So do you think Bush told the truth when he proclaimed that on the eve of war that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN Inspecters in March 2003? As a total worthless fucked up inhuman being as Saddam Hussein was, he was in fact telling the truth that he did not have WMD or WMD programs in 2003.
But if so many prefer to believe Bush there is not much stopping such ignorance in this world.
I have a polaroid of Bush on which someone wrote “Don’t Believe His Lies”.
Huh, the handwriting looks familiar…
Have I ever told you about NotFooledBySammyJanks?
I dunno, maybe. I have this condition, you see…
If you had two brain cells to rub together, you’d know that I wasn’t defending Bush.
You have not provided evidence to back up the claim that “most” did. Some may have, but I don’t even know if there is a record of what “most” were thinking.
You keep wondering. That’s what you’re good at!
Don’t answer the phone! :eek:
Whatever you want to call it, the reality is that telling the same lie that Bush does, that Iraq did not cooperate sufficiently with the UNSC 1441 in 2003, it is telling the same exact lie we still hear from Bush year after year. When someone tells the same lie that Bush does that not only defends Bush it is an attempt to justify his god-awful decision to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq that he made in March of 2003.
You cannot deny that one bit the following is not in full accordance with the facts.
And it is good of you to at least admit that ‘you don’t know what most were thinking’ which is odd because I have posted plenty of comments as evidence that they were thinking that Iraq was cooperating quite well.
UN Resolution 1441 went into effect in December 2002. Iraq was obligated to cooperate and there was absolutely no timeline or deadline or any suggestion as to what constituted ‘immediate’ cooperation. UN Resolution 1441 was active and was never rescinded because the majority of UNSC Members saw Iraq’s cooperation as sufficient to continue to an end of full compliance. The evidence that a majority of UNSC members saw Iraq’s cooperation as full came when the US and UK had to pull their draft resolution that demanded Iraq be declared in full compliance by March 17, 2003 or face the consequences of war.
So I will ask you again John Mace. Do you agree or do you disagree with Bush who claims that Saddam’s regime was in violation of international law in March of 2003 because Iraq did not cooperate with UN Resolution 1441? Remember the whole world could see that Iraq was cooperating immediate and proactive enough to satisfy the majority on the UNSC prior to March 2003 because the majority did not ‘revoke’ UN Resolution 1441 and did not see any reason to do so. So why do you agree with Bush that Iraq did not cooperate?
You’ve posted 2 that I know of. If you can point me to the posts where you verified what “most” were thinking, that would be helpful.
I agree with Blix. He said SH had not provided immediate or full cooperation.
NotfooledbyW, were you fooled by the lies of mass rape spread by Hillary Clinton before the Libyan war?
Then you must agree with Blix that Iraq achieved proactive cooperation around mid-February 2003. To be in compliance with 1441 that level of cooperation by Iraq was sufficient to keep 1441 active which means Iraq was not in violation of international law after December 2002, but Iraq was in violation of international law prior to December 2002.
Again Mace, why do you accept Bush’s denial that Blix said Iraq was proactively cooperating which meant Iraq was not in compliance with1441?
Iraq was required to actively cooperate to be in compliance with 1441. There was no deadline to achieve that high level of cooperation.
And Blix said Iraq’s practice cooperation did not cover all areas of relevance.
But Blix further stated that his inspectors were preparing the lists for remaining areas to be addressed. The inspecters relevant were not finished listing all areas of compliance.
I’m not sure that a ‘request that ‘reports’ of rape by soldiers loyal to Gadhaffy should be investigated’ is something that should be framed as a lie by Clinton or was inappropriate?
Oooh! Throw-down between SuckeredbyW and SuckerforRonPaul. Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Yes Bush was right to publically flip off Cheney and publically go about saying he wanted to go the peaceful disarmament route and seek a Reolution through the UN.
Yes Bush was wrong to declare the same thing John Mace is declaring that Iraq was in violation of 1441 because Iraq didnt cooperate to satisfy the UNSC.
And no, I have never said Bush was mostly right in December 2002 because that was the month that he refused Iraq’s offer to let the CIA go into Iraq and find WMD themselves.
Yeah in February Bush was off base since Iraq was cooperating and the inspectors shot down most all of what Colin Powell said was evidence against Iraq.
I said prior to September 2002 Bush wanted war with no alternate in mind for peaceful disarmament. Then he launched the peaceful way out solution in September. I said Bush was a statesman for declaring Islam a religion of peace.
So what is it with you Ravenman that you must distort what I have written whenever you post a reply?
What is it with you that you never understand what other people are telling you?
What is it with you that you don’t have a sense of humor?
What is it with you that you have no apparent interests other than this matter?
What is it with you that you keep posting the same thing over and over, you think you’re a genius, and literally nobody else in the world of international relations – from statesmen to historians – has ever bothered to argue in favor of your pedantic, insignificant, and erroneous view?
What is it with you that you want to keep this thread going?
What is it with you that you bump this thread after nobody replies to your July 8th post after two days?
He’s a troll who doesn’t realize he’s a troll. Makes you almost feel sorry for him.
This is about my posting. You have distorted what I post. I’m just straightening out the facts. If you can refute my basic premise that Iraq was in violation of international law in October 2002 but was not in violation of international while in the act of cooperating with the UNSC demands under the directives of UN Resolution 1441.
If you can refute that do it. If you can’t don’t change what I wrote and argue against that. It’s all I ask of you.
Everyone who has participated in this thread except for you has refuted it. And yet you keep asking for others to refute what you said. To paraphrase Monty Python, this message board is about debate, not contradiction… not even contradiction by wallsoftext.
No one has refuted it. Not even close.
Name one person in this thread, or on this board, who agrees with you.
It is not a matter of agreeing with me. It is whether they agree with this fact or if they can refute A or B:
(A) Iraq was in violation of international law as defined by the UNSC in October 2002.
(B) Iraq was not in violation of international law while Iraq was cooperating and considered to be cooperating in a sufficient manner in accordance with directives of UN Resolution 1441 as defined by the UNSC.
So do you agree with one or both Ravenman? And if you disagree, you need to explain why. And here’s a clue. What Blix said that John Mace keeps aimlessly repeating does not negate ‘B’. And when 1441 was enacted it was active as a legal proceeding until such time that the UNSC decided to end it. The UNSC did not ever decide to quit 1441 because of Iraq’s non-compliance. Everybody that you must be speaking of is repeating the Bush lie about Iraq’s lack of cooperation and failure to comply with 1441. I don’t care how many you can find that believe that full blown Bush lie that Iraq was not cooperating in accordance with 1441. They are all wrong.
And so are you. The facts are the facts.