This discussion isn’t about you and your views, it is about the views of others. I did not think compliance with 1441 was the deciding factor for whether war was justified. If Iraq continued to sandbag inspectors, as it had in the past, war would still not be justified in my view.
So I think it is a mistake to change my three broad statements on why people might have opposed the war to reflect your personal fixation on 1441. You simply have got to learn that the rest of the world doesn’t see 1441 as the defining event on the road to war.
Funny, that’s exactly what Bush thought he was doing, the only difference being that you thought the line for war should have been two or three inches to the left. (Once again, the irony of your handle makes me laugh.) I think the line for war should have been placed at the point where, ya know, Iraq was actually a threat to the US.
We are getting the point that if the UNSC had agreed to have a Cobb salad for lunch, you would have taken that action as an endorsement of your views. Find quotes from people on the UNSC who affirmatively said that Iraq was cooperating fully, or STFU about it. I’m not talking about this “cooperating on process but not substance, agreeing on meals but not appetizers, talking about temperature but not the humidity” pussy statements. You have the boldness to state that Iraq was doing everything in their power to aid the inspections. Show me the quotes from UNSC members that say the exact same thing.
First off, what “actions” are you talking about that 9 members of the UNSC took. Nine, not one. Give us, explicitly, what actions 9 members took that you’re talking about.
Secondly, they didn’t “refuse to act”. Bush decided he wasn’t going to ask for a vote. The other members didn’t have to “refuse” anything. Further, even if they had “refused” to authorize the use of force, that still wouldn’t tell us what they thought of 1441.
Fact: Fifteen members of the UNSC including the USA in November 2002 voted unanimously to adopt UN Resolution 1441 because Iraq was at that time in violation of international law with regards to being disarmed of possible possession of WMD.
The compliance issue with all preceding UN Resolutions on Iraq was a matter of upholding the principle of international law - magnified by the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil. You may deny that it was magnified or justified because of that but you would be quite wrong. The reality was what it was.
Res 1441 was an attempt to use peaceful means backed by the threat of force to force an outlaw nation into compliance with the laws of the world.
Believing that compliance with international law has no relationship with the justification of war is your view, as you say, but you cannot convince me that your view is much more than a scarce view that is outside the mainstream of thinking of most people in the world, specifically like those who sat on the UNSC in November and voted in favor of 1441.
What actually happened is that Iraq DID NOT continue to sandbag as it had in the past so war was not justified. So you and I agree, war was not justified at all. Our difference in views appear to be that you believe Iraq should not have been confronted as an international outlaw for defying the world’s ability to enforce Iraq’s unresolved disarmament issues.
You should not credit yourself as holding a majority view, since you would be hard pressed to confirm it in any way.
Again, Fact: Fifteen members of the UNSC including the USA in November 2002 voted unanimously to adopt UN Resolution 1441.
I don’t know who you mean by the rest of the world.
Bushies certainly think 1441 was irrelevant or defied/mocked by Iraq.
Are you confused that the UNSC vote was a vote to pass time so Bush could have a little more time to prepare for war?
Actually 1441 was a major obstacle to what would have been most likely a direct, ‘no final opportunity for Iraq to avoid war’ invasion at the rate Bush was headed after 9/11 until he started the diplomatic chance to avoid war talk himself in September 2002.
Your line admittedly does not accept the necessity of upholding international law. In October 2002 Iraq was in violation of international law. That is a fact.
By the end of February 2003 Iraq’s proactive cooperation on all matters of inspections makes it a fact that Iraq was complying with international law.
The prevailing opinion even among the US public in general during the first nine months of 2002 was that uncertainty about Iraq’s WMD capacity was or could be a threat to international peace and security, plus the bogus links of Iraq to international terrorism.
My statement of fact that Iraq was complying with 1441 is based upon the Chief Weapons Inspector Blix reporting officially to the UNSC that Iraq had reached a verifiable condition of active/proactive cooperation prior the start of major invasion and war.
Blix advised the UNSC members that Iraq’s cooperation was not considered immediate but he would leave that to UNSC members to decide.
The UNSC did not see a need to convene a meeting to deal with Iraq’s non-compliance so by their non-action express the view that Iraq’s cooperation was in compliance with 1441. There was no need to state that Iraq was in compliance as they rejected the arguments of a few member states who were claiming that Iraq was not in compliance.
Stating ‘no’ by words and actions to Bush makes it a fact
The veto argument does not hold water also because no permanent member state could veto the US & UK draft resolution in March from being presented for a vote. If the US & UK thought they had nine votes in their favor they would have forced a cite and watched France Veto it.
The majority spoke with their dissagreement with Bush’s complaint that Iraq was not cooperating under the demands of 1441.
Bush was rejected and the complaints of non-compliance because the majority told him no.
There is no valid argument other than Iraq was complying as required by 1441, because there was no majority argument that he was not in compliance.
I did not say they took ‘actions’ in a ‘convened’ manner. I am referring to the FACT that member states such as Canada were being lobbied by the US and UK to end inspections in ten days from March 7 and declare Iraq in material breach of 1441, thus excusing the need for war.
