NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

[XT]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Got a cite that it was opposed by a majority of the UNSC? Thing is, the UNSC doesn’t vote by majority. Any permanent member can veto.
[/QUOTE]

Assuming we are talking about the permanent members then I actually agree with Red, though I find it hard to believe that he’s giving this guy a pass. I’m not going to find a cite, since this isn’t a debate, but my read is that Russia, China and France were all opposed to any military action and would have all voted for anything that would have opened the door to military action, which functionally is the same thing . It’s a moot point, however, since any one of the permanent members could veto anything anyway, and since there was never going to be a consensus on a military sanction against Iraq. It’s yet another of NFBW’s ridiculous pedantic points.

Case in point:

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
How could Bush have agreed to offer to the UNSC on March 7, 2003 to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power if Bush actually believed that Saddam Hussein was concealing WMD from the Post 1441 inspection regime.
[/QUOTE]

Um…he lied? He never had any intention of allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power and was moving towards deposing him months before the 7th of March? That the decision was actually made when we started moving troops into the area, and everything else was PR and Bush jockeying to bring on board both the public, Congress and whoever we could rope into joining us in the invasion? That you are an idiotic fuck monkey who is basically too stupid to breathe on your own?

Bush’s draft resolution that failed to muster more than five maybe six of the nine votes needed allowed the option that Saddam Hussein could remain in power if the UNSC declared Iraq in full compliance with every single disarmament obligation by March 17, 2003.

Well, good thing that totally stopped him from invading, right? God you are a pedantic mega-butt weasel. I believe we dealt with all of this horseshit pages ago, and yet you recycle back through it all as if it’s fresh and new…and as if no one responded the last time you brought all of this up.

My argument is that Bush should not have relied on belief, but on evidence. If he had the evidence that could justify solid belief that WMD were actually there, according to some supposedly reliable source, then Bush would have surely played that hand.

No shit…he really shouldn’t have relied on belief but should have gone on hard evidence? You don’t say?? Well, that’s a shocking revelation that no one here would have ever thought of! Thanks for bringing up this vital and timely factoid.

Sadly, Bush was pretty much given a blank check, regardless of your ridiculous antics and handwavery against this stark fact born out nearly a decade ago to the rest of us, to do what he wanted, and to go on his gut instinct and belief instead of hard evidence.

Good thing that the UN’s vital non-vote on this issue derailed his plans, ehe? Oh, wait…they didn’t and it turns out the entire thing was just window dressing, since Bush et al went ahead and invaded Iraq anyway, with Congresses approval. I know this is stunning, even shocking news to you, since it’s clear you don’t know much about any of this stuff and haven’t been following along. But you COULD skip ahead and read at least the middle part of the story to see how things played out. Sort of like that blind spot you have that people can actually scroll up and see what you actually said in the context of the discussion, you seem to not realize that we can actually look at this whole sorry mess in the retrospect of history, since it IS fucking history you moron.

But I believe as opposed to XT, that Bush had to see all the evidence he had been given get shot down by the UN inspectors for over three months. And Bush was fearful of standing hard on any evidence he may have had or believed he had.

Blah blah…yes, I think we are all aware at this time that XT stupidly supported the war way back in 2003. Thanks for bringing this up for the 100th time in this thread, in case anyone missed it. I believe that just about every poster in this thread is aware of where I stood on this issue 10 years ago.

As for Bush being fearful, it’s to laugh that you are so stupid and so naive. If you skip ahead in the Iraqi war saga you will see that Bush went ahead and committed the US to an invasion and the UN didn’t do a god damned thing about it except tacitly give it’s approval by sanctioning the post-war interim government and by NOT even using harsh language against the US for our ‘illegal’ war.

Therefore Bush did not believe at all in his evidence, if he really had any evidence.

To put to paraphrases from one of the greatest works of film in our century: Your logic is truly dizzying and I dinna thin’ that word means what you thin’ it means, kimosabe.

