International law is whatever the biggest and baddest guy on block says it is. The US is not part of any collective that agrees to enforce international law. That’s crazy talk. We’ll invoke “international law” whenever it serves our purpose and ignore whenever it doesn’t.
But if you think we violated international law, I suggest you call the international police and have us arrested. Oh, wait. We’re the international police, so that might not work out so well.
Let me ask you about this: are you saying that the judgments of the UNSC in this resolution were active and definitive until they passed something else with a new judgment?
I notice you cannot cite and respond to what I wrote. I’m not arguing against your ridiculous international law of the jungle diverson… of might makes right. What would be the point? Most of us know that in George W. Bush case against Iraq .. might made wrong.
I am asking about a change in condition in Saddam Hussein’s status of being in violation of international law in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions from September 2002 through March 2003.
If you cannot respond to this why not just say so?
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 and as defined and accepted by the UNSC throughout the first three months of 2003.
So do you agree with one or both John Mace? And if you disagree, you need to explain why.
I would be thrilled to hear your views on the difference between SH’s adherence to international law on February 18th vs February 20th. Of course, there is also the fascinating distinction between Iraq’s status on March 3rd vs March 6th. Now, there was a nuanced move on March 8th that most people are unaware of, but let’s save that for the next Pit thread you inspire.
Shot through the mind
And you’re to blame
NFBW
You give stupid a bad name
An idiot’s tale is what you tell
You promise us facts, then give us pure bull
Chains of dumb got a hold on you
When stupidity’s your king, you can’t be free
Oh, you’re idiotic, yeah
Oh, there’s no teaching you
No one can teach you
The damage is done
Shot through the mind
And you’re to blame
You give stupid a bad name
We try to teach and you play your game
You give stupid a bad name (bad name)
You give stupid a bad name
Write zero for your IQ
Wet tears on your poor teacher’s cheeks
A teacher’s nightmare, acting dumb
Your very first word was likely “Duh.”
Oh, you’re idiotic, yeah
Oh, there’s no teaching you
No one can teach you
The damage is done
Shot through the mind
And you’re to blame
You give stupid a bad name (bad name)
I try to teach and you play your game
You give stupid a bad name (bad name)
You give stupid, oh!
[Guitar Solo]
Oh!
Shot through the mind
And you’re to blame
You give stupid a bad name
We try to teach and you play your game
You give stupid a bad name (bad name)
Shot through the mind
And you’re to blame
You give stupid a band name (bad name)
We try to teach and you play your game
You give stupid a bad name (bad name)
You give stupidYou give stupid (bad name)
You give stupidYou give stupid (bad name)
You give stupid (bad name)
You give stupid (bad name)
You give stupid
You give stupid (bad name)
You give stupid
Would you really? REALLY?
I’m starting to wonder about you John ;).
I am saying that the UN Security Council put language in Resolution 1441 that the UNSC *‘decides to remain seized of the matter’ *which meant that the UNSC ‘alone’ as a body, not individual member states, has the authority to determine any action taken regarding any future Iraqi violations of 1441. This was to block what they knew Bush and Blair would try to do, which was to call any trivial and meaningless hiccup by Iraq during the inspections process so as to lay the claim out there that Iraq violated UN 1441 and did not take the ‘final opportunity to comply’ that was offered by the United Nations Security Council making war justified.
I am also saying that the action required of Iraq that was not tied to a deadline was cooperation. So long as the UNSC ‘seized of the matter’ were satisfied with Iraq’s progress, consistency, and level of cooperation then, 1441 (once enacted) remained active as a legal binding proceeding between Iraq and the Security Council until such time that the UNSC decided that Iraq was not working toward full compliance and other measures, consequences were needed to be taken. The UNSC did not reach a point where they considered ending UN 1441.
That is quite unnecessary since there is only one major moment in time when Iraq’s violation of international law changed. It occurred between September 2002 and March 2003. It was the decision to cooperate with the UNSC’s inspection teams that resumed inspections in December 2002.
Bush asked for but ignored that historical event.
You ignore it too. Such Bush-a-like you are on several things with regard to Iraq. We will get to the explanation of why if you keep avoiding the facts and trying to divert the discussion away from Iraq’s cooperation after 1441 was enacted.
I dunno. My preference is to defer to the one and only expert, who is Hans Blix. He said that SH’s cooperation was neither immediate nor complete. You can argue all the nuance you want, but those were declarative statements and nothing said either before or after can alter their meaning.
In this forum, most assuredly.
So the UNSC alone and as a body had the sole authority to determine whether Iraq was complying with the various resolutions. Great.
You realize, of course, that 1441 states that Iraq “has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including 687…” Meaning that, since the UNSC never acted one way or another, the conclusion that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations remained in effect, according to your reasoning above, because the UNSC never voted again on the matter until after the war. If there was no vote, there was no change of the UNSC position, period. 1441 remained in effect, and 1441 concluded that Iraq was in violation of UNSC resolutions.
This is not a defense of Bush. You are the bigger defender of Bush here, because you support an unwarranted war resolution, you supported confrontation with Saddam, and you’ve said that war would be justified if Iraq failed to comply with inspections.
What I’m pointing out is that you’re an inconsistent idiot who doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.
