Calling what I have described as a technical error is the sweetest gift you could personally give toward the promotion of an honorable and great presidential legacy of George W. Bush. What motivates Americans to deny the reality that it significantly matters that Iraq did not violate the terms of 1441 as Bush the bold liar decided that they did is weird.
Bush utters this lie that Iraq refused to cooperate with the UN now as a matter of undisputed fact and its let it be.
I doubt you can find a reason for war lie that comes as close to this specifically in the context that invading Iraq was an offensive war against a nation that was not threatening us or anyone when Bush invaded.
There no threat after inspectors went in and there was no stopping genocide either as an excuse for war. It is weird that so many don’t care and actually don’t want that truth to be told.
The truth must have been told about all previous presidents that lied about war. How else do we know about all those technical errors.
But I’m sure those running the Bush legacy operation appreciate you kind words.
Blix did NOT say that Iraq was in compliance. See the quote about Blix stating that Iraq’s cooperation with 1441 was not “immediate,” and my quote from his autobiography where he left it to the Council to make the judgment on compliance.
In any case, 1441 declared Iraq to be in “material breach” of 687. There was never any action to confirm or revise that material breach, either. Unless 1441 was superceded by something, one can only presume that the judgment of the Security Council stands on the breach of 687 until the Council speaks on the matter again.
Oh snap! I had an answer to that!
A classic lie of omission. The UNSC did not judge Iraq to be in compliance with 1441, and it did not determine Iraq was in violation of it. The truth is that there was no determination on that point. That is the truth.
You, just like the Bush Administration, choose to substitute your judgment for the decision making process that belonged with the Security Council. And just like the Bush Administration, your hubris presumes that you are correct no matter what anyone else has to say, including what the facts are.
What our newest Village Idiot doesn’t understand is that being in violation of UNSC 1441 (or any resolution, for that matter) is not an immediate justification for the use of military force. It’s possible to believe that SH was in violation of that resolution, and others, and still think it unwise to invade. And most Americans don’t really understand how the UNSC works anyway, so blathering on about some technicality is nothing more than verbal masturbation. Americans don’t understand how the UN works, and largely don’t care. If we want war, we get war-- UN or no UN.
For better or worse, we’re the Big Guy on the Block and we don’t need a permission slip from Hans Blixx or anyone if we want to go to war. And I’m using the “we” form here to mean the consensus of Americans, whether I agree with them or not. I tend to be highly averse to the use of military force unless there is an overwhelming reason that doing so is in the interest of the US.
I wrote, the following never stating that Blix said something:
And Ravenman directly replies as follows:
I agree with Ravenman that Blix did not say that Iraq was in compliance. So we agree on something and that is excellent progress. You must agree with my second point that Blix stated that Iraq was cooperating proactively for at least a month preceding the decision to start the invasion, because I have not seen any dispute against him saying that. I have stated a fact that cooperation on full access to sites was to be immediate and that is the language that is in Res 1441. Blix reported that cooperation on access to sites by Iraq was immediate.
Blix said proactive cooperation on resolving old issues was not immediate, but it was received three months in. There was no language defining proactive cooperation on substance but I will grant that is what the language of 1441 intended. But there still is no truth to any statement that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441 prior to the start of war because compliance required Iraq’s cooperation immediately and Blix did report that it was received but he personally would not call it immediate.
But he indicated that it was up to the UNSC to decide. So the truth is the UNSC majority determined by consent of opinion that the immediacy of cooperation by Iraq had been met with respect to Iraq’s compliance with Res 1441.
Therefore it is truth and a fact that Iraq was in compliance with Res 1441 but not in compliance with all preceding resolutions as of yet.
It is impossible that Iraq was in violation of 1441 or not in compliance with 1441 if as Blix stated Iraq was for an entire month cooperating proactively to resolve old issues.
These are facts. If anyone can dispute these facts, I’d appreciate the chance to consider it.
That as I outlined above does not lead to a fact based conclusion that Iraq was in violation of international law and/or not in compliance with Res 1441. The overriding fact still is that the UNSC had not requirement to vote that Iraq was complying - they were required to meet and consider ramifications if at any time the majority believed that Iraq was not cooperating properly to lead to full compliance with all resolution regarding the disarming of Iraq.