Or should we believe that some last minute intelligence of WMD being hidden from inspectors came in immediately following Bush’s chickenshit move to pull the draft resolution without a vote.

We should believe that you are an idiot of biblical proportions, basically. But the truth is, I think everyone but a few folks already knew this about you.

[John_Mace]

@XT

Assuming we are talking about the permanent members then I actually agree with Red

Why would you assume that? Did Red or Fooled by W say they were talking about the permanent members? If they want to move the goal posts that’s fine, but Fooled by W has never said he was only talking about the permanent members.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Got a cite that it was opposed by a majority of the UNSC? Thing is, the UNSC doesn’t vote by majority. Any permanent member can veto.

I don’t think we have a record of what “the majority” were thinking. AFAIK, we only have a few of the members on record. But if you have quotes from the majority of the members, that would be interesting to see.

We have a record and it has been cited. You say you don’t think. That is the only thing you are right about. Plus the fact that the Council members had to reconvene a meeting to declare Iraq in material breach of 1441 and they never did.

Bush tried to bribe votes to his way of thinking and still failed to get more than five or six.

You are wrong Mace, so give it up.

We know you wrote Bush was justified to invade because SH did not cooperate, so you need Bush’s lie on that to be true. You can’t make it true ever.

That is reality and a fact.

[NotfooledbyW]

Posted by XT

Originally Posted by John Mace
Got a cite that it was opposed by a majority of the UNSC? Thing is, the UNSC doesn’t vote by majority. Any permanent member can veto.

Assuming we are talking about the permanent members then I actually agree with Red, though I find it hard to believe that he’s giving this guy a pass. I’m not going to find a cite, since this isn’t a debate, but my read is that Russia, China and France were all opposed to any military action and would have all voted for anything that would have opened the door to military action, which functionally is the same thing . It’s a moot point, however, since any one of the permanent members could veto anything anyway, and since there was never going to be a consensus on a military sanction against Iraq. -XT

@John_Mace

Why would you assume that? Did Red or Fooled by W say they were talking about the permanent members? If they want to move the goal posts that’s fine, but Fooled by W has never said he was only talking about the permanent members.

Screw you ‘move the goalpost’ ploy, Mace.

I am not expressing my opinion. it is a fact. Iraq was never declared not in compliance with 1441.

Perhaps you are confused. 1441 stated Iraq was in material breach of all preceding resolutions but 1441 afforded Iraq a Final Opportunity to get into compliance with all preceding resolutions. Cooperation was the basic key to whether the final opportunity would proceed to full compliance on all resolutions.

And there was no timeline to get to full compliance. **In the view of the majority of the UNSC Iraq’s cooperation **was not perfect but it was sufficient that 1441 was never ever close to being pulled.

These are facts Mr. Mace not my opinions. - NotfooledbyW 06-22-2013 10:49 PM

And a veto by a permanent member never needed to happen or did happen. UNSC 1441 was ‘enacted’ by a 15 vote majority and once it was enacted not one PM could Veto it from being the ‘enforcement’ mechanism that it was. If it could be stopped or ended or pulled or rescinded by veto then don’t you think Bush or Blair or Both would have rescinded it. They could not.

Here’s more:

Why you believe Bush and Blair were correct to assess that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441. **The UNSC is comprised of 15 members. The large majority were of the opinion that Iraq was providing all the cooperation they needed **to continue affording Iraq its final opportunity to fully comply with all the resolutions passed since 1991.

And secondly **the majority on the UNSC **did not have to pedantically state that they saw Iraq in compliance with 1441.

They stated it in opposition to the minority opinion that Iraq was out of compliance as De Villepin and others did. The majority opinion carries the day unless I’m missing something here. . -NotfooledbyW 06-23-2013 10:50 AM

Here’s another:

I asked John Mace that question because he is arguing the point against mine that I believe Iraq was in fact cooperating in compliance with the demands of the UNSC under the demands imposed by UNSC res 1441. My basis in fact was the speech from De Villepin representing **the majority UNSC view **that Iraq was cooperating and sufficient progress had been made to keep Res 1441 intact. Now Mace’s response was that Bush and Blair opposed the majority opinion and wanted UN 1441 ended and the UNSC should join them to start a war.

