For those who like concise ass-whipping of stupid posters here’s this:
Mace cited this portion of what I wrote: “That fact plus the fact that UN Res 1441 required Iraq to cooperate immediately in providing access to sites with several other less prominent demands means that Iraq was in full compliance with his obligations with regard to UN Res 1441.”
And then Mace cites Blix: “these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation.”
And un-bright Mace concludes ". Blix explicitly states Iraq did not provide “immediate cooperation”, and yet you contradict what Blix said and claim the opposite of what he said as a fact.
What I clearly cited was in reference to “cooperate immediately in providing access to sites”
What Mace cites Blix as referring to was “these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution” which were the unresolved issues from 1992.
Clearly Mace is absolutely confused and wrong.
Nope. 1441 uses the term “immediate” and Blix is clearly referencing that specific term when he says the cooperation cannot be said to be "immediate. Thus spake Blix and thus your house of cards falls.
According to the UNSC the proactive cooperation on old unresolved issues that was received starting in February as reported by Blix was ‘immediate’. And you must recall what Ravenman posted in post (063) on the Bush Library thread don’t you,
Ravenman cuts your new argument to shreds:
Blix said according to Ravenman’s cite:
So do you have a judgment from the UNSC that cooperation was not immediate?
Hey shitstain, don’t misrepresent me, my argument, or my cites. I’m showing that you are wrong and John is correct, and you’re too dumb to know that.
Let’s do a little mental excercise: what would have happened if a resolution was voted on to declare Iraq in compliance with 1441? The US and UK would have vetoed it, meaning the UNSC couldn’t possibly have had that judgment.
What would have happened if there were a resolution declaring Iraq in violation of 1441? France and Russia would have vetoed it, meaning the UNSC couldn’t possibly have had that judgment.
That is what people have been telling you for the past month: any conclusion that Iraq was, or was not, in compliance is not the conclusion of the only body that was charged with deciding such matters. Therefore, your conclusion is your opinion, not a fact.
We’re not talking about the UNSC. We’re talking about what you posted. It was an opinion, not a fact. An opinion that is contrary to what Blix said. The UNSC never ruled on the subject.
If you want to say that, in your opinion, Iraq’s cooperation was “immediate”, you need to make your case. But good luck since the best expert on that subject, one Hans Blix, is on record saying it wasn’t. Pardon me if I take Blix’s analysis over some anonymous poster on a message board.
And as Blix was recounting his March 7th update to the UNSC, Blix stated:
Quote:
I stressed that it was for the Council to assess… whether Iraq had cooperated “uimmediately, unconditionally and actively” as required under Resolution 1441. I noted nevertheless that although Iraq had become “active” or even “proactive,” these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution could not be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. The Council, not I, was to make the overall judgment.
I have posted the fact that Iraq was not in violation of UN Res 1441 and in compliance because Blix reported that Iraq began cooperating proactively on everything sometime early February. That is what Iraq was required to do under 1441. They did it prior to Bush’s decision to end inspections and start a war.
Ravenman cited Blix saying it was not his call on the issue of immediacy. You have no point there.
All I am stating is fact. If something is not a fact then tell me what specifically is not a fact.
We most certainly are talking about the UNSC. Where have you been?
I have never said anything contrary to what Blix said. Blix said cooperation on access was immediate. I cited it. Blix said initiatives by Iraq to resolve old issues was not immediate. I absolutely agree Blix said that. Prove me wrong. You can’t.
I don’t want to say Iraq’s proactive cooperation was immediate because that is not what I wrote. I wrote in concurrence with what Blix reported that proactive initiatives were not considered by him to be immediate.
I agree with everything Blix said about cooperation. I agree that cooperation or access to sites was immediate but proactive initiatives on resolving old issues was NOT immediate.
But I also accept what else Blix but you apparently don’t. The determination if Iraq’s proactive cooperation was a decision for the UNSC.
And I await for your evidence that the UNSC considered that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441 because proactive cooperation was not immediate.
So smart guy, did the UNSC as a deliberative body have the prerogative to define what the immediacy language meant contained in 1441 meant in terms of timeframe?
Why do you prefer Bush’s definition of immediate over probably ten UNSC members who saw it differently than Bush and Blair?
And again, my statement that Iraq was in compliance with 1441 prior to the invasion because they were in fact cooperating proactively by sometime in February according to Blix. That is not an opinion just because Bush and Blair had their own deadline of immediate cooperation outside of 1441.
Bush and Blair’s deadline was Bush and Blair’s deadline. It had nothing to do with 1441. It had too much to do with starting a stupid war,
But my facts are still facts.
You have not come close to making a case that they are not facts.
I can say that. All I am stating is a fact. It is fact based. It is factual. And none of you have made a case that it isn’t .
That’s what I’m saying.
Iraq was in compliance with what was required of them by UN Res 1441 because they were determined by Blix to be cooperating actively prior to the start of the invasion.
Do you have a case or argument that Iraq was not in compliance?
If you don’t why are you joined with those arguing against the factual points that I have been making?
