…BUT…he was right when he took command of the army. Sadly, he was wrong to move the army to New York, but he was right to retreat when it looked like he was going to be overwhelmed. However, he was wrong later on too…
And so forth. On balance though, I’m sure NFBW(ashington) would find it a a negative, since, eventually it lead to Bush and the Iraqi war, which is what he REALLY wants to talk about. What are 401 errors or other subjects to such as he when there are important pedantic matters to discuss and silly little points to drive home with huge Walls Of Text:trade_mark:??
It is truly unfortunate when those walls of text compare unfavorably to lorem ipsum generators, in terms of substance, style, plot, character development, and facts.
As a response to any and all divers persons upon this Boarde Of Messaging, I take up quill and parchment to state that I do indeed believe that Benedict Arnold and King George III were correct to assess that the Colonies were not in compliance with New World Security Council resolution No.1776.
Forthwith, I inquired of Sir Johnathan of Mace County pertaining to the question in question because he is arguing the point against mine that I believe the Colonies were in fact cooperating in compliance with the demands of the Sec. Council under the demands imposed by NWSC res 1776. My basis in fact was the speech from the right proper Benjamin Franklin (representing the majority New World Security Council view) that the Colonies were cooperating and sufficient progress had been made to keep Res 1776 intact. Now Sir J. Mace’s response was that Benedict Arnold and King George opposed the majority opinion and wanted NW-SC 1776 ended and the New World Security Council should join them to start a war. I know King George III held that minority view, but I think it was a minority view because it was wrong and contrived.So if JM was simply telling me that their minority view existed, but agrees with me that their opinion is not correct, then does that mean as I see it that JM agrees with me and Ben Franklin and the majority of the New World Security Council that did determine that the Colonies’s cooperation under 1776, proactive for a month, was a reason to disagree harshly with the opinion of Benedict Arnold and King George.I agree with you that if Sir J. Mace believes Benedict Arnold and King George’s opinion on lack of cooperation is wrong we have no argument. Can you get Sir Mace to say he has no argument with me on this point of fact? I do so doubt it, good sir.
If the argument is that Benedict Arnold and King George were wrong but their unilateral using the things they saw as non-cooperation with 1776 demands - then state that as the truth that that is what it was. Don’t drag the New World Security Council into that view by quoting Jefferson on cherry picked comments to try to bring New World Security Council legitimacy to that damned fool if a mistake to end inspections and start a war. State what happened as factually as possible whether you agree with me on other things or not. That is all I have asked. That really is.So here’s what I agree with.Benedict Arnold and King George were wrong to disagree with the New World Security Council determination that the proper route for the international community, because of the proactive cooperation being demonstrated by the Colonies for one month prior to March 7, 1776, was to continue inspection activities to final conclusion and begin long term monitoring as mandated. There was no need for war.Who disagrees with that statement?Are we comparing my fair question to your leading question? Or were you thinking of something else, because I did offer to answer this question once we got past that misleading nature of the complaints contained within it. I will answer or attempt to answer the question again after explaining once again that my world view on the run-up to the invasion of the Colonies is not as narrow as you claim. Your view in my opinion is much narrower than mine and here is why. I base that upon the fact that most Americans in October 1775 broadly believed that the king was in violation of international law because of his failure to comply on the black powder issue and he should have been confronted on that. Your opinion has been that the Colonies being in violation of international law has no bearing on, or justifies in any way, the US Congress giving Benedict Arnold the authority to use military force if the Colonies did not allow a return of inspectors at anytime soon.
Given that most Americans in October 1775 were supportive of Benedict Arnold confronting the Colonies on the black powder issue because there were some unknowns about the black powder issue because inspectors had been gone for four years. There was a certain amount of legitimacy to being concerned about black powder in the Colonies ending up in the wrong hands in a post 9/11/1775 world. You reject anyone who suggest the legitimacy of confronting the Colonies when it was in violation of international law.
Now, we move to what we knew in March 1776 after about four months of the king cooperating with NW-SC inspectors. My narrow view as you suggest is that the Colonies at that time ‘was in fact’ in compliance with international law at least in regard to proactive cooperation on NW-SC Res 1776. That is not small potatoes as some here seek to call it. The authorization to use force against the Colonies was passed when the Colonies was in violation of international law, but because of language in NW-SC Res 1776, and it becoming the controlling document of inspections, the Colonies, after December 1775 was NOT in violation of international law. So Benedict Arnold decided to invade the Colonies when and only when the Colonies was ‘in compliance with international law’. That is not a popular view because the truth about the Colonies’s cooperation in the first three months of 1776 has not been highly reported or publicized. That is because nobody wants to. Benedict Arnold/the Colonies invasion supporters don’t want it known that the Colonies cooperated with NW-SC inspectors. And for other reasons many on the Whig-ish anti-war Americans who opposed the war and the vote in October 1775, do not want to hear about the Colonies’ cooperation either. I would like to have that lack of interest and lack of regard for the fact that the Colonies were not in violation of international law in March 1776 when Benedict Arnold decided to invade the Colonies. But there was justification to authorize force against the Colonies at a time when the Colonies were in violation of international law. Why do I repeat some of these points you ask? Because the major points are facts, and the arguments against them, such as Sir J. Mace did on this thread are not based upon facts. Check the facts. That is all I ask.Is it a fact that the Colonies were in violation of international law in September/October 1773 It is a fact that the Colonies were in compliance with international law because of proactive cooperation according to Thos. Jefferson in March 1776 within the demands of NW-SC Resolution 1776. Twas not a narrow view at all in 1775 when Congress made the vote you deplore. And I will grant you that my view on March 1776 cooperation is not a popular view, but it is not a narrow view. Nuh uh. I had hoped there were some thoughtful people here who would discuss it, but nooooo…
That is part of why I’m right and cannot be wrong and you think I’m beating a dead horse but I’m really correcting all the fools in the world and not running off at the mouth and the brain and did I mention that I’m right (and not fooled by Benedict Arnold) and you’re wrong and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to King George III because of a discussion of rubber and glue that I will post shortly.
