Find him/her if you know of someone Smapti. I believed Bush was an irrational buffoon after 9/11. But when an irrational buffoon is the president of the USA with a high approval rating and appears hell bent on invading Iraq suddenly starts talking rational about wanting war as a last resort, it is important to acknowledge the conversion and try to hold the nut to his word. That in no way means I believed Bush would keep his word. Bush is scum. And a liar. I’m saying the scum is still lying that actually wanted war as a last resort,
So quit defending him by agreeing with or ignoring his lies.
But 1441 put enforcement of all preceding resolutions on suspension or hold because under 1441 Iraq with Bush’s concurrence was given a final opportunity to comply with all relevant resolutions with regard to Iraq.
And all means all. There was no provision to pick and choose. If the drafters wanted something closer to a blank check then they would have authorized the use of force to enforce ‘some’ or to enforce ‘any current’ resolutions.
They chose ‘all’ and there is no ambiguity as to what ‘all’ means.
As Human Action says, 1441 is part of all. Therefore the attempt to restrain Bush under the AUMF was to limit the reason Bush could use to use military force to invade Iraq to enforce all UNSC Resolutions. 1441 in March 2003 was the governing resolution over all preceding resolutions. And the governing body over 1441 rejected military force to enforce that and all resolutions.
If you want the short version;
I browsed this thread (I can’t say I read in detail every post by NotfooledbyW) and didn’t notice much that I didn’t agree with. In any case, I’ve a hard time figuring out how you can come to the conclusion that he’s one of the worst new posters. Do you actually read the SDMB?
It was. That’s the reason why the final vote planned about the Iraki issue never took place. The USA hoped at least to have a majority of members voting in support of its proposal (even if the proposal was eventually vetoed), giving its action at least a venneer of legitimacy. When it became clear it couldn’t get that majority the UN venue was abandonned. Starting the war without any decision at all was better than starting it following a majority rejection at the UNSC.
Most people here agree with him in terms of thinking the war was a mistake and that Bush was a terrible president. But he insists that we not only agree with the conclusion, but with the particular, twisted path that led him to that conclusion. Even when he’s shown to be factually wrong, or in absolute contradiction to what he has posted in the past.
I can hardly blame you for not wading through this entire thread, I don’t think anyone has, probably not even the fool. I couldn’t describe the reason better than John Mace did; try engaging him. You’ll learn you were a slobbering lapdog for Bush, swallowing all of his lies and asking for seconds. Never mind that you actually weren’t, fooledbyW knows you were. He was the only one who could see the truth!
None of that is true. John Mace said Invading Iraq was justified immediately following the invasion which is bad enough, but Mace explains it was a just invasion because S.H. Violated the spirit of the UN disarmament program.
If you agree with Mace on that Dissonance let us know.
And, as we have seen over and over again in this thread, the price of engaging with Fooled By W is that he will misrepresent your position in much the same way he twists the words of the AUMF to mean something no one else thinks it means. I have never put anyone on ignore on this MB yet, but he very well may be the 1st.
There is restraining language in the AUMF. Bush did not comply with it. So to lay blame on Congress for Bush’s being a non-compliant asshole is ignoring the fact of what is written in the AUMF.
Bush lies to this day that he wanted peace but that Saddam Hussein did not cooperate. You support Bush’s lie about cooperation when you quote Blix so far out of context you’d think Blix was Charles Krauthammer.
And there’s XT so confused he says the inspections didnt mean anything. Of course that dumbass support the invasion going in until he realized sometime afterward what a dumbass he was. And I should respect his idiot views on the inspections.
Here’s an example of why John Mace is out of touch with reality. I wrote that Iraq was in compliance with his final opportunity to comply with UN Res 1441. Idiot Mace did not recognize the importance of my citing 1441.
Mace has no clue what 1441 was about and still doesn’t.
It was Clear to John Mace after it was very easy to see that Iraq did its best to fully comply under 1441 that, “S.H. did his best to violate the letter and the spirit of that disarmament plan”.** Iraq also offered (December 2002 to let the CIA come into Iraq to find the WMD they thought was there. Bush rejected the offer. Iraq could not have been more proactive in cooperation than that.
That is agreement with Bush’s lies about Iraq’s non-cooperation and justification for war. And that is a fact.
You wouldn’t know what truth is if it crawled up your ass and died.