Well, the thread grinds on I see. Obviously the Mods have figured out that if NFBW is posting here, he’s not polluting the board in other places, which is all for the good. I see that NFBW is still posting the same horseshit, is still unable to grasp what anyone is telling him, and is still thinking he’s knocking it out of the park with his posts of ‘fact’ while numerous posters attempt to explain to him what an idiot he is.
I’m still undecided…troll or just one of the 5 stupidest people to ever post on this board. Or, perhaps 5 of the stupidest people to ever post here. We do have to consider Gonzo when doing these calculations, so probably not the later.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
We most certainly are talking about the UNSC. Where have you been?
[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe you and the mouse in your pocket have been, but just about everyone else has been trying to explain to you why you are and have been wrong, and why your ‘facts’ are basically your uninformed and stupid opinions.
Dude, because YOU are too stupid and stubborn to realize you’ve been shown Blix saying this in numerous cites doesn’t mean everyone else is. With perhaps a few exceptions you are the ONLY one to think you are coming off well on this topic, as everyone else doesn’t care and/or if they have done even a cursory look at the posts in this and other threads is able to conclude, quite easily, that you are wrong AND are a fucking moron. The only real question is, are you a troll or are you competing with pocket lint to see which has the most brain power? I think the poster community is split on this, but I’m wondering why it can’t be both.
They never voted on it fuck head. People have tried to tell you this dozens of times and you are too fucking stupid to get it. You still don’t get it. You never will get it. For anyone following along who is perhaps confused by your ridiculous walls of text, it was posters taking exception to your claims that it was fact that Iraq WAS in compliance that launched this whole cluster fuck. Since the UNSC never voted one way or another, it’s your fucking stupid OPINION that Iraq was in compliance…and it’s a fucking moot point, since the US and allies launched their invasion on other grounds, not on 1441. You have tied up literally pages of threads on this subject, and all because you are just too fucking stupid to understand what people have been trying to tell you.
No, they are the uninformed and highly skewed and partisan opinions of a clueless fuckwit who doesn’t have the brain power to tie his own shoes, and who is probably a troll to boot. Certainly a compulsive obsessive with delusions of adequacy and relevance. A partisan hack moron without the understanding to realize you are arguing nitpicky semantics and pedantic points with people who are generally on your own side because, well, you are too stupid to close your mouth in a rain storm so you are in danger of drowning, and it’s a wonder you haven’t stopped breathing because, frankly, you don’t seem to have the raw brain power to keep your automatic bodily systems going.
NFbW, please just answer me this one question. You don’t need to explain, a maximum of four words are needed. Just a simple, direct answer to this question:
Who was in charge of determining whether Iraq’s compliance (or non-compliance) was in accord with 1441?
I didn’t misrepresent you. I posted ‘exactly’ what you posted and I appreciate your doing so. I wish everyone else would appreciate it as much as I do.
Decent point in the abstract, but it still falls short. The fact remains as I have been telling XT that UN Res 1441 was not set up for the need for a vote on compliance. Compliance was a given if the majority of members saw that cooperation was immediate enough to bridge the way to full compliance of all the other UNSC resolutions.
And that is why Bush and Blair around March 7th tried to redefine 1441’s immediacy terminology into a ten day deadline. They failed because Iraq had been proactively cooperating on all matters according to Blix for at least three weeks prior to that pitiful attempt by Bush and Blair to get the UNSC to sanction their stupid war plans.
Bush and Blair could not set a deadline after the fact that proactive cooperation had been reached. That was a stupid idea and they realized it about the time they submitted the draft resolution because they withdrew it after predicting that they would allow a vote on it. .
So you are wrong and unconvincing to argue that the majority of the UNSC needed to vote that Iraq was in compliance after the Chief Weapons Inspector had reported proactive cooperation on all fronts although not ‘immediate’ in his mind. Thanks to you Ravenman we are assured that Blix agreed to defer the decision on immediacy to the member states of the UNSC.
Do you mean that as an “if” the US and UK had garnered majority support for declaring Iraq in violation of 1441 and there was an actual vote? Had that been the case, I would say Bush could, as opposed to what really happened, be able to say as he does that he did in fact try the diplomacy route through the UN but the UN failed. So that would be true when he said it. When Bush said he tried diplomacy now, he’s lying. And that is all that I am trying to tell you. And it is not an opinion or hypothetical on my part it is a fact. That is also what I have been telling you. Why do you resist it so?
And that makes absolutely no sense. There was no deadline. There was not date certain contained in the language of 1441. All conclusions including the conclusion of Bush and Blair needed to be based on an interpretation of what constituted immediate active cooperation and by when that level of cooperation needed to be achieved. So the conclusions/opinion that Iraq was not cooperating that was made by Bush and Blair and anyone fool enough to support the idea of invasion was definitely ‘after the fact’ that Iraq was already seen to be “PROACTIVELY COOPERATING WITH INSPECTORS ON ALL MATTERS”.