Refusing to grant Bush his wish for UN sanctioned war was an action.
I paraphrase them as basically telling Bush to go fuck himself and Tony Blair too.
I stated facts. If nobody else in the world agrees with facts, the problem is with them.
if you don’t agree that any of my facts are facts you should start by trying to refute them.
Fact: Blix said prior to the start of war that Iraq was actively cooperating.
Fact: Iraq was required to actively and immediately cooperate during implementation of 1441. Blix left it to UNSC members to decide if the proactive cooperation was immediate.
Fact: The UNSC majority rejected the lobbying by the US and UK to find Iraq not in compliance with 1441. Status quo prevailed. Inspections were working in the opinion of at least nine members of the UNSC.
If you can dispute any of this I have not seen it.
Yep, you’re the only one in the entire world with the facts.
Nope. You need to cite actual people saying or doing the things you claim they are saying or doing. You can start with the alleged “actions” taken by 9 of the UNSC members.
But not “immediately”. You lose.
Nope. They didn’t “reject” anything since no vote was ever taken.
Fact: You are a clueless idiot who doesn’t know what the fuck he is talking about.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Fact: Blix said prior to the start of war that Iraq was actively cooperating.
[/QUOTE]
So what? Even if true and if we ignore Blix own words, what difference does that make?
No, he stated that their cooperation wasn’t immediate, but that he was encouraged by the progress they had made.
Fact: The UNSC is run by the 5 permanent members. Each of them have absolute veto power over any binding resolution. The other members are there as simple window dressing. Their vote is irrelevant. So, since France had said that they would veto any resolution that would enable war with Iraq, it’s fucking moot. Conversely, the US and the UK would have vetoed any move on France, China and/or Russia’s part to say that Iraq was in compliance. Stalemate. Which is why nothing was done. And why nothing would ever have been done. I realize that you are too fucking stupid to understand this, but even someone who is brain dead should realize that there must have been SOME reason why, if there was a majority on the UNSC, that Iraq wasn’t declared in compliance, right? That reason is because the UNSC isn’t a democracy. It’s not ruled by the majority. It’s run by the 5 permanent members, each of who has absolute veto power and can therefore block any motion that they don’t feel is in their best interests. They (WE) set it up that way, and they (WE) did it deliberately.
Again, I realize you are just too stupid and stubborn to grasp any of this, but at this point can’t you just fucking shut up about it? There might be 1 or 2 posters in this thread or maybe a clueless lurker who is on your side on this…quite literally no one else who has even a semblance of a clue is, because you are fucking wrong…AND it’s a stupid, pedantic and nickpicky point in any case. No one cares about 1441. It has next to nothing to do with the justifications that Bush et al used to launch the invasion. For that matter, it wasn’t the root of why France, China and Russia opposed the invasion. No one gave a fuck whether Saddam was or wasn’t complying with 1441. France didn’t care. They didn’t want Saddam overthrown. Neither did China or Russia. Not because they thought Saddam was doing good or complying, but because an overthrow of Iraq wasn’t in their nations best interests.
Germany’s Joschka Fischer … states: “Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the UN team on the ground. We think things are moving in the right direction, based on the efforts of the inspection team, and [they] should have all the time which is needed.” [Washington Post, 1/20/2003; New York Times, 1/20/2003]
When I say it, according to XT I am being stupid. When Germany’s Foreign Minister says it, XT has to be saying he is stupid too. How did XT get to be so smart to tell a man who has risen to the position of Foreign Minister of Germany is stupid to suggest that Iraq complied fully…
Because you are arguing against the truth and calling me stupid for presenting facts. Ignorant people ‘ignore’ the facts.
Can’t you see that you did not respond at all to my ‘FACT’. Not even close. I agree absolutely with your paraphrasing of what Blix said. No one here has explained or argued that that ‘immediate’ means ‘less than three to four months’ after a decade of defiance and non-compliance. So this FACT remains a FACT.
So far so good. I agree. But my fact remains intact. No challenge from XT there. They all voted in the affirmative for UN Res 1441.
How in the hell does some clueless idiot who didn’t know that Veto Power of five permanent members of the UNSC does not mean that a “unanimous vote” is required to pass Resolutions.
And now that same idiot is in essence calling Germany’s Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer at the time, ‘window dressing’.
Fischer said in January 2003 that, “Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground,”
And Fischer said, “We think things are moving in the right direction, based on the efforts of the inspection team, and [they] should have all the time which is needed.”
Fischer confirms my statement of FACT and he did it in January 2003.
I bring quotes. XT brings nonsense or facts that agree with mine.
Here’s some facts:
Not if the French position was to use their veto only “IF” Bush could assemble a nine vote majority to carry their attempt to get the UN to sanction war .
Bush needed to get the majority before the VETO would be used. I cite who should know. You site the inside of your head.
Note De Villepin as long as inspectors are reporting cooperation… …
Cooperation was what 1441 required… NOT FULL COMPLIANCE with everything.
