a very thin fig-leaf if used to justify intervention. If it’s going to be the basis for military action, it ought to be declared very early in the history of that regime. Waiting for a decade and then saying, “Oh, by the way, he’s also not really the leader” is dubious. > [@XT](#): > > . . . If this thread and the one linked hasn’t convinced you he’s not one of, if not THE worst new poster on this board then nothing will. . . . There may be worse, but he sure is down toward the bottom of the barrel. I may have just agreed with one thing he said (and now need to cleanse my hands) but I think his overall approach here is just awfully ugly and wrong. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/996 "2013-08-07T22:06:10Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Would you say the original version that Bush presented to Congress _was_ a blank check for war? > [@](#): > > This joint resolution may be cited as the “Further Resolution on Iraq”. > > SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. > > The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region. Yes because this language does not express support for diplomatic means, but it specifically only referred to UNSC resolutions referenced above. This did not tie him to a potential Resolution that was to become 1441. The approved draft did that as you said, 1441 was part of All. And Bush sought and got the UN resolution that he wanted. But Bush did not enforce 1441. Bush shit on 1441 and therefore did not comply with the final AUMF. You are dishonest to claim that he did or that he was not required to enforce 1441 which suspended military action on all previous resolutions unless the Council reconvened on the matter. They never convened or saw a need. Bush would not have been tied to a future Resolution such as 1441 under his original wording, so yes the original version was a blank check and Congress did not pass it as Bush wanted originally. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/997 "2013-08-08T00:28:56Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > No it wasn’t. Sure a shit was. Thus the reason Dubya never took it to vote – blackmail and all. Doe4sn’t matter there are 5 permanent member in the SC – as you said yourself it only takes one to block a resolution. And Russia and China were a no go…and George knew Look, I can see Dubya’s and other supporters of the invasion trying to squirm out of their own responsibility in the war, but as FACTS stand, the war was illegal. Id **NFBB** rather strident in his comments? Mayhaps. But so is everyone else – and overall, he is correct. No surprises in his analysis. But sure, keep going, surely it’ll make you feel better of what you though/did then. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/998 "2013-08-08T00:33:04Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW > > . . . We cannot justifiably go around overthrowing any government on our own because we think it is not legitimate. . . . > > Agreed. The illegitimacy of a regime is a very thin fig-leaf if used to justify intervention. If it’s going to be the basis for military action, it ought to be declared very early in the history of that regime. Waiting for a decade and then saying, “Oh, by the way, he’s also not really the leader” is dubious. . Saddam Hussein was the legitimate leader of Iraq, but he was in violation of international law on a serious matter of being disarmed of WMD per his surrender agreement in 1991, when the AUMF was passed in October 2002. Saddam Hussein was the legitimate leader of Iraq but he was in fact complying with his disarmament agreement and therefore was complying with international law in March 2003. Are those both reasonable and factual statements? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/999 "2013-08-08T01:56:15Z")
> [@](#): > > I BELIEVED (and still BELIEVE) that Bush BELIEVED that there were WMD. - XT 07-05-2013 10:21 AM How could Bush have agreed to offer to the UNSC on March 7, 2003 to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power if Bush actually believed that Saddam Hussein was concealing WMD from the Post 1441 inspection regime. Bush’s draft resolution that failed to muster more than five maybe six of the nine votes needed allowed the option that Saddam Hussein could remain in power if the UNSC declared Iraq in full compliance with every single disarmament obligation by March 17, 2003. If Bush had the ‘evidence’ he needed on March 7, 2003 to justify an invasion, why did he not give it up so as to convince a few more members on the Council to authorize war? My argument is that Bush should not have relied on belief, but on evidence. If he had the evidence that could justify solid belief that WMD were actually there, according to some supposedly reliable source, then Bush would have surely played that hand. But I believe as opposed to XT, that Bush had to see all the evidence he had been given get shot down by the UN inspectors for over three months. And Bush was fearful of standing hard on any evidence he may have had or believed he had. Therefore Bush did not believe at all in his evidence, if he really had any evidence. That is why XT was fooled by Dubya then and is fooled by Dubya now. The March 7 attempt to secure a majority vote for war by setting a March 17 deadline provides circumstantial evidence that Bush had no real solid evidence of WMD being hidden from inspectors in March 2003. Therefore we should not be expected to believe that Bush was some kind of victim of faulty intelligence and believed he’d find WMD there. Or should we believe that some last minute intelligence of WMD being hidden from inspectors came in immediately following Bush’s chickenshit move to pull the draft resolution without a vote. And that last minute intelligence is what he claimed to have that left no doubt in his speech on March 17, 2003 when he announced the necessity for war. ---
**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:** [August 8, 2013, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1000 "2013-08-08T03:00:19Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Sure a shit was. Got a cite that it was opposed by a majority of the UNSC? Thing is, the UNSC doesn’t vote by majority. Any permanent member can veto. I don’t think we have a record of what “the majority” were thinking. AFAIK, we only have a few of the members on record. But if you have quotes from the majority of the members, that would be interesting to see. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=49) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=51)