Ravenman will not try to explain why all those ‘stupid Americans’ like XT in 2002 could not hold the view that Iraq was a threat while at the same time also observe and accept the obvious conclusion that Bush wanted a war in Iraq.
This ‘Bush wanted war’ mantra here is quite interesting. Why do so many here think it is some kind of special enlightenment to have figured that out prior to October 2002?
Prior to October 2002, over 80% of Americans in the aftermath of 9/11/01 recognized that Iraq was a threat, and that Bush obviously wanted war. So the reality was the twenty-percenters that believed that Iraq was not a threat had very low and limited representation in Congress that could have stopped the warmongering Bush from getting his war no matter what.
Now those twenty percenters want everyone who supposedly didnt know, as they did, that Bush really wanted war. So any mention that Bush publically stated that he wanted peace and instead of war and would work with the UN to give Iraq a final chance to comply, is not permitted or necessary. That ‘peace’ talk negates or diminishes the greatness of the genius of Ravenman who wants all to believe he was part of the enlightened minority that knew when so many didnt, that without a shadow of a doubt that BUSH WANTED WAR.
That high but false opinion of oneself is quite hilarious isn’t it?
History proved you right about what? Everybody who thought about such things knew Bush wanted war. Why do you think your knowing that makes you so special?
Those who maintained in 2002 that an international outlaw such as Iraq was no threat, while in violation of international law, were on the political fringe - in other words you had no clout to force rejection of an AUMF in October 2002.
77 Senators voted for it. 68% in the Republican controlled House voted for it.
And even if you did reverse those numbers, the next month, Bush’s ability to get the war he wanted, without the bother of UN inspections perhaps, even stronger - because his GOP took the Senate and increased seats in the House in a mid term election.
But instead of taking what political reality dealt you, you hold onto your meaningless grudge against Dems who didn’t vote the way you think they should have. And that grudge is so strong, you pretty much dismiss the importance of all the Bush lies that came after the vote. Bush lied that Saddam didn’t cooperate so war was necessary, and you blame the Dems for letting him decide to lie the way he did in those final days of decision.
Nothing T&D wrote comes close to being accurate or real and represents my longstanding argument that Saddam Hussein was in violation of international law in October 2002 and he was not in violation of international law in March 2003. Something happened between those two months.
As to whether Iraq was a threat or not I leave to each individual American to decide. Most did consider Iraq a threat in October 2002. The point that matters is that whatever degree of threat Iraq posed in one’s mind during October 2002, from low to high, there is no way in hell that anyone can argue that it went up or increased sufficient to justify war by mid-March 2003.
Now if T&D still does not know what happened between October 2002 and March 2003 and does not want to know, then T&D cannot know that Iraq was complying with the UN Security Council’s latest resolution and was therefore 'in compliance with international law at the time Bush invaded.
My argument has been that most saw Iraq as a threat prior to October 2002 and that position had merit to justify granting Bush the use of force if it became necessary, because at that very moment in time Iraq was in violation of international law and no one can argue that Iraq was not. But having responded to UN Res 1441, the argument that Iraq was a threat was fully extinguished. .
So I wish those who complain about my posting would at least figure out a way to understand what my posts and arguments truly are.
Again, Iraq was in violation of international law in October 2002 but was not in March 2003 or any time after the first of the year 2003. That reduced the threat to a level that war was not needed. So if you held the minority view that Iraq was not a threat at all in October 2002, you still should accept that Iraq was definitely not any kind of threat in March 2003 after it became known that Iraq was cooperating with the UNSC inspections.
Are you saying Iraq was in violation of international law after December 2002 as Bush tells you or was not in violation of international law after December 2002 because of cooperation under demands of UNSC Res 1441 as the majority on the UNSC tell you?
If you side with the former then you are certainly fooled by Dubya all the way. Dubya loves ya in that case Mace.
If you could learn to read it would help. Do you agree with Bush that Saddam’s regime was in violation of international law and 1441, after the whole world could see that Iraq was cooperating immediate and proactive enough to satisfy the majority on the UNSC prior to March 2003.
Your focus on a snippet of Blix’s overall reporting is the purest defense of Bush’s prerogative to lie that Saddam Hussein did not cooperate.
The majority of the UNSC fully accepted Iraq’s full cooperation such that 1441 remained in effect.
It remained in effect until Bush violated it by starting a war.
That you are fooled by Dubya is quite clear. I do not believe Bush every time he lies and lied that Iraq did not cooperate. I know for a fact that Bush is lying because the UNSC did not ever determine that Iraq did not cooperate as required by 1441.
Mace who did not Care if Iraq had WMD is a peculiar one to suck up to Bush on the cooperation matter. I wonder why Mace is so demonstrably fooled by Dubya?
What are 401 errors or other subjects to such as he when there are important pedantic matters to discuss and silly little points to drive home with huge Walls Of Text:trade_mark:??