There was never a need for that meeting - ever. Iraq was complying and that is why.
I wrote, “So the truth is the UNSC majority determined by consent of opinion that the immediacy of cooperation by Iraq had been met with respect to Iraq’s compliance with Res 1441.”
And Ravenman replies:
It is not a statement of logic it is a statement of fact. If there is no dispute with the fact, it should stand as a fact.
Did the UNSC members determine by consent of majority opinion, full well knowing the duration it took to get cooperation on substance, decide to call a special session because they believed Iraq was not complying with inspectors as it was required to do in accordance with UN Res 1441 demands?
The truth is no.
If you believe the truth is yes, let’s see some basis for it.
Since there doesn’t seem to be any way to avoid the Iraq hijack in every…single…fucking…thread…that NFBW is in, I guess there is nothing for it.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
There was never a need for that meeting - ever. Iraq was complying and that is why.
[/QUOTE]
As has been pointed out to you over and over, they were bringing themselves into compliance, but still weren’t there. It was a process…and ONGOING process. Blix own statements made this clear to any unbiased reading. Bush however set his own deadline and, again as pointed out to you numerous times, didn’t need UN approval to do what he did. It was his, and to a lesser extent the other allies, decision as to whether or not to launch the war.
But, see, that’s not what you’ve been contending. Multiple people have been trying to beat it into your thick skull that this was the case, and that it wasn’t fact that Iraq was in compliance with 1441. Blix own comments make it clear that he was happy with the progress, but that there was still a ways to go before Iraq was fully in compliance with all aspects of 1441. Why you don’t seem able to grasp this is a mystery, but it seems you are shifting the goal posts here and, at least in a back handed way acknowledging this. That IS progress…major progress, if it’s true and you don’t now back pedal.
There was never a ruling on this one way or another. That’s why folks have been telling you that it’s your freaking OPINION, not fact.
It’s not a statement of fact, it’s an assertion of your opinion.
Did you read the Wiki article I linked to in yet another thread that you have hijacked about 1441 and Iraq? Because the answer to your question is in there. There never was a vote on whether or not Iraq was or wasn’t in full compliance because the US and UK were pushing for war, and France, China and Russia were completely against it and were making it quite clear that they would veto any resolution or stance that opened the door for military action against Iraq. At that point the whole thing became even more moot that it had been, since the US and other allies were already in position to launch military operations…which they did fairly shortly after this.
Here, from the Wiki link that you didn’t read when I put it in last time:
My emphasis. See, they never did vote. You can, of course, SPECULATE with your OPINION that the majority would have voted that Iraq was in compliance…that’s a reasonable OPINION, especially give the fact that several voting members of the UNSC were opposed to ANY vote that would have opened the door to military action, and thus would have voted in a way to block such military action, regardless…but since there never WAS such a vote, it never came up, thus is mere speculation. People have been trying to explain this to you, oh, maybe a hundred times in the various cluster fuck threads you’ve participated in, including THIS Pit thread that not about Iraq at all. I’m not sanguine that you will get it this time either, but what the fuck…if we are going to just hijack every thread you are in to be about Iraq, and if the Mods are cool with that, then might as well continue to try and beat it into your fucking thick skull one more time.
You know what? Upon some soul-searching, I’ve determined that NotfooledbyW is right. He’s completely right about everything he’s said to date, and I and everyone else here are fools to have ever doubted him on these indisputable points of objectively true fact.
Thread over. Move along, folks, nothing more to see here.
I don’t know what this means, but I concur with Smapti. I’ve clearly been boxed in by the facts, and I just don’t have a good response to anything that’s been said.
I’m totally wrong to think that compliance means to have fulfilled and completed all required tasks, as opposed to NFbW’s contention that compliance means working toward that end. He boxed me in with his wit and encyclopedic knowledge.
I also erred in believing that the Security Council speaks for itself. The fact that the Security Council decided nothing is, indeed, stone-cold proof that Iraq had fully embraced the peaceful resolution of international disputes.
There’s more errors that I made, but I won’t repeat them here, because the facts aren’t on my side. Plus, I look forward to the movie.
And I have nothing left to discuss, so I’ll scurry back to whatever hole I climbed out of.
Could be. There is clearly a point at which a person of diminished mental capacity–particularly a monomaniacal one–becomes pretty much indistinguishable from a troll.
