NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

[Smapti]

@NotfooledbyW

I have a valid point about Iraq being in violation of international law in October 2002, but Iraq was in compliance with Iraq’s final opportunity to comply with UN Res 1441 in March 2003 when Bush decided to invade.

…And?

What is your endgame here? Do you want everyone to throw up their hands and say “Wow, NotfooledbyW was right all along and we were fools to ever doubt him”? How long do you intend to continue arguing pedantics about an eleven-year-old event? Do you believe it’s possible to win the thread? What the hell are you hoping to accomplish here?

[Shodan]

There is no need to repost your stupid shit. We saw how stupid it was the first time.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

I have a valid point about Iraq being in violation of international law in October 2002, but Iraq was in compliance with Iraq’s final opportunity to comply with UN Res 1441 in March 2003 when Bush decided to invade.
I was not asking you to believe something that is my opinion or theory or some contrived argument .. that is a fact.
Reasonable people should be able to discuss such points, counter points and settle things out see where it leads.

That Iraq was in violation of international law in October 2002 is a critical point in my argument I wished to present in my thread.

If I am wrong… tell me and tell me why. That is all I ask.

The “critical point” in your argument is about March 2003, not Oct 2002. Here’s where you are wrong: Iraq was never in compliance with the UNSC resolution. Never. Not in Oct 2002 and not in March of 2003. Now, as I said in one of your stupid threads, it might have been next to impossible for Iraq to comply fully, but that’s neither here nor there. If you want to make the argument that the Resolutions themselves were unrealistic, that’s one thing. But just because they were unrealistic doesn’t mean you get to say that Iraq was in compliance. SH never gave a full accounting of the destroyed WMDs.

Here’s the background and the words of Hans Blix in March of 2013:

On 7 December 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On 19 December, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq’s 7 December report (unedited version):

“During the period 1991–1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated.” By March, Blix declared that the 7 December report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light. Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq’s level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[2] [3] [4]. On 27 January 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.”[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced “1,000 tonnes” of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed.[6]
By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved.

Blix’s 7 March report stated “Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.”

Blix’s report also stated:

“ "What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear. Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."

Emphasis added. Now, will you STFU?

[Brainiac4]

I find it fascinating that NFbW seems to have discovered commas and a different voice when using paragraphs. It almost makes the persona seem deliberate.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

The “critical point” in your argument is about March 2003, not Oct 2002. Here’s where you are wrong: Iraq was never in compliance with the UNSC resolution. Never. Not in Oct 2002 and not in March of 2003. Now, as I said in one of your stupid threads, it might have been next to impossible for Iraq to comply fully, but that’s neither here nor there. If you want to make the argument that the Resolutions themselves were unrealistic, that’s one thing. But just because they were unrealistic doesn’t mean you get to say that Iraq was in compliance. SH never gave a full accounting of the destroyed WMDs.

Here’s the background and the words of Hans Blix in March of 2013:

Emphasis added. Now, will you STFU?

When you explain where, (and here are the words that I used and that you cited)

I have a valid point about Iraq being in violation of international law in October 2002, but Iraq was in compliance with Iraq’s final opportunity to comply with UN Res 1441 in March 2003 when Bush decided to invade.

Where you have found any statement from Dr Blix or anyone else that cites Iraq not to be in “compliance with Iraq’s final opportunity to comply with UN Res 1441 in March 2003” .

Case closed! Not at all. You are full of it mr Mace.

Now go pout how pigheaded I am, because you blew it. You are wrong.

I do agree with you that Iraq was not in compliance with anything in Oct 2002.

[XT]

@NotfooledbyW

When you explain where, (and here are the words that I used and that you cited)

Where you have found any statement from Dr Blix or anyone else that cites Iraq not to be in “compliance with Iraq’s final opportunity to comply with UN Res 1441 in March 2003” .

Case closed! Not at all. You are full of it mr Mace.

Now go pout how pigheaded I am, because you blew it. You are wrong.

You simply can’t buy entertainment like this. It’s comedy gold!

[Count_Blucher]

@NotfooledbyW

I’m with you on that Count, but I think there’s still a better way before Lil Dubby croaks of old age.

Perhaps a civilized conversation in the pit is against the rules. I dunno. I’ll chance it.

You are so very, very sweet! I know The Pit is new for you, so I really feel badly that you are arguing here this way. This isn’t fencing. This isn’t even jagged edged Bowie knife & Brass Knuckles fighting here.
Eye -hooking and acid splashing is allowed & common place and if your opponent is down? You hit them…* just as hard as you can*.

GD? You would So love it there. IMHO? Like fresh pastry with a morning coffee. MPSIMS? Add frosting on your pastry & upgrade your coffee to a latte. Its just that this is The Pit… and when someone
goads you down here, you’d best come with a loaded double-barrel, a side arm, and a spare in an ankle holster. Or laugh & let them vent.

Just sayin’.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@NotfooledbyW

I’ll just post a bit more as to how I conducted myself

I look forward to your later post analyzing your comments in this one.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

When you explain where, (and here are the words that I used and that you cited)

Where you have found any statement from Dr Blix or anyone else that cites Iraq not to be in “compliance with Iraq’s final opportunity to comply with UN Res 1441 in March 2003” .

