# 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:** 54
**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 15, 2013, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1061 "2013-08-15T13:51:43Z")
We’re not obsessed with a meaningless phrase. It could have said “as the president deems necessary to keep the yin and yang in balance”. The president is the one who decides whether it was necessary or not. That’s the blank check. Of course, you can devastate our argument with one cite from one person other than you who thinks it matters. As I said earlier, it doesn’t need to be a Senator; it doesn’t need to be a Congressional aid; it can be a Junior Assistant Dog Catcher in Nowheresville, USA. Anyone other than you. ---
**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 15, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1062 "2013-08-15T13:56:55Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Carl Levin and other anti-war politicians perhaps did not care about the language because they opposed it. The dozen or so Dems who would have ‘cared’ were those who voted yes. 29 Democratic Senators and 82 Democratic Representatives voted yes. Can you name **one** who has said the war was a violation of the AUMF they voted for? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And I already answered your question why it was never mentioned: Let’s go through that, then. > [@](#): > > > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > > > The straightforward answer is that Bush got full control of Congress when Bush defied the language. And Republicans and Joe Liebermann and the hawkish Dem Senators were not concerned about the language. > > So, **all** the non-hawkish Democrats who voted yes lost their seats in 2002? That’s demonstrably untrue. > > > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > > > But once Bush decided to dismiss that language it was too late to object. > > In America, we have these things called elections. If the President has broken the law, even if it’s too late to stop the immediate effect (the war), it’s an amazing gift to the opposing party. If Bush had broken the law, you don’t think that would have been useful grist for the Democratic campaign for President in 2004? > > > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > > > Cliches about Iraq began to rule the day and Bush did say he had intel that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from the 1441 inspectors. > > > > Perhaps they thought his no doubt intel was new and actionable. > > By but your interpretation, that intel wouldn’t have been enough to invade, unless the UNSC found Iraq to be in material breach of 1441. So now you’re saying the Democrats were complicit in Bush breaking the law. Interesting. > > > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > > > My point is that the language in the AUMF is there and Bush ignored it. > > It’s there, it just doesn’t mean what you think it does. Which is why you can’t find any Congressman or legal expert that agrees with you. It’s not because of “cliches ruling the day”, it’s because you are mistaken. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And you did take “it was too late to object” out of context. It was too late to object because for one nothing could be gained by objecting because Republicans and War Supporting Dems took over the Senate and already had control of the House. It was too late because once Bush started the war, patriotic ferver kicked in and there was no practical way to start impeachment proceedings during the early stages of the war. If the hawk Democrats were in control of the party (which they were, look at who they nominated for President), then who negotiated this strict language you imagine the AUMF contained? And why would they say nothing instead of using the violation of the law to discredit the hawks and retake control? Why didn’t the media report on this violation of the law? Why didn’t any legal experts? Why didn’t **anyone**? > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The point and indisputable reality is that the language is in the AUMF and Bush violated it. It is not too late to be pointing that out, just because no one has objected. What’s fascinating about this is that you’re demonstrating exactly the same mindset that Bush may have had during the runup to war. He may have been utterly convinced that Iraq was hiding WMDs, and the inspectors failing to find them was a failure of the inspections, and not evidence that the WMDs didn’t exist. You are utterly convinced that Bush broken domestice law, and the complete lack of evidence outside of your own mind has done nothing to dissuade you. Like Bush, you discount all contrary evidence. For him, the inspectors finding nothing mean Hussein was hiding weapons. For you, no Congressmen or anyone else mentioning this serious violation of the law is evidence that they were complicit, derelict, saw no point in it, etc, rather than being evidence that the law wasn’t violated. So, if you want to understand what may have led us to war, namely confirmation bias, **just examine your own thinking on this matter**. It is a note-perfect example of confirmation bias. