Dear Mike (Michael Moore)

[Drooper]

I`m sorry Drooper, it`s not up to Blix either.

I don`t know why people have difficulties with this. The UNSC pronounces on UNSC Resolutions...simple as that.

It was certainly up to UNMOVIC to advise the UNSC whether certain condition of the resolution had been met. They advised they hadn't.

I don't know why you have trouble with this. I can only presume you are a lawyer and live in the twilight zone.

The point is the countries that took military action believed that the UNSC made the wrong decision, despite the facts.

 

[demon]

Drooper:
"It was the perverse positon taken, in the face of contrary evidence, by some members of the UNSC that cost it its credibility."

Ah, and there we have it.
The positions taken by the other countries were "perverse" because they would not rubber stamp the wishes of the US/UK.

Enough said.

 

[Drooper]

I`m very familiar with the reports and the way the UNSC works (which you don`t seem to be). I have discussed this matter at length with RandFan and others and have at every step took pains not to make "hollow claims" such as Iraq was in breach of 1441. You have not followed my posts on this topic if you think I make hollow claims.

You argument is completely hollow and pithy.

You claim the 1441 was not breached rests on the whether the procedural niceties were followed, not on the facts or evidence.

 

[Drooper]

Drooper:
"It was the perverse positon taken, in the face of contrary evidence, by some members of the UNSC that cost it its credibility."

Ah, and there we have it.
The positions taken by the other countries were "perverse" because they would not rubber stamp the wishes of the US/UK.

Enough said.

Still won't address the facts.


1441: Saddam must do X, Y and Z

UNMOVIC: Saddam has failed to do X, Y and Z.


Question. Was Saddam in breach of 1441?


I have posted the links to the relevant documents, reports etc. and quoted the relevant parts. You have provided zip, except making a claim that you know all about it and if the UNSC said so they must be right (something I agree with at a level of procedure only, not in any real sense).

 

[Ion]

...
Question. Was Saddam in breach of 1441?
...

No.

Blix was giving positive and negative observations.

The decision on these observations made by UNSC is:

no.

 

[demon]

Segnosaur, I can see your point and know where you are coming from with this but the fact remains that only the UNSC can judge Iraq to have been in breach of 1441 and it never did.

We either go down the UN route or we don`t.

As I said to RandFan, if you prefer some sort of unilateral action then fair enough, I know a lot of people who don`t have time for the UN and don`t see why US/UK shouldn`t do exactly as they want. I can accept that position even though I don`t agree with it.
But to say that Iraq was in breach of 1441 before the UNSC actually voted on it means absolutely nothing. You are perfectly entitled to say it was but that isn`t what the UNSC said. It never got a chance.

 

[demon]

"I have posted the links to the relevant documents, reports etc. and quoted the relevant parts. You have provided zip, except making a claim that you know all about it and if the UNSC said so they must be right (something I agree with at a level of procedure only, not in any real sense)."

Who judges UNSC Resolutions...the UNSC or you?

 

[RandFan]

{snip}

Demon,

Quantity does not make a valid argument. Of course it doesn't make it invalid either. I really do respect you and I am impressed with your ability to discuss at length the issues. However I honestly think that it is getting wasted. This is not your fault. It is mine. I apologize, It's not that I'm incapable of addressing all of your points, it's that I really lose interest. I come to the forum because it is intellectually stimulating. I don't come here to be right or win arguments. I speak my mind and try to do it in an honest way. A number of times I have changed my mind about subjects expressed here so I am not unreachable.

Look, I haven't even addressed all of your previous post. I don't think that is fair to you. Now you have added another long post. I assume that you are interested in an honest and open dialog and not simply satisfying your ego or winning an argument?

Is it possible to condense your argument? Bullet point the premises and document the evidence? I hope this does not anger you. I think you have every right to expect your hard work to be acknowledged and responded to. I would be angry if someone glossed over my work so I certainly understand.

I just don't want to wade through it all. Furthermore I really don't think you need that much to make a point. If you refuse then I will understand.

 

[Ion]

Demon,
...
Is it possible to condense your argument?
...

demon had been as concise as possible at all times, including two posts ago:

the UNSC didn't find Iraq in breach of 1441 in order to war against Iraq.

 

[Segnosaur]

Segnosaur, I can see your point and know where you are coming from with this but the fact remains that only the UNSC can judge Iraq to have been in breach of 1441 and it never did.

No, its the facts that tell us that Iraq was in breech of 1441. The job of the security council was to determine whether the breech was serious enough to warant military action.

As an anology, even if a judge lets a guilty person out of jail just because an offence was minor, or it was their first offece, or they felt they had suffered enough, etc., it does not mean that the persion was not guilty, its just that the judge decided not to send the persion to jail.

Likewise, even though Saddam had broken the resolutions, the judges in this case decided the breeches did not warrant military action.