Why bother? You make up what people agree or disagree with anyway. I note you never replied to this post of mine:
Bolding mine. What the fuck is this about my blank check bullshit? This blank check bullshit of mine exists only in your head. Where have I said a single thing about it? All I’ve done is tell you neither Bush nor congress had any right to authorize or use war or military force to resolve conflict as per the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, which you continually ignore. I am mocking you by bringing up the Pact of course as nobody bothers to abide by it, but there is something you should note: unlike your entirely unique interpretation of the AUMF, I don’t have to use tortured logic or reading of the text of the Kellogg-Briand Pact to demonstrate both Bush and congress were in flagrant violation of it. Herbert Hoover signed it on behalf of the US, the Senate approved it by a vote of 85-1, the instrument of ratification by 54 nations are still deposited in Washington DC, and it is still in effect under international law.
[/quote]
No, it’s not. Bush’s argument was about Iraq being a threat to the US. Iraq was never a threat to the US. We could justifiably overthrow then non-legitimate government of SH, but not because he was any threat to the US-- because he had no legitimate basis to rule that country. We could have done it in 1991, but Bush the elder was smart enough not to get us involved in a quagmire. His son, not so much.
That is why I opposed the AUMF, which you supported. You were Fooled By W. A lot of us weren’t.
I did not support the AUMF. I acknowledged it’s existence after it was passed. And I actually read the language in it. And I hold Bush accountable to that language. I did not have to support it to be able to read it after it passed. So quit telling this lie along with all the rest about me.
And you are an idiot if you believe that the AUMF is what stood between Bush and getting his war. We were already bombing the shit out of Iraq like never before in the months prior to the AUMF vote. All Bush had to say was that Cheney’s bs claim that ATTA met with the Iraqi Intelligence Director in Prague or if that go shot down… in Tim-Buc-Too.
And if you think declaring every war unwise is much of real opposition to war… think about how many actually would recognize that as serious thought.
You have said that you didn’t care if Iraq had WMD… everybody has WMD. Specifically after 9/11 that is about as stupid and an invalid viewpoint as anyone could have. No one would listen or feel obligated to consider anything as stupid as not caring if Iraq had WMD.
You opposed the AUMF because it was unwise. Not because it was just plain fucking wrong or immoral. Do you think anyone would have cared if a dumbass who thought Iraq having WMDs was ok said that invading Iraq was unwise.
If you say it was justified then by all means Iraq would have to be a threat or he would have had to be killing scores of people to be justified. Invading Iraq with ground troops would not be justified solely on a supposed need that SH was not behaving properly with regard to being disarmed by the UN…
However if the UN were to authorize the use of force by any member state because of the necessity to uphold international law then it would have been justified.
There was that necessity in October 2002. There was no way in hell any sliver of necessity after about Mid-December 2002 when inspectors began pouring into Iraq and S.H. offered to allow the CIA to come in this time to show the inspectors were all this alleged WMD stockpiles and secret programs were to be found.
Bush did not enforce 1441, Bush shit on 1441 and caused a lot of people to die and suffer injury and loss of property and a lot of money and military hardware to be wasted.
And you wrote this after it was plain as day, unless you took things Blix and others said out of context that Iraq was cooperating proactive several weeks prior to the start of the invasion.
Quit being a moron and admit you were absolutely wrong to write such utter nonsense:
And I see no one is refuting your fellow stooge Drunky Smurf’s put down by clairobscur:
I’m glad to see more than Tony Sinclair understand what happened after the AUMF vote.
Do you see that phrase " a majority rejection " Mace? That means that the UNSC members in a majority wanted the peaceful process of disarmament to proceed. That means Bush could not ‘enforce’ 1441 as the AUMF required. Bush did not apply the language written in the AUMF that required him to use military force in order to 'ENFORCE" UNSC Resolutions such as 1441 if that would come about.
Had 1441 not been achieved by veto or lack of interest by the UNSC or by Iraq’s continued defiance… then Bush could be said to be ‘enforcing’ all UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq. But that did not happen. Reality happened Mace. You were just unaware of reality until I came along after Tony Sinclair and pointed reality out to you.
But you still reject reality… I believe it is because the only way you can feel good about your declaration that the invasion was justified after it was launched is to call the AUMF with your fellow stooges here that the AUMF was a blank check for war.
Do any of Mace’s fellow stooges agree with that statement?
We cannot justifiably go around overthrowing any government on our own because we think it is not legitimate. I wonder if Mace has any basis or substantiation that what he wrote is legitimate under international or any kind of moral code.
There must be a threat…and an imminent one not just some perceived threat, or a humanitarian crisis of such magnitude that applying force to remove a sitting government would save more lives than it would take.
Or the UNSC comes together and decides that Applying Military force is the ONLY way to uphold international law and respect for the law.
“Current” is a given. Saying “all” is the provision to pick and chose.
Obviously, there is. Speaking of, how’s that comparison between the Levin Amendment and the AUMF coming? It should only take a few minutes.
Also, are you willing to concede that there is no evidence external to you that your interpretation of the AUMF is correct, and that there is evidence external to me that my interpretation is correct?