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > When HRC pointed out on MTP in 2007 04 2008 that Bush deceived Congress and she said essentially that Bush lied to her to get support for the AUMF based upon giving inspections a chance to work, She was hammered and badgered to death by such enterprises as the NY Times for calling for trying to justify her vote. > > The NY Times that gave the Iraq Invasion their Judith Miller hammered HRC for what she revealed on MTP. That was interesting hypocrisy coming out of that Newspaper. The Times doesn’t vote in the Senate. Senators should be held to a higher standard. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Now that Obama vs Clinton in 2008 is over, it is past due time to start looking into how Bush failed to comply with the wording of the AUMF. Good luck. You have zero evidence on your side. Meanwhile, I’ll be looking into my pet theory, that Bush owed Saddam a sizeable gambling debt accrued at one of their world-leaders-only cocaine parties, and invaded to welch on the debt. My theory has just as much evidence behind it as yours. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And my hope is not that Bush is found in some kind of legal difficulty for that violation of the AUMF, it is that people learn that what Bush says now is not true. That he had to invade because Iraq did not cooperate with the 1441 inspectors. > > If that were true, there would be no case that Bush violated the language of the AUMF. There is no case that he violated the AUMF. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It is that Bush gets away with that lie to this day, and one way to hold him accountable is to point out that he did not enforce all UNSC Resolutions, so it is ridiculous for those on the anti-war left to help Bush out a bit by spreading the blame for the war among any Democrat who voted for the AUMF, on a war that is relatively certain would have come about any way. But when the case that Bush denied the reality of Iraq’s cooperation prior to the start of the invasion is ignored as it was and is by many on this forum, it takes away ‘full accountability’ from Bush for making that decision on his own… to force an end to successful UN inspections and attempt to disarm Iraq in the violent way instead. What does it mean to “get away with” that lie? Appear only on friendly media outlets? There’s nothing you or anyone else can do about that, Bush won’t be on Rachel Maddow anytime soon. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That decision for violence is all on Bush. It is a mistake to spread that blame on HRC and John Kerry. And a key reason is that the AUMF they negotiated did restrain Bush to use force to enforce UNSC Resolutions. To deny that reality to this day - helps Bush not the truth or the historical reality. Sometimes the truth hurts. Yes, many Democrats share blame for the war, though the lion’s share belongs to Bush. You need to make peace with that reality. Life isn’t a morality play of flawless heroes and dastardly villains. ---
**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 15, 2013, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1063 "2013-08-15T14:02:12Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > If you believe Bush 'enforced UNSC 1441, you need to explain how in the hell he could have been doing that, seeing as how Iraq was complying with 1441 when Bush decided it was appropriate to invade. 1. He didn’t have to enforce only 1441, he was empowered to enforce “all”. 2. Invading and seizing control of Iraq certainly enforced compliance to 1441. 1441 wasn’t a statute describing a prohibited behavior, like a regular criminal statute is. It was a list of demands. Military force could absolutely be used to enforce compliance with that list, **whether or not** it was already being complied with. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > None of your “us” has explained why that phrase is in there. > > I’m still waiting. I told you, complete with a Russ Feingold quote, you just didn’t like the answer and thus didn’t address it, a favorite tactic of yours (how’s that AUMF/Levin Amendment comparison going, by the way?). It limited military operations to Iraq. ---
**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 15, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1064 "2013-08-15T18:35:11Z")
Maybe we need to give the inspectors more time to find **Fooled By W** ’s AUMF violation by Bush. I think it will be a matter of months, not years before they verify if it exists or not. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1065 "2013-08-15T19:30:00Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > seeing as how Iraq was complying with 1441 No they weren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1066 "2013-08-15T20:09:17Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And those who think S.H. was not complying under 1441 or that Bush enforced 1441 would be called Palin Drones. Sarah Palin was part of the Bush administration? Amazing the number of factually true things I’m learning from NfbW in this thread. Tis a shame McCain didn’t win in 2008 and die in office; there could have been a big controversy over the US conducting Palin drone strikes. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1067 "2013-08-16T01:37:39Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > … You’ve claimed that there were some Senators who did care. **Why didn’t _they_ ever mention this supposed violation of the AUMF?