Please quote the statement from the UNSC where they “determined” that. You won’t be able to because it never happened. Your ass has got to be some kinda sore from having that argument pulled out of it so often.
Besides, I can’t believe you are still doing semantic gymnastics about the word “all” in that sentence, since your interpretation flies in the face of a plain reading of the text.
No, it is only “apparent” in your twisted mind. I don’t know about adher, but the rest of us are in agreement with Hans Blix, not George Bush. I know they both have last names that begin with “B”, so it can be kind of confusing for someone as dimwitted as you, but please try and remember that they are different people.
Answer this: Was 1441 in place as the regulating document between Iraq and the UNSC after March 7, 2003? Did the UNSC ever convene to end 1441 because of any action or inaction by Iraq Did Bush ever cite that he had the blessing of the UNSC with respect to 1441 because Iraq was not cooperating?
So John Mace, are you going to explain how Bush ENFORCED 1441 when the UNSC favored the continuation of peaceful disarmament and not war which is what Bush chose to do outside of 1441?
No. That is false. I saying that the UNSC decided in November 2002 to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply. And the UNSC did not ever state or determine or decide to cease that final opportunity as defined in 1441 because Iraq did not cooperate. You are defending Bush’s bold faced lie that Iraq did not cooperate. If you were not defending Bush’s bold faced lie then you would not be fuss agreeing with my and quoting Blix out of context. Blix never said that Iraq was not cooperating and therefore inspections and the final opportunity should cease. Blix said Iraq was cooperating proactively. He didnt know if it was immediate so he said it was to the UNSC to decide. And the majority held the position that cooperation was sufficient continue under 1441 as it was first enacted.
If I’m “defending” anything, I’m defending Blix’s bold face truth that Iraq’s cooperation was neither immediate nor total. He did know that it wasn’t immediate or total because he explicitly said it wasn’t.
Blix said he would not call the proactive cooperation he was seeing in February “immediate” but he did say also that it was not his call. He deferred the defining of immediate to the members of the UNSC and they did not see it as a cause
To cease 1441. So you have failed to make a case that what Blix said means anything or explain why you are so inclined to take Blix out of context just as so many Bush lovers do.
I have explained why Blix’s impression of immediate meant nothing to a determination of Iraq non-compliance with 1441, and you run from the truth like a good Bushie would. But how do get that Blix stated that Iraq’s cooperation was not total. There was no deadline or defined date set where Iraq’s cooperation had to be total. What the hell do you mean Iraq’s cooperation had to be total?
Iraq’s cooperation had to be whatever the Majority on the UNSC accepted as sufficient to continue the inspection process under 1441. And that is the truth. Anything claimed to the contrary resembles Bush’s lies about Iraq’s cooperation.
If you are in agreement with Hans Blix then you would be in agreement with me. Hans Blix said prior to the decision by Bush to invade Iraq that Iraq was cooperating proactively. On the other hand Bush was making the point that Iraq was not cooperating do it left him no choice. Bush did not accept Blix’s report that Iraq was cooperating proactively and within a few more months Iraq could be verified in compliance and long term monitoring would be set in place.
So XT and Ravenman and you John Mace, may think that you do not agree with Bush and accept his lies about the lack of cooperation by Iraq under 1441, but you have bought Bush’s lie lock stock and barrel. None of you believe Blix when he stated that Iraq was cooperating proactively since some time in February.
You are all in denial if what Blix actually said and meant- while at the same time repeating Bush’s lies that Iraq was defiant and playing games and did not cooperate.
Do you deny that Blix said Iraq had been actively, even proactive, prior to the invasion?
I also deny all the lies you’re written about our positions.
You are totally untrustworthy, because about two-thirds of the things that come out of your mouth are fabrications. That means nobody should take you seriously.
I don’t deny that Blix made statements to the UNSC. I deny that you are accurate in what he said. You continually fabricate what ordinary words mean, so you are always wrong.
Oh, yeah! It certainly is. This place is seriously in the boonies. Think about what people who are already in the boonies mean when they say someplace else is in the boondocks. Maoming is that someplace else.
That is what Blix said. Now what is innacurate about coting this and saying that Blix saw Iraq as cooperating “even proactive” by some time in February?
Your reply that Blix never said it at all is absurd.
Are you still denying that Blix said, agreed, assessed that Iraq was cooperation was active or even proactive?
You have no credibilty if you continue to deny the truth about what Blix clearly said.