You cited Paragraph 1. But you fail to cite Paragraph 2. You are most likely deliberately failing to understand that 1441 also says this:
“Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”
Here it is in full.
You see, I can cite the full context of UN Res 1441. You must cite only a portion. Resolution 1441 - put the ‘material breach of all Resolutions on hold’ - meaning no action would be taken unless Iraq was found not to comply with 1441.
The dishonesty here is what amazes me. The lengths you go to distort the facts and leave out important facts is of great interest to me.
You, just like Bush and Mace and many other’s here want to pretend that Bush could declare Iraq in violation of 1441. That is false. Only the UN Security Council as a body could make that determination.
So you fail again, and it is not likely that you will respond with any meaningful answer to the fact I have presented you. Your typical response at this point is “you are stupid” or some such meaningless escape.
With Iraq cooperating with inspectors in the eyes of the majority of UNSC it means that UN Res 1441 continued to afford Iraq a final opportunity to comply. Your argument that Iraq was in material breach of all previous resolutions is absolutely beside the point. Of course he was in material breach of all previous resolutions. That was the purpose of 1441 - to put an end to that status without war.
What did you do after Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq if necessary in October 2002? Did you pout through the whole passage of 1441 and during the entire inspection process? Or did you immediately begin singing your tune that you were right and everybody else. at least 70 to 80 percent were wrong?
Everything that happened after the vote you are pouting about does not seem to matter at all. And if you were not so self absorbed in congratulating yourself for being some kind of genius to see that Bush ‘wanted war’ you would be able to see that ignoring the fact that inspections were working to remove a threat of WMD from Iraq in a peaceful way, plays right into what Bush wants everybody to think.. That is that Iraq did not cooperate with the inspectors who were operating under 1441 and Iraq’s FINAL OPPORTUNITY to comply.
It was unanimous in the UNSC in November of 2002 that Iraq should be confronted for its WMD violations of international law. And there you sit pouting since October 2002 when the US Congress did not vote in a way you thought they should.
In 2002 few made the case that Iraq was no threat at all and should be left alone in defiance of international law which was compounded with with some uncertainty about his WMD capability. That is a reality. It was a post-9/11 reality. You can spend the rest of your life pouting about a reality that you didn’t like, which would be ok except the pouting you and others are doing over the AUMF leads you to support and defend Bush’s lies that Iraq did not cooperate during the inspections that were operating under the conditions set by UN Res 1441.
Don’t you wonder why you and XT and Mace all agree with Adaher on Iraq’s alleged failure to cooperate under 1441? Adaher is defending Bush’s decision and that is what justified the invasion. Think about it.
It doesn’t say ‘material breach of all Resolutions on hold.’ That text doesn’t exist. Not in paragraph 1, or 2, or any other. You’re fabricating that. You are lying.
You invent quotes from UNSC resolutions that we all have read, and you get huffy about dishonesty? You get caught in a total lie – not to mention repeated acts of intellectual dishonesty – and you think you’re being honest? What a laguh.
Proves again that you haven’t actually understood a word we said. Again, you’re making shit up and attributing it to people that never said such a thing. And you have little tantrums when others quote what you actually said!
You are stupid, but you’re also a liar. As shown above.
Show me where there was a vote. Show me the resolution that passed after 1441. Cite your arguments, weakling.
What did you do after Congress blindly voted for war with no evidence or justification? Celebrate?
There was no threat of WMD from Iraq. Even if they had WMD, they weren’t a threat to the United States that would justify war.
Pick up a dictionary and learn the difference between “pouting” and “gloating.” I am right now gloating that I was right all along and you were wrong all along. That isn’t pouting.
I don’t agree with adaher; you do. You liked the fact that Congress authorized an unjustified war based on faulty intelligence. You support the idea of going to war with another country based on perceived violations of international norms, despite there being no evidence of a threat. Your position and adaher’s differ only in that you want to quibble about a few words spoken on a particular day, but your lack of judgment and poor principles put you right in bed with each other.
OK, that was very good. Bra-VO!
Thanks, John Mace! I really wanted to do the parody based on The Ballad of Gilligan’s Isle. Sadly, that was taking more than the ten minutes I budgeted for the task. If you’re up to it, feel free to try it based on either version of the song (there were two, possibly three)!
See how you lie. I didn’t say that was text. It is my summary of what the resolution did. 1441 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply. That means the matter of the material breach of all previous resolutions was not going to be a matter for consequences. If that was not putting the material breach on hold then tell what it was.
What was the purpose that even GW Bush tied the USA to it?
But why must you make up that I wrote that ‘on hold’ was text in 1441. That is dishonest? Why do you do it?
That is false. Post where I have ‘invented a quote from UNSC Resolutions’. Since you can’t that makes you the one putting a lie on the record. Lets see it. I have invented no quotes. That is a lie to say I did.
Not to answer for Ravenman, but when you put quotes around text, it’s usually taken that you are quoting that text from some other source (personally, I use “double” quotes).
That caught my eye too, and I’m sure a lot of others.
He already quoted it. You posted:
‘material breach of all Resolutions on hold’
in quotes, but you just made that up. You were not quoting 1441. You made up that quote. It doesn’t exist, except in your twisted mind.