** Rockefeller did read the NIE prior to voting yes. And this exchange took place in 2005: > [@](#): > > ROCKEFELLER: Chris, it is always the same conversation. You know, it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops to… > > WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote? > > ROCKEFELLER: No. I’m… > > WALLACE: You’re not? > > ROCKEFELLER: No. I’m responsible for my vote, but I’d appreciate it if you’d get serious about this subject, with all due respect.\*\* We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then\*\* if that failed\*\*, authorized him to use force **to enforce the sanctions**.\*\* > > We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. **That we did not have a part of.** And yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and I said I would have never voted for this thing. > Read more: [http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/11/14/transcript-sens-roberts-rockefeller-on-fns/#ixzz2c5gvFdv6](http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/11/14/transcript-sens-roberts-rockefeller-on-fns/#ixzz2c5gvFdv6) Rockefeller also said this in the same Fox News show with Chris Wallace: > [@](#): > > I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. > > Read more: [http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/11/14/transcript-sens-roberts-rockefeller-on-fns/#ixzz2c5ktB4Sx](http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/11/14/transcript-sens-roberts-rockefeller-on-fns/#ixzz2c5ktB4Sx) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1068 "2013-08-16T02:13:48Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 1. He didn’t have to enforce only 1441, he was empowered to enforce “all”. 1441 gave Iraq a FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY which meant that “ALL” preceding Resolutions were covered by this FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY which also did not have a deadline to achieve ‘full compliance’ with all. Iraq was in fact ‘complying with 1441’ which meant he was ‘not in violation of international law’ in a sense that military force could be used to enforce 'all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. That legally defined status of “FINAL OPPORTUNITY” started the moment Iraq agreed and began cooperating with the post-1441 inspection regime and did not end with a UNSC decision to revoke it. Your claim that Congress ‘empowered’ Bush ‘to enforce all’ is just a ‘pick and choose’ requirement and that Bush could legitimately ignore one major part of that all (1441) is to suggest that Congress puts words in legislation that are intended to take up space and mean nothing. Bush could not in any way ‘enforce’ UNSC Resolution 1441 if the UNSC did not set enforcement to be accomplished by military force. Bush could not ‘enforce’ UNSC 1441 or any UNSC relevant Resolution mentioned within 1441 since 1441 was being ‘enforced’ with the judgment by the majority of the UNSC that Iraq was cooperating and working toward full compliance, peacefully. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2013, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1069 "2013-08-16T02:27:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 1. > 1. Invading and seizing control of Iraq certainly enforced compliance to 1441. 1441 wasn’t a statute describing a prohibited behavior, like a regular criminal statute is. **It was a list of demands.** Military force could absolutely be used to enforce compliance with that list, **whether or not** it was already being complied with. It was a FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY with no deadline or date set for full compliance. The main requirement was that Iraq cooperate and work toward full compliance which in the opinion of the majority of the UNSC Iraq had achieved full cooperation sometime in February 2003. Bush ‘enforced’ Bush’s ultimatum that Iraq be declared in full compliance by March 17, 2003. So sorry H.A. that date and that ultimatum are not on any list within the language of 1441. Bush did not enforce 1441. Bush pissed on 1441 and went around it on his own terms. That is not what the AUMF authorized him to do. ---
**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 16, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1070 "2013-08-16T19:04:44Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Rockefeller did read the NIE prior to voting yes. And this exchange took place in 2005: > > Rockefeller also said this in the same Fox News show with Chris Wallace: He doesn’t say Bush violated the AUMF, or anything like that. The problem with “if that failed” is that the AUMF let Bush and Bush alone decide if the UN process had failed. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > 1441 gave Iraq a FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY which meant that “ALL” preceding Resolutions were covered by this FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY which also did not have a deadline to achieve ‘full compliance’ with all. We’ve been over this. 1441 did not rescind any previous resolutions. