What do these two paragraphs mean Ravenman? What is the status of Iraq ‘being in material breach of all preceding resolutions’ when Resolution 1441 went into effect giving Iraq a final opportunity to comply?
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
If you go back and look you will see that I had just quoted the exact language that is written in Res 1441 paragraph one and two which are strictly tied to each other. I was responding to the FACT that Ravenman had cited ONLY paragraph One.
And if you go back and look you will also see that I did not use quotation marks, I used ‘apostrophe’ and it is obvious that they were used to summarize or paraphrase what the two paragraphs in conjunction really mean.
And if you truly wish to take a fair look at the bs I go through around here you will ask yourself if my point about being on hold had merit. That is because it does.
Oh, those are apostrophes, and not single quotation marks, you used to emphasize the text.
Never mind, then.
Although, to avoid confusion in the future, here’s a quote from Wikipedia: “Quotation marks are not used for paraphrased speech.” or ‘Quotation marks are not used for paraphrased speech.’
And
“Single or double quotation marks denote either speech or a quotation…”
Why didn’t you cite my entire statement? Here I will do it for you:
I wrote, “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.”
I did not write "Resolution 1441 stated that the ‘material breach of all Resolutions
“ARE” on hold’. What is contained by apostrophies would not make sense when prefaced by my two words, “put the”. How could that ‘as a quote’ make any sense?
Think about it?
Here’s what you posted John Mace:
How is that a quote? Even if it was in quotation marks, how was that a quote? “material breach of all Resolutions on hold”
I did use Quotation Marks in this post. Here it is:
“Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”
So what does “decides … to afford Iraq… a final opportunity to comply” mean if it is not that although Iraq “remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions” there will **be no action taken **as long as 1441 remains in effect.
I will use italics or underline in the future to emphasize text. But my point is that as a quotation . it makes no sense and those who wish to call me a liar, will not come back to deny that what Para one and two mean when paired together mean that Iraq’s material breach of preceding resolutions were in effect on hold.
That was the point and that is what they are all running from.
Why do they work so hard to catch me on a technicality? It is because they have no facts that work for them.
I’m arriving late, but I have to say that I find NotfooledbyW to be the easiest poster to discuss things with. Maybe something about our argument style just turns people off.
I really wish the board would email you automatically when you’re one of the subjects of a 10-page Pit debate.
So what does Paragraph 2 mean Ravenman or Mace?
Thanks for the tip, and what do you think that means Dasmoocher? I’m curious to know what you might think paragraph two means with respect to paragraph one.
Admittedly, I treat discussions on boards as equivalent to dinner table political debates. If I’m wrong, then you should be content with just refuting me. I don’t see why posters would need to be offended by an often wrong poster, as if it’s some kind of affront to their dignity. I run across obviously stupid statements on this board all the time, and I consider it a joy to refute them. And I don’t consider the posters to be stupid for it. Everyone makes a dumb argument or gets facts wrong. And I find that the posters most angry at bad facts or bad arguments are guilty of the sins they condemn, and guilty of arrogance to boot. Sometimes they are very wrong and cannot accept that other posters might not agree.
So fine, other posters may consider me to be low caliber because I debate from the top of my head rather than meticulously verifying everything I say before I say it. On the other hand, I’m not an asshole about other posters being wrong, or frequently wrong, because the whole point is to have fun discussing and to learn from one another. Some posters not only want to win the debate, but want to pound those who disagree into dust and utterly discredit them forever. It’s unnecessary for one, and it takes the fun out of discussion boards for another. YOUR type are the trolls, not mine.
This goes back to the Bush Library thread and I had hoped to finish the civilized discussion Adaher and I were having on great debates although we were not in agreement about several things. I say we go back to it. Civilized discussion can happen there, and rants and comedy can happen here.
But perhaps Monty makes a good point in that this thread is in part about XT (accused of threadshitting on the Bush Library thread) and his delusions regarding my reply and argument against Adaher’s claim that Iraq *failed to cooperate *with the inspectors during the Res 1441 inspection regime which we know took place first two and a half months of 2003. Here is what Adaher wrote which I had begun to dispute:
I was contending “.. that cooperation was not forthcoming” when Ravenman and XT came to the thread essentially taking Adaher’s side. I would be quite happy to continue my argument with Adaher, XT, John Mace and Ravenman on that thread because they all appear to be on the same page in claiming that Iraq did not cooperate enough while 1441 was and remained in effect.
All those aligned against me have not produced what I have long been asking to see… and that is where did the UNSC decide to end the ongoing process of UN Res 1441 that gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply despite being in material breach of all resolutions that preceded 1441.
Perhaps Adaher knows and can help XT, Ravenman and John Mace out.
You’re confusing the UN process with the US process. Bush didn’t cede control of the warmaking decision to the UN. His only goal was to get inspectors back in to insure Iraq’s compliance. HE remained the ultimate arbiter of whether that compliance had occurred.
Now I’m not saying he was right, and I know Ravenman and XT aren’t saying he was right. I’m just explaining how he was handling the process. And why it would not have been possible to just leave the troops in the desert for a year or two.
It was well understood at the time that only the pressure of troops on Iraq’s border got the inspectors back. If Bush had withdrawn the troops, Saddam would have gone right back to his old behavior. THe purpose of Bush’s actions in 2002, assuming we view them in a reasonable light rather than the “war for oil” theory, is that Bush wanted to put an end to the containment doctrine and settle the Iraq issue once and for all. Containment was an unsustainble policy, everyone agreed on that too at the time. So as of late 2002/early 2003, there were only two options: complete compliance by Iraq, or war.