We know Dr Blix himself reported Iraq’s active cooperating starting at the end of January. That is a fact.
Bush and Blair made a false conclusion that was not within the legal and binding terms of UN Res 1441 and Iraq.
That is a key point. Was Iraq bound to 1441 or Bush and Blair’s arbitrary deadline?
Bush’s deadline is outside of 1441. And he is lying to state that Iraq did not attempt to cooperate in accordance with 1441 so that war could be avoided.
Bush’s deadline for Iraq was for Iraq to be in full compliance WITH ALL UN Resolutions with regard to Iraq, by March 17 and with Blix and El Beradai’s confirmation of that full compliance. Again that was Bush’s deadline. It is not the case as Bush describes to this day, to give his stupid decision legitimacy of ‘I tried to go through the UN but those diplomatic efforts failed - so I had no choice but war’.
That is a Bush lie, and I cannot figure out why so many are dead set against arguments that it is a lie and affront to the historic truth of what happened.
Is it possible that lots of people could be wrong about something.
Lots of people are wrong to believe or not care when Bush says again and again that Iraq was in violation of 1441 so he had to resort to war although he didn’t really want to.
Iraq was not in violation of 1441 because they were proactively cooperating several weeks before UN inspectors were forced to leave to meet Bush’s ultimate invasion decision.
I’ll repeat. This is a fact not an opinion. Iraq was in compliance with 1441 when Blix reported proactive cooperation. Iraq was obligated to providing that in the eyes of the inspectors and the majority of the UNSC. And Iraq did. That is a historic and recorded fact.
It is not an opinion. It is a fact. Attempts to make it an opinion are ludicrous.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
It was, ‘the UNSC majority of members’
[/QUOTE]
So, along with myriad other things, you don’t understand how the UNSC works either. It’s not majority vote. I has to be unanimous. A single veto is enough to kill or block anything. So, when France said they would vote against ANYTHING that would lead to war, that was it. China and/or Russia would have done the same. None of them wanted anything that would or could lead to war. So, there was zero chance of a UN vote that would have mandated war with Iraq. Zero. Nada.
Which is why the US, UK and the few others that went along with us on that cluster fuck didn’t give a flying fuck about 1441 or whether or not Iraq was or wasn’t in full compliance or in outright violation. It didn’t fucking matter you bone headed fuckwit. Bush didn’t give a fuck whether or not the UN did or didn’t do a gods damned thing. He had gone through the motions of letting the UN flail about, had given the minimum effort needed to make it look like we were trying to find a peaceful settlement, all the while basically building up our forces and logistics. THAT was the only thing that mattered. He was going to get his war, no matter what, with the only caveat being whether or not Saddam et al caved in and surrendered…something that was a vanishingly small probability.
This is all I could glean from your mindless opinionated rant that may be tied to a sense of trying to make some kind of argument amidst the mindless rants.
Which unless you can find language in 1441 which states otherwise.. not voting to take up Iraq’s non-compliance means that Iraq was in compliance. My statement is a fact that Iraq was in compliance with 1441 when Blix reported that Iraq was cooperating proactively. That is a fact because that is what Iraq was required to do as demanded by the language in UN Res 1441.
You can write it, but you cannot explain why it is an opinion and not a fact. There was not requirement in the language of 1441 to vote one way or another unless the majority saw Iraq at any time not complying. The majority never saw Iraq not complying. So there was no vote and there never was a requirement to have a vote if the majority saw Iraq complying. You are making a claim about how 1441 was supposed to work. Show us the language that supports your made up fantasy.
Then why argue that Iraq was in violation of 1441 when they were not, or that Bush justifiably concluded that Iraq did not comply with 1441 when that is not true?
You make absolutely no sense at all. Bush signed onto 1441 and has since stated that he wanted that ‘diplomacy’ to work. Why do you want to rewrite what Bush said out of the history books. I posted excerpts from Bush’s March 17 2003 announcement that war was coming.
Here it is again. To him it was about UN Resolutions and Iraq’s defiance. I don’t know what history books you read or news you listened to. Perhaps you can share:
But here’s Bush March 17, 2003:
Bush’s “Our good faith was not returned” to you may not be about 1441… but off this Pit.. there are many people not so blind to reality.
But you are de-facto arguing that Bush has some kind of point that Bush’s good faith effort to disarm Iraq peacefully was not returned by Saddam Hussein although I know you are aware that Blix did state that Iraq was cooperating proactively prior to this announcement.
Perhaps Bush didn’t hear Blix say that.
I wish you would try to explain yourself instead of ranting on about me most of the time.
So, along with myriad other things, you don’t understand how the UNSC works either. It’s not majority vote. I has to be unanimous. /QUOTE]
Then, Why did Bush and Blair send a draft resolution to the UNSC and then lobby member states to convince a majority to vote in favor of it?
What does ‘nine affirmative votes required for action mean’ mean then?
IF the US, UK and Spain had to get all fifteen members to vote unanimous for an automatic trigger for war in ten days, why did they bother knowing Russia, China and France’s views on the matter?