I know Bush and Blair held that minority view, but I think it was a minority view because it was wrong and contrived.

So if JM was simply telling me that B&B 's minority view existed, but agrees with me that their opinion is not correct, then does that mean as I see it that JM agrees with me and De Villepin and the majority of the UNSC that did determine that Iraq’s cooperation under 1441, proactive for a month, was a reason to disagree harshly with the opinion of Bush and Blair.

I agree with you that if Mace believes Bush and Blair’s opinion on lack of cooperation is wrong we have no argument. Can you get Mace to say he has no argument with me on this point of fact.

If the argument is that Bush and Blair were wrong but their unilateral using the things they saw as SH non-cooperation with 1441 demands - then state that as the truth that that is what it was. Don’t drag the UNSC into that view by quoting Blix on cherry picked comments to try to bring UNSC legitimacy to that damned fool if a mistake to end inspections and start a war.

State what happened as factually as possible whether you agree with me on other things or not.

That is all I have asked. That really is.

So here’s what I agree with.

Bush and Blair were wrong to disagree with the UNSC determination that the proper route for the international community, because of the proactive cooperation being demonstrated by Iraq for one month prior to March 7, 2003, was to continue inspection activities to final conclusion and begin long term monitoring as mandated.
There was no need for war.

Who disagrees with that statement? -NotfooledbyW 06-23-2013 01:04 PM

Mace has argued that Saddam Hussein violated his final opportunity to be brought into compliance under UN Resolution 1441 because Bush and Blair told us so. Then Ravenman was kind enough to explain that Mace does not really believe Bush and Blair about that.

Ravenman has inadvertently brought to light John Mace’s error in thinking that Bush and Blair had any legal standing (could not convince a majority) in determining that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441 demands. You see Bush and Blair, having failed to convince a UNSC majority to agree with them, are really saying that Iraq has not complied with their very own idea of demands. Therefore it is a falsehood to declare that Iraq failed to comply with 1441 just because Bush and Blair said so. -NotfooledbyW 06-23-2013 10:04 PM

Question For XT. Did Bush know that France Russia and China could veto military action when he asked for and got UNSC Res 1441 passed?

And do you remember this:

So, along with myriad other things, you don’t understand how the UNSC works either. It’s not majority vote. tI has to be unanimous. A single veto is enough to kill or block anything. So, when France said they would vote against ANYTHING that would lead to war, that was it. China and/or Russia would have done the same. None of them wanted anything that would or could lead to war. So, there was zero chance of a UN vote that would have mandated war with Iraq. Zero. Nada. -XT 06-30-2013 04:58 PM

[dasmoocher]

Dude, you really need to get yourself a blog.

[Monty]

Or he needs to get himself a clue. Take your pick.

[Smapti]

@NotfooledbyW

W
You are wrong Mace, so give it up.

We know you wrote Bush was justified to invade because SH did not cooperate, so you need Bush’s lie on that to be true. You can’t make it true ever.

That is reality and a fact.

Who cares?

Is the only reason you’ve dragged this out for 21 Pages because you absolutely have to have the last word and say “Neener neener neener, I was right and you were wrong”?

Grow up, man.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Got a cite that it was opposed by a majority of the UNSC? Thing is, the UNSC doesn’t vote by majority. Any permanent member can veto.

The UNSC certainly votes by a majority. It would have taken nine members to pass a resolution that Bush offered on March 7 2003. Bush could not get more than six to commit to voting with him, so he pulled the draft resolution after promising to hold a vote anyway whether or not it would pass.
Here is a cite of one of the non-permanent members that I provided and that you choose to ignore:

This is a rejection of Bush’s claim that Iraq was NOT cooperating.

