I don’t think I’ve even read XT’s posts in any other thread in days, if not a couple weeks, especially in the Iraq threads.
It just proves once again that you think ever post revolves around your Iraq compulsion. You seriously need help. There’s something wrong with you. And you still haven’t answered my question of what you get out of your neurotic behavior here.
No u. Cite that Iraq was in compliance w/ 1441 in March 2003. Give us a quote from Blix or the UNSC that " Iraq was in compliance with Iraq’s final opportunity to comply with UN Res 1441 in March 2003 "
That was your statement, offered as a fact. If it’s a fact, you can cite it. If you can’t cite it, it’s an opinion.
Here’s one from one member of the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003 from around the time the US withdrew it’s draft Resolution trying to get the UNSC to declare Iraq in Material Breach of UNSC Res 1441 by March 17 thus authorizing war. The US withdrew it because they knew it had no chance of passage by the fifteen member UNSC. The votes were not there.
You have asked for proof that my statement is a fact. This is quite clear. This permanent member of the UNSC did not consider Iraq to be in violation of UN Res 1441.
Again, not my opinion it is the mere posting of a fact at your request to disprove the non-fact that Iraq failed to comply with UN Resolution 1441. I am providing this because you have provided no basis for your claim and your claim is false.
If I know your claim is false John Mace, why should I let it ride. I happen to think that a whole lot of people believing that Saddam Hussein did not comply with UN Res 1441 and that Dr Blix verifies that (if you cherry pick from his entire views and words) that it lends validity to the often used Bush justification for the war. We gave Saddam a chance but he didn’t let the inspectors in. That is not a verbatim quote.. but it is of the essence. I do not understand why you of all people feel the need to believe that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441 in order to avoid the war.
Perhaps someday we can find that out.. but first you have to accept that what you believe about 1441 is not true.
Bold and underlining mine:
Hopefully your question is based upon a serious interest to acquire an answer.
Fortunately John Mace has provided a real life example that I can use for my answer. Follow it along and you will see what simply it is that I would hope to accomplish.
John Mace believes something that is not true. It is that Iraq was not in compliance with UN Res 1441. The fact that it is not true is not my opinion or wish or obsessive judgment. It is not true.
John Mace has said that at the time of the invasion of Iraq he didn’t care if Iraq had WMD so I know for a fact if that is true John Mace had no sympathy for Bush deciding to kick UN inspectors out and then invade Iraq. It is not a ten year old problem. It was not too long ago the last American died serving in Iraq and the cost and problems for our economy and all the wounded veterans will be with us for decades. …
But John Mace holds a belief that way too many hold in my view that absolutely allows the proponents of the war to justify it. The problem is that belief that even John Mace holds as true… is not true at all.
MY observance over the years is that the news media, US Journalists have not focused enough on the reality of how damn well those inspections were going.
Bush told Congress he wanted inspections and that an authorization to use force would make Iraq comply. Bush still claims he wants peace. That is lie that goes sadly unchallenged.
So all I want here is check a few quite simple facts out for yourself such as I asked John Mace to do with his.
And see where it takes your viewpoint on whether Iraq did not comply with UN 1441 and somehow if you supported the invasion… That lack of cooperation and compliance somehow… can be sympathetic to a rationale that the US invasion of Iraq was necessary.
If you are not interested in any of this, have a nice day.
I am just fine.
My wife is a psychotherapist working for the Dept of Defense. We have one daughter here at home and I have a very happy life and plenty of other interests.
Don’t worry about me if that was any part of your question. Not saying it is, but several have asked things along those lines… probably smart ass crap, but just in case… I’ll settle that here.
Just take a look at what I call a fact. That’s all. Take a look.
This was part of John Mace’s argument:
I’d like to point out the FACT that ‘immediate’ in this wording from UN Res 1441 applies to (its right there in writing) access, which Dr Blix later refers to as 'cooperation on PROCESS. And Dr Blix had assured the UNSC that in his view Iraq had determined to provide cooperation on process… yes access from the start and there were never more than a few minor issues at the start.
So John Mace has an error in his remarks. when he says ‘hence’ we invoke ‘immediate’ in item 5 at least on the ‘access’ issue.
The omissions stuff… If Mace wants to argue that war was justified over paperwork issues, that’s fine. I’ll concede that point. Because I don’t recall ever hearing Bush justify the war based upon the ‘omissions’ in the paperwork isses. He may have but that point is moot.
The other immediate issues come down to what did immediate mean.