No member who believed Iraq was in compliance with 1441 had to make any ‘move’ to say Iraq was in compliance. No convening a meeting to find Iraq in Material Breach of 1441 means Iraq was in compliance. Where do you come up with this nonsense?
No you are the idiot. As long as UN Res 1441 was in force and being continued there was no reason to ‘declare’ compliance. If there was it would most likely have involved a deadline or date certain. There was no deadline. UN 1441 was open ended as long as Iraq was demonstrating cooperation. This is one of your most boneheaded arguments. You have nothing to back it up.
That is why Bush should not be citing 1441 as his justification for war stating that Iraq didn’t let the inspectors in and that his good faith effort at diplomacy through the UN was not returned.
Bush could point to a veto against a majority vote for war as proof the UN was incapable defending the security of the world and the USA.
But that did not happen did it? Bush could not muster a majority. If the French Germans, Canadians, Mexicans, Russians, Pakistanis, Syrians, saw Iraq as cooperating then why can’t they tell Bush and Blair to go fuck themselves.
Didn’t you say you supported the invasion of Iraq until after you saw that Bush fucked it all up? Just curious. I can look it up…
Citing facts AND facts being facts has nothing to do with the number of people who believe them. There’s a lot of stupid people in this world that wouldn’t know a fact if it hit them on the nose.
IF nobody cares about 1441… why did you object to my correct and true statement that Blix reported unfettered inspections prior to the war. I am paraphrasing now, and I was paraphrasing then.
You make no sense. Why would you attack a true statement by me when I was arguing that “FACT” against a war supporter.
Now that you know Blix said Iraq was engaged in proactive cooperation - it is a fact and fair to say that Blix reported unfettered inspections prior to the invasion.
You get stomped on a FACT and now … it all doesn’t matter anyway.
Great cop out.
So If 1441 had “nothing to do with the justifications that Bush et al used to launch the invasion” what was the justification to support the invasion.
I prefer to go by what Bush said is what justified the invasion. He said his good faith at using the UN and peaceful means (paraphrasing) was not returned.
He said Bush was 'concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors… I they were not UN inspectors implementing 1441 who were they?
Do you have answers or is all you can do is call people stupid because they don’t agree with you … and present facts that disturb the false reality you have surrounded yourself with.
You said that after posting my statement. I didn’t say that. I posted a few facts and I have challenged you to dispute them.
How does not ‘immediately’ mean I lose. You can say it but you can’t explain it. You want to play the ‘cite’ game. Where is it written that immediately with regard to Iraq’s cooperation had to be prior to four months after the start of inspections.
This is a rejection of Bush’s claim that Iraq was NOT cooperating.
I have posted others. All I need is seven… France Canada Russia China Germany Mexico and Pakistan all said inspections were working. Bush said they were not.
Where is your majority of members who said inspections were not working?
Just for the record XT didn’t you say you supported the war going in? So what was the threat to our national security for Bush to have initially received that support?
Just curious if that is the case and if so it might explain a lot about what you are trying to tell me right now?
Yes, I initially supported the war. The threat I saw to our national security was the fact that there was a lunatic sitting on a fifth of the worlds oil and within striking distance of a significant portion of the worlds oil. And one who had already shown that a war of aggression to capture more oil wasn’t outside of the realm of possibility. Obviously oil is a vital strategic resource for not only the US but the entire industrialized world, and securing that resource is and was critical to our overall security.
I also felt that the sanctions weren’t working, and that they were unsustainable in the long run since in my opinion at the time we and other countries would start to cave in and lower the sanctions (like we have done with North Korea…and also that Saddam was getting around them in any case with the oil for food program), and that Saddam had increasingly been pushing the no-fly zone restrictions, and that taking him out of the equation would make the middle east a safer, and more secure place. Obviously I was wrong, and fairly early on I started to see how wrong I was and what a fucked up mess we had gotten ourselves into and regret my fairly limp initial support.
Probably not. You have a critical misunderstanding of how the UNSC actually works, and you have an overly focused concept of how vital or important 1441 was at the time or is today wrt the war. The US and Bush were merely using the process, a process they (Bush and the Republicans especially) felt was deeply flawed, more for PR and public consumption than anything else. In the end, they did what they intended to all along, which was launch a war to depose Saddam and the Baathists, regardless of what the UN did or didn’t do. Notice that, despite your contention that a majority of the UNSC opposed invasion and felt Iraq was in compliance that absolutely nothing was done and 1441 was pretty much dropped. It was meaningless, since we can see the result…the US, UK and other allies invaded anyway, and there was no sanction or censure from the UN.
By the same token, France, China and Russia had their own agendas wrt Iraq, and pursued them in similar ways. It wasn’t about knowing or not knowing whether Saddam et al had WMD, it was about perceived national security and interest. France, China and Russia benefited more from having Saddam remain in power, while the US under Bush felt that we would benefit more from a regime change, especially if we were doing the changing. In retrospect it’s clear that France, China and Russia had the right of it, and we should have