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Iraq was in fact ‘complying with 1441’ which meant he was ‘not in violation of international law’ in a sense that military force could be used to enforce 'all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. That legally defined status of “FINAL OPPORTUNITY” started the moment Iraq agreed and began cooperating with the post-1441 inspection regime and did not end with a UNSC decision to revoke it. Under international law and the UN Charter, you are correct. Invading would require an imminent threat that justified pre-emptive self-defense, or a UNSC resolution authorizing war. The AUMF is a different kettle of fish, though. Invading under it required a presidential determination, and that is all. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Your claim that Congress ‘empowered’ Bush ‘to enforce all’ is just a ‘pick and choose’ requirement and that Bush could legitimately ignore one major part of that all (1441) is to suggest that Congress puts words in legislation that are intended to take up space and mean nothing. How so? What was the alternative? Write that he was empowered to enforce “some”? That he was empowered to enforce “all, simultaneously”? Because, again, it’s impossible to enforce over a dozen different resolutions, some of them addressing situations that no longer existed, with a single military campaign, enforcing “all” was not physically possible. By your logic, if the UNSC voted and declared Iraq in breach of 1441 and a coalition invasion was put together, the AUMF would forbid the U.S. from participating, since they’d also have to enforce the resolution about [extending Iraqi oil sales](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1153), and the one about the [UN Compensation Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_692), and the one about [the UN Special Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1060), and the one about… List the resolutions? Limit the authorization to only UNSC resolutions passed after the AUMF? Oh, wait, that _would_ have worked, and they had that option, and voted it down. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Bush could not in any way ‘enforce’ UNSC Resolution 1441 if the UNSC did not set enforcement to be accomplished by military force. Bush could not ‘enforce’ UNSC 1441 or any UNSC relevant Resolution mentioned within 1441 since 1441 was being ‘enforced’ with the judgment by the majority of the UNSC that Iraq was cooperating and working toward full compliance, peacefully. None of the ones I listed above mention military force either, so Bush couldn’t enforce them either! Oddly, this AUMF made military force impossible! And only you have figured it out! ---
**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 16, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1071 "2013-08-16T19:06:12Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It was a FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY with no deadline or date set for full compliance. The main requirement was that Iraq cooperate and work toward full compliance which in the opinion of the majority of the UNSC Iraq had achieved full cooperation sometime in February 2003. > > Bush ‘enforced’ Bush’s ultimatum that Iraq be declared in full compliance by March 17, 2003. So sorry H.A. that date and that ultimatum are not on any list within the language of 1441. > > Bush did not enforce 1441. Bush pissed on 1441 and went around it on his own terms. That is not what the AUMF authorized him to do. Enforced Bush’s ultimatum, eh? Why, to do that, he’d need broad power to use military force as he determined necessary and appropriate! ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1072 "2013-08-17T12:27:32Z")
> [@](#): > > The problem with “if that failed” is that the AUMF let Bush and Bush alone decide if the UN process had failed. -H.A. No it didn’t. Bush was given the authority to use force 'in order to enforce All relevent UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq. He didnt enforce any. Bush defied the UNSC that accepted that 1441 and inspections were working. The AUMF did not tell Bush he was authorized to use force in order to defy all UNSC resolutions if he determines on his own that inspections were not working. Had there been no 1441 passed then Bush could have determined it was necessary to enforce the resolutions regarding Iraq because the UNSC was not capable of doing so. And the problem with your argument is that ‘if that failed’ did not fail, so falling back on that ‘what if’ does your argument no good. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2013, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1073 "2013-08-17T12:45:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW > 1441 gave Iraq a FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY which meant that “ALL” preceding Resolutions were covered by this FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY which also did not have a deadline to achieve ‘full compliance’ with all. > “We’ve been over this. 1441 did not rescind any previous resolutions.” -H.A. I am not suggesting that it did or needed to. 1441 was a final opportunity to comply - it was not forgiveness of Iraq’ decade long violation of international law. But 1441 covered all relevant preceding resolutions and would have closed them if Iraq complied. They would never have rescinded them. ---