Two to three months into the inspections according to the French… was immediate. Immediate access to sites was the big item. And the world got access to sites immediately if not sooner.
Once I posted an op while severely sleep deprived and it was basically stream of consciousness in text format (virtually no caps/punctuation/whatever) and it still made more sense than 99% of what you post.
Slow down man, take a breather, its the internet.
Then how come you used the word “Iraq” five times in this post, eh?
Check and mate, my friend.
Nope. He doesn’t use the words “in compliance”. And he’s just one guy. Do you need a cite from Bush (also a permanent member of the UNSC) and Tony Blaire (ditto) that Iraq was not in compliance? That’s 2 for your 1. But your 1 does not say the magic words. He did not say Iraq was in compliance, which was your claim. Remember when you ranted on and on for page after page that Rice did not use the precise words about Bengazi that some Republicans were claiming? The precise words. Well, back at you, amigo.
Now, if we are going to put a vote by the UNSC as the determining factor of compliance, the best we (as lay people) can say is that we don’t know if they were technically in compliance or not since there was never a vote. And that leaves us with our own brains to figure things out. And it was clear that Iraq had not even “begun to comply” with 1441, per my quote from Blix on item #4 above. He had 30 days, and the 30 days had passed.
I know this isn’t going to convince you, but it’s for those folks following along at home.
So, if you wanted to show your internet discussions to a professional, all the effort it would take is saying “Honey, whatcha think about this?”
You really should do that, and if you’re willing to, let us know what she thinks (but if she charges you by the hour for reading it all, it might be out of your budget).
For what it’s worth, I’m okay with Notfooled and adaher getting their own thread to discuss whatever they like. Indeed, being limited to their own thread.
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 Villapin and others did. The majority opinion carries the day unless I’m missing something here.
On the omissions thing I am really curious to find if I have missed Bush citing that a justification for starting the war.
But again on omissions; the majority did not see that as an issue that determined non-compliance with 1441.
But why as an anti-war good guy do you argue this non cooperation false point like a Bushy.
I honestly would like to know what drives that in you.
Sincerely.
adaher is looking more now like a follower of nuts like Glenn Beck, and he relies on sources that are even more nuts than Beck and are racist. The difference IMHO is that Notfooled is mostly looking at good sources, but the nutty part comes from not interpreting the information properly while at the same time alienating all foe and friend alike.
I’d be greatly interested in what you believe (let’s stick to the Bush Library thread and this one) that I have not interpreted properly. Please follow the exchange here with John Mace on SH cooperation being in compliance with 1441.
That remains at a fact determining level.
I am open to serious discussion about proper interpretation of established facts.
So I respectfully and sincerely miss the point you were making about me.
Thanks for commenting.
That’s true. He is completely unable to separate fact from opinion. As seen above, if a poster simply states that Bush and Blair didn’t believe Saddam was in compliance – which is a fact – then NFbW assumes that the poster believes Bush and Blair were correct – an opinion.
And to say it for like a jillionth time in this thread, 95% of the people he argues with were against the Iraq war.
Let’s not. The point of this thread is your posting, once again even if I agree with most of the points you bring up the reality is that you are hanging to interpretations and demands to others that are not needed. In the latest exchange I consider the interpretation of “compliance or not” to be small potatoes, the overall picture showed that even if it is granted that Iraq was not in compliance, the overriding item to me was that looking at the evidence countries like France and others thought that this supposed non compliance was not enough to go to war because many possible compliance issues were turning to be not as dire as the American and British reported then.
They were correct on having those doubts and coming with the position to not support the USA, once again, your interpretation is that the compliance bit is an item that it should be discussed to death when it is not needed to conclude that Bush and Cheney should be put on trial if this was a perfectly just world.
If you are referring to this, I can explain:
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 DeVillepin 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 DeVillepin and the majority of the UNSC that did determine that Iraq’s cooperation under 1441, proactive for a month, was a reason to dissagree 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?
Wasn’t that the “evidence for god” thread?
Yeah, thats the one. Not that my typing skills are all that to begin with. Most of the typing I do is via chats or texts anyway, but that op was pretty damn atrocious.
Hey fartnugget, for the last time: this thread isn’t about Iraq, the UN Security Council, or Bush. It’s about your posts being a waste of electrons.
Just checking. Did you make the above comment about my posting? And this is about my posting, should you not reply to my explanation about my posting?
I had a rational reply to your comment about my posting to John Mace, so why don’t I deserve a reply?