Germany’s Joschka Fischer … states: “Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the UN team on the ground. We think things are moving in the right direction, based on the efforts of the inspection team, and [they] should have all the time which is needed.” [Washington Post, 1/20/2003; New York Times, 1/20/2003]

I have posted others. All I need is seven… France Canada Russia China Germany Mexico and Pakistan all said inspections were working. Bush said they were not.
Where is your majority of members who said inspections were not working? -NotfooledbyW 07-02-2013 02:25 AM

I also posted Canada’s PM who said no to Bush.

[dasmoocher]

@Monty

Or he needs to get himself a clue. Take your pick.

I’m actually thinking now that he should check with his pharmacist to make sure his dosages are correct. Rainman wasn’t this obsessive.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Smapti

Who cares?

Is the only reason you’ve dragged this out for 21 Pages because you absolutely have to have the last word and say “Neener neener neener, I was right and you were wrong”?

Grow up, man.

I am right and you obviously can’t refute that, so what’s wrong with that?

[Smapti]

@NotfooledbyW

I am right and you obviously can’t refute that, so what’s wrong with that?

Well, ladies and gentlemen, there you have it.

Thread over, move along, nothing more to see here.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Smapti

Well, ladies and gentlemen, there you have it.

Thread over, move along, nothing more to see here.

I said you can’t refute it. Others are still trying. Does this mean you won’t be back wasting post space here any longer.

[kidchameleon]

@NotfooledbyW

I said you can’t refute it. Others are still trying. Does this mean you won’t be back wasting post space here any longer.

Are you still here? Please go back to raping goats.

[Jackmannii]

@NotfooledbyW

That is reality and a fact.

Can I use this for my sig?

[XT]

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Question For XT. Did Bush know that France Russia and China could veto military action when he asked for and got UNSC Res 1441 passed?
[/QUOTE]

Bush was pretty stupid (not as stupid as you, however), but I’m fairly certain one of his aides would have clued him in on this, yes. That’s why he dropped it. I’m sure there was a lot of back room wheeling and dealing going on, and that Bush et al were trying to apply pressure to them (especially France) to go along or at least to abstain, but when it became clear that they weren’t going to for their own reasons he simply moved on, because, in the end, it was meaningless window dressing. It made zero difference in the end, since we invaded anyway.

BTW, did you READ the next paragraph that you quoted from me with an eye towards trying to comprehend what I was saying there all those pages ago? Do you understand it in the context of the discussion that was happening then and how it applies to this exact same discussion that you’ve resurrected now, and how it makes your current ridiculous antics look so fucking pedantic and silly? You are arguing a moot point about a sideshow that had no real bearing on events at the time (10 YEARS ago) and was just window dressing…and while you are technically correct (the UNSC would have never voted for war or even that Iraq was in violation of 1441, it would have been a stalemate with the US and UK voting for and France and Russia for sure voting against, with perhaps China voting to abstain if they knew that the others would be opposed, and the rest of the non-permanent members voting however they like, since it didn’t matter), it’s fairly clear that you don’t actually understand the underlying dynamics of the events or situation. The fact that you are crowing about your victory of being right just lends a bit of poignancy to the sadness, since it underlines how very, very clueless and stupid you really are.

[John_Mace]

Canada and Mexico were not on the UNSC in 2002/2003

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Yes because this language does not express support for diplomatic means, but it specifically only referred to UNSC resolutions referenced above.

This did not tie him to a potential Resolution that was to become 1441. The approved draft did that as you said, 1441 was part of All.

And Bush sought and got the UN resolution that he wanted.

But Bush did not enforce 1441. Bush shit on 1441 and therefore did not comply with the final AUMF.

What does “enforce” mean, in your view?

@NotfooledbyW

You are dishonest to claim that he did or that he was not required to enforce 1441 which suspended military action on all previous resolutions unless the Council reconvened on the matter.