Rather than brand any ambiguous individual a troll, (since we really have no rule on this board against just being stupid), I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt until such time as they confess to trolling.
That’s a good rule, but does leave you vulnerable to feeding the trolls.
My basic take on this guy is that he’s got a fascinating set of affectations, and a remarkable ability to “not get” what people are doing, in the interests of getting them to roll with his pet theory.
Basically, any sufficiently advanced idiocy is indistinguishable from trolling.
I will reply to responses and comments in full as soon as I can, However if you can, could you provide the language within UN 1441 where the UNSC members were required to make a ‘ruling’ on whether Iraq was complying ‘one way or another’. I ask you because the way 1441 is written there is no requirement for the members to make a ruling on whether Iraq was in compliance or not unless it was determined that Iraq was not 'cooperating. That is if Iraq was not cooperating with… IN YOUR EXACT WORDS:
So since you know that Iraq was engaged proactively in cooperation to bring themselves in compliance, but not there, but that there was no deadline to get there, how is it that you have made up this undocumented and unmentioned requirement that the UNSC Members had to make a ruling on an ‘ongoing process’. The ongoing process… ‘ongoing’ with Iraq’s proactive cooperation according to Blix, was the self-evident fact that Iraq was in compliance with 1441. (Not all Resolutions ‘yet’ but with 1441) So if Iraq was in full cooperation with the ongoing process of 1441 as you yourself call it, where do you get that a ruling is necessary to determine whether or not Iraq was in compliance with 1441.
There is no requirement for a ruling to know that the ongoing process meant that Iraq was in compliance… by its proactive cooperation.
So where or why does anybody need a ‘ruling’ to know that Iraq was cooperating proactively with the ongoing process of UN Resolution - and therefore no need to call a meeting to end the ongoing process.
There is no requirement for a ‘ruling’ if Iraq was seen as complying through cooperation by UNSC members. There is in 1441 a requirement for members to meet if Iraq was seen not to be cooperating and therefore not in compliance with 1441.
If you have different language in 1441, I would certainly like to see it.
Ok, I give. You are either a troll or you are stupid beyond belief. I’m leaning toward troll. If you can’t see how your requests for information here is ironic in the extreme then you are stupid. Since I suspect that no one can be that stupid, you are a fucking troll and I’m not going to feed you anymore. For anyone following along, set your irony meters to the highest level, then read through what NFBW is asking for here…then go back and read his contentions in this and the other linked threads in the OP, especially those posts dealing with Iraq and 1441. Now read through some of the responses to him, especially Raven and HA’s responses.
KABOOM! There goes the irony meter! If you have a troll-o-meter, best calibrate it to the highest levels as well, as I’m fairly sure that’s what we have here folks.
So the fact is XT does not have any basis in fact to state that UNSC members needed to have a ruling to determine whether Iraq was or was not in compliance with UNSC 1441 while not in compliance with all previous resolutions.
I point at a flaw in XT’s pattern of facts used to call me stupid and now I’m a troll, whatever that is supposed to mean.
XT challenged my factual statement on Blix. It was not me going after him. Now XT cannot defend his claim about the need for a ruling, and that claim has become a big part of his argument that is now failed.
I will be glad to post all the comments by me and others to show that whatever XT is trying to say with this troll talk is baseless.
If you do not wish to see a summary of this back and forth on whether Iraq was in compliance with 1441, then post whatever specifics you have where I am inconsistent or whatever problem you think you have about my points and facts.
It seems to be like the need for a ruling on compliance contained in 1441 language that XT relies on, this troll stuff is all made up to.
All I would like to see is backup to your accusations and theories about me.
Didn’t there used to be a rule that the OP could request a thread be closed because it is a disaster? Is that rule still around? Because XT, please, please close this thread.
That would certainly be a way of avoiding this question:
If XT or any one else could find the language in 1441 that XT must think is there, I’d think it would be searched for and found to show that I am wrong.
If anyone can dispute my statement that precedes my question to XT you could try that too.
This thread is no disaster at all.
I have defended my posting quite well in the face of the wrath of many. And it is mostly because I have stated a fact that Iraq was in compliance with UNSC Res 1441 and Bush continued lie about that.