**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 18, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1074 "2013-08-18T02:36:15Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No it didn’t. Bush was given the authority to use force 'in order to enforce All relevent UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq. He didnt enforce any. Bush defied the UNSC that accepted that 1441 and inspections were working. He enforced them. Needlessly, as it happens, but he enforced them. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The AUMF did not tell Bush he was authorized to use force in order to defy all UNSC resolutions if he determines on his own that inspections were not working. That would be an oddly specific statute. Now, they could have passed the Levin Amendment, which limited the use of force to carrying out a new UNSC resolution that itself authorized the use of force, or declined to pre-authorize force at all…but our Congress failed us and enabled an inept war-monger. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Had there been no 1441 passed then Bush could have determined it was necessary to enforce the resolutions regarding Iraq because the UNSC was not capable of doing so. Disagree on both counts; as has been well-established. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And the problem with your argument is that ‘if that failed’ did not fail, so falling back on that ‘what if’ does your argument no good. I say it didn’t fail, you say it didn’t fail, Sen. Rockefeller presumably says it didn’t fail…but none of us were empowered to use military force if they thought it had failed, one man was, and that was President Bush. ---
**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 18, 2013, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1075 "2013-08-18T02:37:34Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I am not suggesting that it did or needed to. 1441 was a final opportunity to comply - it was not forgiveness of Iraq’ decade long violation of international law. But 1441 covered all relevant preceding resolutions and would have closed them if Iraq complied. They would never have rescinded them. “Would have” isn’t good enough; either the pre-1441 resolutions were rescinded or they were not. They were not. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1076 "2013-08-19T17:20:50Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > “Would have” isn’t good enough; either the pre-1441 resolutions were rescinded or they were not. They were not. You are absolutely wrong with this line of thought you have dreamed up. The UNSC won’t rescind a resolution that requires compliance until compliance is received. I know you know there was no deadline in 1441 for full compliance so all your talk about rescinding resolutions while Iraq was in the act of complying with 1441 and prior to full compliance is pure bogus meaningless nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1077 "2013-08-20T16:00:30Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You are absolutely wrong with this line of thought you have dreamed up. No he isn’t. ---
**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 20, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1078 "2013-08-20T16:02:09Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You are absolutely wrong with this line of thought you have dreamed up. The UNSC won’t rescind a resolution that requires compliance until compliance is received. I know you know there was no deadline in 1441 for full compliance so all your talk about rescinding resolutions while Iraq was in the act of complying with 1441 and prior to full compliance is pure bogus meaningless nonsense. So, you understand that any resolution that hasn’t been rescinded is part of “all” resolutions. Kudos. The reason why a resolution wasn’t rescinded is irrelevant to the question of “What resolutions are part of “all relevant resolutions regarding Iraq?”” The answer is: “Any that have not been rescinded”. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1079 "2013-08-21T01:43:40Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > So, you understand that any resolution that hasn’t been rescinded is part of “all” resolutions. Kudos. The reason why a resolution wasn’t rescinded is irrelevant to the question of “What resolutions are part of “all relevant resolutions regarding Iraq?”” > > The answer is: “Any that have not been rescinded”. You have not addressed ‘until compliance is received’ and ‘Final Opportunity to comply without a deadline’. If you did, you would realize that ‘rescinding resolutions’ has nothing to do with anything being discusses here or any discussion about Iraq and inspections. ---
**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 21, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/1080 "2013-08-21T19:49:47Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You have not addressed ‘until compliance is received’ and ‘Final Opportunity to comply without a deadline’. If you did, you would realize that ‘rescinding resolutions’ has nothing to do with anything being discusses here or any discussion about Iraq and inspections. Nor have I addressed the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalos, or Rachel & Guy’s Celebrity Cook-Off. This is because what I wrote was relevant to the question at hand. You might try the same tactic. Whether a given resolution contained a given phrase has nothing, at all, to do with whether that resolution is part of the set of “all resolutions relevant to Iraq” or not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=53) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=55)