They never convened or saw a need.

If I’m wrong, why can’t you find a single member of Congress or even a legal expert that agrees with you?

I can find one that agrees with me:

Russ Feingold

I also believe and agree as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including, of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself – and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we’re dealing with here – then we can, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.

Senator Feingold sure doesn’t think the AUMF required the UN to do anything before force could be used.

Why are there thousands of opinion pieces about how the war was illegal under international law, but virtually none about how it was illegal under American law?

@NotfooledbyW

Bush would not have been tied to a future Resolution such as 1441 under his original wording, so yes the original version was a blank check and Congress did not pass it as Bush wanted originally.

That’s not the objection the Senate had to the original wording:

Some Democrats say that the proposed resolution is so sweeping that it could be used by the White House as authorization to act in areas beyond Iraq, such as Syria or Iran.

“It’s a complete blank check,” Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin said. “It appears to actually authorize the President to do virtually anything anywhere in the Middle East.”

As I already noted, the AUMF limited Bush to Iraq. That is the limitation the Senate was able to win.

[Darth_Panda]

@NotfooledbyW

Screw you ‘move the goalpost’ ploy, Mace.

And a veto by a permanent member never needed to happen or did happen. UNSC 1441 was ‘enacted’ by a 15 vote majority and once it was enacted not one PM could Veto it from being the ‘enforcement’ mechanism that it was. If it could be stopped or ended or pulled or rescinded by veto then don’t you think Bush or Blair or Both would have rescinded it. They could not.

Here’s more:

Here’s another:

Question For XT. Did Bush know that France Russia and China could veto military action when he asked for and got UNSC Res 1441 passed?

And do you remember this:

Can you explain this more generally please?

Thanks.

[NotfooledbyW]

@XT

Bush was pretty stupid (not as stupid as you, however), but I’m fairly certain one of his aides would have clued him in on this, yes. That’s why he dropped it. I’m sure there was a lot of back room wheeling and dealing going on, and that Bush et al were trying to apply pressure to them (especially France) to go along or at least to abstain, but when it became clear that they weren’t going to for their own reasons he simply moved on, because, in the end, it was meaningless window dressing. It made zero difference in the end, since we invaded anyway.

BTW, did you READ the next paragraph that you quoted from me with an eye towards trying to comprehend what I was saying there all those pages ago? Do you understand it in the context of the discussion that was happening then and how it applies to this exact same discussion that you’ve resurrected now, and how it makes your current ridiculous antics look so fucking pedantic and silly? You are arguing a moot point about a sideshow that had no real bearing on events at the time (10 YEARS ago) and was just window dressing…and while you are technically correct (the UNSC would have never voted for war or even that Iraq was in violation of 1441, it would have been a stalemate with the US and UK voting for and France and Russia for sure voting against, with perhaps China voting to abstain if they knew that the others would be opposed, and the rest of the non-permanent members voting however they like, since it didn’t matter), it’s fairly clear that you don’t actually understand the underlying dynamics of the events or situation. The fact that you are crowing about your victory of being right just lends a bit of poignancy to the sadness, since it underlines how very, very clueless and stupid you really are.

You are all screwed up XT. There would not have been a stalemate. There would have been nine members voting for continued inspection for as long as Blix needed.

A no vote from France or Russia would not be a veto unless it blocked a nine vote majority. Bush could not get nine votes.

The French and Russians have a right to vote no because they don’t agree. Had Bush put together a nine vote majority then the French could veto the resolution. That is how it works.

Bush would have had the legitimacy to go forward as he did if he had a nine member majority to back him.

But my point would still be that Bush did not enforce UNSF 1441 which the AUMf required him to do.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Darth_Panda

Can you explain this more generally please?

Thanks.

What don’t you understand? Res 1441 was enacted and active. Bush could not deactivate it unless he could get nine members to vote with him and no permanent members to veto a majority approved resolution.