Clearly no deadline is noted in UN 1441, and anyone without an agenda reading the UN document would agree.
Vitas, you remind me of the hate bug in the Doctor Who Comic book who kept claiming "I hate everything!" At least that appears how you've postured yourself with me in this debate on whether to go to war in Iraq, or not. You seem to hate everything I write and say. So be it, I can't take your bum trip for you.
That established, you're gonna hate the proof that's now in this pudding. For your enjoyment and intellectual persusion, please read and learn:
>>>U.S. and British officials said Wednesday the short resolution, to be circulated later this week or early next week, would declare Iraq in "material breach" of its U.N. obligations to completely eliminate its weapons of mass destruction -- a determination that can be used as legal justification for the use of military force.<<<
"A determination that can be used as legal justification for the use of military force." Now, had UN 1441 explicitly stated this, well then I'd agree with you. You do understand that "serious consequences" means nothing like what's described at the beginning of this paragraph.
>>>"It is time for the Security Council to consider a resolution that says Iraq is in material breach," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte<<<
Whereas you, and Bush, are making a claim Iraq already is in material breach, that doesn't matter. What matters is the UN has to declare so. I'm surprised you couldn't understand this earlier. It was so plain and clear.
newsday.com |