 

[Drooper]

Is it possible to condense your argument? Bullet point the premises and document the evidence? I hope this does not anger you. I think you have every right to expect your hard work to be acknowledged and responded to. I would be angry if someone glossed over my work so I certainly understand.

I just don't want to wade through it all. Furthermore I really don't think you need that much to make a point. If you refuse then I will understand.

His argument is pithy in the extreme.

Because the UNSC did not rule that Iraq was in breach ipso facto, they were not.

This is Ion's argument as well.

It is simply a statment of procedural nicety, it is not a statement of fact.


If a judge acquits a defendent is he innocent? He has been ruled innocent, but he may in fact be guilty. Prosecutors lodge an appeal and he is found guilty on appeal because the judge erred. One element of this (the ACTUAL guilt or innocence) is queston within the realms of reality and facts. The other element (the RULING) is within the realms of the procedural construct we put around this, which in itself does not determine what is or is not true.

Demon does not think facts have anything to do with determining the answer to this question.


There I'm bored of this, it is so asinine.

 

[RandFan]

This is Ion's argument as well.

Ion doesn't have an argument. He copies and pastes other peoples arguments. He is intellectually dishonest and is despised even by people on his side of the political fence.

Ion is a troll. He is best ignored.

 

[Thanz]

The chair on the poster is a bit smallish though...

I just wanted to point out that the poster is basically a riff on the Roger & Me poster that featured More holding a microphone to an empty leather executive-style chair.

Here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098213/

Anyway, I think that Moore should do the interview and put his money where his mouth is. I think that he should laud the young filmmaker for trying to tell a different story, and Moore should give him his perspective. If he is at all worried, just bring your own camera crew and film the interview as well.

After all, what could be more pro-free speech than agreeing to an interview for a movie called "Michael Moore Hates America"?

 

[Ion]

Ion doesn't have an argument. He copies and pastes other peoples arguments.
...

No?

Remember when I pointed out to you that U.N. didn't find Iraq in violation of 1441, U.S. promised to go back to dicussions and not attack if 1441 is breached?

You lost that argument.

Remember when you claimed that 33% of French want Saddam to build "...his palaces..."?

I pointed out to you your error and you lost that argument too.

Remember when you supported the start of the Iraq's war in 2003?

Go fight in Iraq for your 'convictions', RF, at 44 and fat.

I pointed out to you this, and you lost the argument.

Any achievement for you, RF?

At all?

I don't see one...

 

[Ion]

His argument is pithy in the extreme.

Because the UNSC did not rule that Iraq was in breach ipso facto, they were not.

This is Ion's argument as well.

It is simply a statment of procedural nicety, it is not a statement of fact.


If a judge acquits a defendent is he innocent? He has been ruled innocent, but he may in fact be guilty.
...

It is what a judge, here UNSC, judges that it is.

Again:

Blix -a worker- conveyed positive and negative observations to the UNSC judges, and the UNSC judged that Iraq didn't break 1441.

The UNSC judgment that Iraq didn't break 1441 is confirmed correct by the statement of fact (proving that your claim is incorrect, Drooper) that WMDs are inexistent in Iraq.

 

[Ion]

No, its the facts that tell us that Iraq was in breech of 1441.
...

What facts tell you that Iraq was in breach of 1441?

Not the fact that WMDs are unfoundable in Iraq.
This tells you the fact that Iraq didn't break 1441.

Not the fact that Saddam didn't co operate with 1441.
UNSC thinks otherwise, and UNSC decides on this.

So, I prove you wrong.

 

[RandFan]

{snip}

No one gives a damn about what you have to say so what difference does it make? You are a troll and a loser.

 

[Ion]

No one gives a damn about what you have to say so what difference does it make? You are a troll and a loser.

Then how come you respond if you don't give a damn?

What about you going to Iraq, RF, at age 44 and fat, so that you look for WMDs that prove Iraq breaching 1441?

Remember John Stuart Mill in your signature?

He writes:

"...A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature..."

Put your money where your mouth is, and go fight in Iraq for your conviction' sake if you honestly have the conviction, RF.

How is this argument coming along?

Any progress on your side?

 

[RandFan]

Then how come you respond if you don't give a damn?

For the pleasure of rubbing it in your face.

I'm willing to bet hard cash that few if any of the people who post here respect or really care for you regardless of which side of the political fence that they are on.

You have been shown to be a biggot and despised by people who share your ideology. Haven't you noticed that few people ever respond to you?

 

[Ion]

For the pleasure of rubbing it in your face.
...

You mean that you haven't started going to Iraq yet, RF, so that you can find WMDs that prove Iraq breaking 1441?

Is carying your big wobbly belly, hampering you, RF?

Don't let it.

Run to Iraq, RF!

Run!