I have been citing Magiver’s cite which was a synopsis of the language in 1441. You need to catch up T&D.
By the way, Magiver’s synopsis was correct. There was no hidden trigger for military action and no automaticity too.
Your cite game is a loser.
Putin has nothing to do with verifying the list. Nothing at all. You are wrong again.
Your link ends in 2002. No one argues you irrelevant point. we are discussing 1441. SH was described as proactively cooperating prior to Bush’s decision for war by Dr. Blix. So you are absolutely wrong again. If you think you are not wrong, cite the UNSC determination that Iraq did not comply.
T&D is big on cites. Perhaps T&D will ask you for one after 1441 that Iraq did not comply after 1441.
Sorry you don’t understand what’s going on. Assad provides a list of items for which Russia is suppose to destroy. Russia is Assad’s arm’s dealer. It’s naive to think anything is going to change.
Not one person will be saved by this.
The only consistent thing SH did was start and stop inspections.
Correction to post 341.
It reads
I have been citing Magiver’s cite which was a synopsis of the language in 1441. You need to catch up T&D.
Change T&D to Terr.
No one argues that. But after 9/11 and after 1441 SH cooperated on access from the beginning and proactively on unresolved issues during February just before the invasion. If you can cite any official source that something otherwise took place please do.
SH offered in December 2002 to let the CiA come in - SH could not get more proactive than that. Do you deny that offer was made and Bush rejected it?
I see by your response you have no cite.
I see that you think I have the kind of time to waste that you do.
cite:
“During the lead-up to war in March 2003, United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting the “proactive” but not always “immediate” Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441”
So where did the Bush Admin or Dr Blix take the matter of immediacy back to the council to reconvene meeting to discuss what the punishment should be according to the language in 1441 before military force would be authorized by the UNSC?
Why not cite Dr Blix in context and what he said should be done as he also reported Iraq’s proacttive cooperation at that time?
Blix did not recommend a further breach by Iraq so you are no closer to having a pattern of facts that Bush recieved authority to invade Iraq from the UNSC but Obama did not.
You’ve made a claim now cite a valid backup for it.
Cite where Blix or El Beradai or any UN Member brought evidence of further material breach by Iraq and they reconvened the UNSC to discuss it.
It did not happen on immediacy or any other matter.
Already discussed. language was inserted in 1441 that provided for military intervention. You can drive around with goalposts all day long looking for an argument but it doesn’t change anything. Bush had the approval he needed to wage war. Obama does not. His statement about red lines were without merit. He was shooting his mouth off.
You said the UNSC authorized military intervention. That is false. Kofin Annan tells you that is false. Your ‘provided for’ is different than ‘authirized’ and that is a moved goal post like no other. And you fail to take your ‘provided for’ in context.
Anyway why does Bush say he will invade Iraq without a UNSC Resolution?
Bush himself disagrees with Magiver. If 1441 authorized Bush’s military invasion of Iraq in November 2002, why did Bush challenge the UNSC to authorize a second resolution authorizing military action in February 2003?
Bush did in February 2003 exactly what Obama must do if the need to strike Syria arises during the dismantling of Assad’s CW arsenal.
The truth is right here cited for Magiver:
Both Iraq 2003 and Syria 2013 were two step processes for the UNSC to authorize war.
Magiver’s fact pattern for his errant opinion does not concur with the reality of what took place then and now.
Dr Hans Blix commenting on Syria definitely does not agree with Magiver’s pattern of facts that Bush had UNSC authorization to attack Iraq in 2003 contained in UNSC 1441 in order to knock Obama for failing to get UNSC authority to attack Syria in the very first CW or WMD Resolution passed against Syria.
I have presented the facts and the words from the authorities involved.
Magiver is alone in the world on this one.
I don’t think there is one poster here that agrees that Bush was authorized by the UNSC to attack the people of Iraq for the most flimsy if reasons the world has ever seen.
At least in Syria the WMD exist and were recently used to indiscriminately kill hundreds of non-combatants including women and children.
“”"Gardels: What are the implications of the U.S. and its Western allies once again taking action without the United Nations? There was Kosovo, then Iraq, then Libya. Now, it appears, Syria will join the list. Blix: In Kosovo the intervention was based upon NATO approval. This was not enough. I do not think NATO approval is satisfactory in terms of international law. You need to have Security Council approval.
In the Iraq case, the Bush administration did not care at all about the UN. They just went ahead with the British and a few others. They were totally contemptuous of the UN.
I remember that John Kerry, now U.S. secretary of state and who was a senator then, was ridiculed at that time for saying the U.S. should wait for UN inspections and approval of action.“”“”
The resolution authorized military action. The sentence inserted into the resolution was done so expressly toward that purpose. This is not up for debate.