Case closed! Not at all. You are full of it mr Mace.

Now go pout how pigheaded I am, because you blew it. You are wrong.

I do agree with you that Iraq was not in compliance with anything in Oct 2002.

Have you read UNSC Resolution 1441? It says:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted
   by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with,
   and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a
   further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for
   assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate,
   unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including
   underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport
   which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and
   private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish
   to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant
   to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may
   at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the
   travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole
   discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the
   presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and
   requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of
   this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

Empasis added. Blix says that the information is not complete (hence we invoke “ommisions” in item #4 above, and it’s cooperation is not “immediate” (hence we invoke “immediate” in item #5 above).

Now, are you going to argue that Blix said “2 + 2” but he didn’t say “4”? Because most of us know that 2 + 2 = 4.

[Ranger_Jeff]

Slightly OT, but I think this is appropriate too. Does it say somewhere in the 1st Amendment that when someone is exercising their freedom of expression, others are REQUIRED to listen to them?

[Among_Liberals]

@Bryan_Ekers

I look forward to your later post analyzing your comments in this one.

It’s self-quoting all the way down.

[digs]

I keep seeing NotfooledbyW honestly admitting that he’s continuing to belabor past arguments (or rather, beat a dead horse):

I asked in a polite and reasonable way to let me finish going through some things with Adaher** (I still want to finish up with that)**…

I have a valid point about Iraq being in violation of international law in October 2002…

I’ll just post a bit more as to how I conducted myself with Ravenman on the Bush Library thread…

And now I’ll quote one of the elder sages here:

@digs

You just canNOT let go of an issue, can you?

Dude, are you autistic? Serious question.

If you think you might be somewhere on the autism spectrum, do get diagnosed. There are meds and coping strategies that would keep you from hitting your head against a wall (long after you’ve started alienating everyone around you).

People here, and people in your Real Life, would appreciate it.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Have you read UNSC Resolution 1441? It says:

Empasis added. Blix says that the information is not complete (hence we invoke “ommisions” in item #4 above, and it’s cooperation is not “immediate” (hence we invoke “immediate” in item #5 above).

Now, are you going to argue that Blix said “2 + 2” but he didn’t say “4”? Because most of us know that 2 + 2 = 4.

When you find Blix or El Beradai or the UNSC declare Iraq in material breach of Res 1441 at any time - You let me see it.

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.

[Ravenman]

NFbW: do you even realize that my last post was trying to point out that this thread is about you, not Iraq? And that I pointed out that even when people aren’t talking about Iraq, you bring up Iraq? And do you know what topic you repeatedly quoted me about? Iraq.

Read this post five times before responding. Note that this post isn’t actually about Iraq at all.

[John_Mace]

As predicted, The Fool tries to argue that 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

NFbW: do you even realize that my last post was trying to point out that this thread is about you, not Iraq? And that I pointed out that even when people aren’t talking about Iraq, you bring up Iraq? And do you know what topic you repeatedly quoted me about? Iraq.

Read this post five times before responding. Note that this post isn’t actually about Iraq at all.

At this moment it is not about Iraq it is about John Mace not having his facts straight. I am responding to a post on this thread because what this poster suggests is not supported by the facts.

John Mace is trying to present a case that Iraq was not in compliance with UN Res 1441. The facts are that Iraq was never found to be out of compliance with 1441. I have asked John Mace to produce anything that indicates on the record that Iraq failed to comply with 1441.

"failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

So In waiting patiently for that.
I read your post six times.
I was talking to Adaher about Iraq when XT mugged me. That led to this, and this led to John Mace saying something that is not true about Res 1441.

So I dont quite get your point about injecting Iraq into non-Iraq topics.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

When you find Blix or El Beradai or the UNSC declare Iraq in material breach of Res 1441 at any time - You let me see it.

Well, just to be clear, that’s not the way things work. You made the assertion that Iraq was in compliance. So, the burden is on you to provide a cite from those folks that Iraq was, in fact, in compliance.

Cooperation was the basic key to whether the final opportunity would proceed to full compliance on all resolutions.

This is what people are talking about when they tell you that you consider your own imagination to be a fact.

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.

See above. That’s your interpretation, but not a fact.

These are facts Mr. Mace not my opinions.

See above.

[Ravenman]

@NotfooledbyW

So I dont quite get your point about injecting Iraq into non-Iraq topics.

Are you retarded? You responded to my first post in this thread by rehashing the Bush library thread.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

As predicted, The Fool tries to argue that 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

Cite please?

I specifically cited UN Res 1441 and you quoted it in your response. I know you cannot find a UNSC decision to end 1441 and hit Iraq with the consequences because they never did.

Truth: Iraq was never found in non-compliance with UN Res 1441.
If that is not true cite it.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Ravenman

Are you retarded? You responded to my first post in this thread by rehashing the Bush library thread.

No. I see it as a continuation XT’s mugging of Adaher and my discussion.

Most posters here I know little about. What they think is not very relavent to me.