I feel so stupid because I do this all the time :smack:. Whenever I want to make sure that readers don’t mistake my post as having quoted someone, I always put it in quotes. That is surely the best way to avoid confusion.
Is the UN Process tied to the US Process in any way? I consider the AUMF of October 2002 and UN Resolution 1441 to be connected in many ways but in one way it is very clear that the US Process (AUMF) states that Bush’s decision to use force must beto “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” and 1441 was to become part of that “ALL”.
The Bush Administration clearly spoke that it wanted a 'new UNSC resolution demanding a resumption of inspections. So if what you are saying is true Adaher, then Bush clearly did not abide by the requirement in he AUMF when he decided to use military force against Iraq in absolute defiance of UN Resolution 1441.
When you state that Bush “remained the ultimate arbiter of whether that compliance had occurred” it can be a false reality that Bush carried in his head, but it is not a reality with regard to the what the AUMF and UN Res 1441 said. The AUMF told Bush that he must be *enforcing all * resolutions which would include all ‘future’ ones such as 1441 if he decides to use force. There is nothing in the AUMF that says Bush can ignore a future UNSC Resolution when that Resolution (1441) produces Iraq’s compliance to the satisfaction of the UNSC and just go ahead and “… put an end to the containment doctrine and settle the Iraq issue once and for all.”
The way the AUMF is written does not actually authorize Bush to do what you claim he did? Bush had to say/claim what he actually said in explaining why he ***had to ***start the war he wanted so badly anyway… and that was he had to declare in essence that Hussein’s regime **was not cooperating with UN inspections being operated under 1441. **That is why he claimed, and I believe falsely that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from those 1441 inspectors in March 2003. Hiding WMD from inspectors clearly meant at the time that Iraq was not cooperating as required under 1441.
Bush could not come out and say nonchalantly that he decided to ignore the inspection process and 1441 just because he wanted to “put an end to the containment doctrine and settle the Iraq issue once and for all.”
If you can make the case that Bush could have announced the need for war on that basis, I’d like to see what you base that on.
On another note, I agree with you when you wrote, “the whole point is to have fun discussing and to learn from one another”. So…
If you’d like to move back to the Bush Library Thread, I will look at your response there… or here… no worries.
I am having fun here and can have fun there and no matter what I am learning a lot from all the exchanges I’ve been involved with since I came here. But I do prefer when and if all could stick to verifiable or well grounded facts and plain old reason as much as possible.
But you can learn a lot even when others don’t go by that very much.
Good heavens, you’re completely stupid! My point is that both you and adaher pull stuff out of your butt and don’t know what you’re talking about. At least adaher admits that he/she is doing that. You, on the other hand, are just stupid. And mistaken. Quite mistaken. You accuse others who are not pulling things out of their butts of doing what you’re doing. You accuse others of not knowing what they’re talking about when, in fact, they really do know. 'Tis you who hasn’t a clue.
The AUMF authorized Bush to enforce UN resolutions. It did not make the UN the arbiter of whether those resolutions were being cooperated with.
Monty, “pull stuff out of your butt” is one way to put it. Another way to put it is that we converse naturally, rather than treating this as a formal college debate. Sometimes we’ll misrecall facts or make dumb arguments, but that’s not some kind of grievous offense. Last I checked, the mods don’t issue warnings for being wrong. They issue warnings for being nasty.
That’s a false dichotomy. You can also, when you know you are unsure about something, go check and make sure it’s accurate. Yeah, being wrong may not be against the rules, but it does make people less likely to believe you even when you are right.
What’s also wrong is checking who posted an argument before responding to it. I don’t even know the poster names of half the posts I respond to, because it doesn’t matter. We should be responding to the arguments, not the posters making them.
The people who tend to respond to the poster rather than the post are those who consider this practically warfare. I realize this board is here to fight ignorance, but it’s not to pummel ignorant people. If Cecil’s columns were full of invective about idiots and people always being wrong, I doubt he’d be as popular as he is, or as well respected by all. Just ask Paul Krugman, who went from one of the most respected columnists and economists in the country, to someone loved only by partisans because of his nasty and personal demeanor.
So explain how Bush enforced “all” UN Resolutions when he could not and did not “ENFORCE” 1441 which gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply. Bush could not “ENFORCE” 1441 after it was passed and Iraq agreed to abide with the terms because the UNSC determined that Iraq was complying sufficiently with 1441 and it was best to continue affording Iraq a final opportunity to comply despite being in material breach of preceding relevant resolutions.
But those words in AUMF “And enforce all” did in fact make, “the UN the arbiter of whether those resolutions were being” brought to resolution under the directives and actions by all parties that were signatory as UN Members to UNSC Resolution 1441.
I wrote this last February. You do not appear to understand that 1441 changed what member states could do unilaterally as part of enforcing UNSC Resolutions:
*“Remember Bush prior to September was of the opinion that the existing Material Breaches of UN Security Council Resolutions, justified under international law that ‘member states’ such as the USA and UK could ‘enforce’ those Resolutions on their own.” - NotfooledbyW 02-24-2013 12:57 PM
So it remains quite apparent that XT, Ravenman, John Mace, and Adaher are in agreement that Iraq did not cooperate as Bush says with regard to 1441. And here I believe Adaher is dismissing 1441 as a relevant UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq, so that Bush had no obligation to enforce it. That is in contract to what the AUMF has in writing. So the question is whether XT Ravenman and John Mace agree with Adaher on that non-fact also. And I wonder what Monty agrees with. It is either me or the non-fact crowd isn’t it.