The one sentence that Magiver clings to says actually absolutely nothing about the UNSC authorizing Bush to force a premature end to inspections and launch the 2003 US ground invasion into Iraq. It does not address anything about authorizing the use of US and UK military force by UNSC members on the soveriegn state of Iraq.
So now that Magiver has once again asserted that 1441, “authorized military action” it is still up to Magiver to explain how one sentence in 1441 that he has taken wholly out of context and says nothing about authorizing any member state to use military force against Iraq is not up for debate.
Of course when someone is so wrong as Nagiver is about an assertion he makes to denigrate the current US president in order to adorn his predecessor with glad tidings, as well as an assertion that no one or no case in the entire world can be found or made to support it - they wil declare the matter not up for debate,
It is an admission by default that Magiver’s entire pattern of facts for his argument
that President Obama’s Syria policy has been dysfunctional on the CW matter as compared or opposed to Bush’s functional handling of Iraq’s WMD matter, has no basis in reality and therefore Magiver’s assertion is to be no longer considered as subject to debate.
Where did Magiver get that kind of authority to end debate without explanation or facts?
That’s factually incorrect. You keep inserting your own goal posts to suggest the language in 1441 did not authorize military action when it clearly did. It states clearly that absent UN action the member states can act upon failure of SH to cooperate. I gave a cite that indicated the inspectors did not receive unconditional access when it was demanded.
You are factually wrong about this and way beyond left field as it applies to Obama. There was no indication that he attempted to put together any kind of political backing before making statements implying such action. He shot his mouth off about “red lines” drawn and it took Putin to fix it politically.
You gave a cite that contained the word “immediate” from someone reporting what Dr Blix said. There was nothing about ‘unconditional access’ when it was demanded.
And you continue to choose to ignore my point about that very aspect of the post 144
You gave a cite that contained the word “immediate” from someone reporting what Dr Blix said. There was nothing about ‘unconditional access’ when it was demanded.
And you continue to choose to ignore my point about that very aspect of the post 1441 inspections. That is that Bush did not request the UNSC reconvene to discuss what ‘consequences’ Iraq must face for not providing access. Bush did not do that on the matter of immediacy because he would look ridiculous trying to explain why war was necessary when the Chief Inspectors advised that Iraq was cooperating proactively … which you also cited.
And Bush has never claimed that the UNSC authorized the war. You have never responded to this:
“”"Bush calls for the passage of the second UN Security Council resolution supporting a military strike against Iraq (see February 24, 2003), and notes that if the resolution does not pass, “the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the Council will fulfill its founding purpose.” [WHITE HOUSE, 2/26/2003; CNN
http://www.historycommons.org/timeli...decisionQuotes “”"
Or THIS"
“”"
February 23, 2003: Bush Tells Aznar US Will Invade Baghdad In March
President Bush tells Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar that **the US will invade Iraq whether the United Nations Security Council passes a resolution or not **(see February 24, 2003). … According to English translations of Ruperez’s Spanish transcript, Bush says the US will invade Iraq whether there is “a United Nations Security Council resolution or not.… My patience has ended. I’m not thinking of waiting beyond mid-March.… We have to get rid of Saddam [Hussein].…
Bush Threatens Economic Retaliation If Other Countries Do not Support Invasion - Aznar pleads for patience from Bush, and says that a UN resolution is vital.
.” Bush mentions negative votes could endanger a free trade agreement with Chile and financial support for Angola. [AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, 9/26/2007]
Why would Bush ask so hard for a second UNSC Resolution in 2003 if the original one passed in November 2002 had provided for the use of military force, authorized the use of military force or did not require a two step process as I have tried to explain to you and you continue to ignore?
1441 has language requiring a two step process and so does the UNSC Resolution for Syria. 1441 has no more teeth than Syria’s that Obama got passed.
And Obama’s accomplishment on Syria is probably a bigger feat since it is the first UNSC Resolution with Iraq and with it came Syria and Russia’s admission that Syria has chemical weapons and has joined the CWC treaty agreeing to rid Syria of them and quit making them.
No one in the world thinks what you think Magiver. Why should I or anyone else listen to your false interpretation of UNSC Resolution 1441?
Please for the love of Pete could you explain what gives you the right to decide that something is there that not even George W. Bush or Kofi Annan or any other member on the UNSC would say was there.
Why did Bush seek a second resolution?
Please answer instead of repeating the same old cliché’s that might work in the right wing media machine but do not work here.
We need Magiver to provide a cite that defines and confirms his argument that the UNSC has the power, authority, jurisdiction or wherewithal to constrain Bush from invading Iraq once Bush decided to do so.