SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : DON'T START THE WAR

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Vitas who wrote (10806)2/21/2003 2:26:55 AM
From: PartyTime  Read Replies (3) of 25898
 
First, the Security Council is acting within the mandate of UN Resolution 1441, and has acted accordingly since its inception. Thta you choose to interpret it differently than the ministers themsevles is, at best, odd. But then again, you're blindly supporting the president and nothing will convince you otherwise, including the Ministers of the Security Council.

Second, perhaps when you read Bob Woodward's recent book about the Bush Administration and understand the Administration's Iraq perspective, you'll realize that UN Resolution 1441 is merely a snag in their plans.

Third, here's an progressive update for you:

* The declaration was made within the prescribed deadline.
* The inspections began as prescribed in the resolution.
* The report was delivered as prescribed.
* Upon delivery of the report, an overwhelming majority of the ministers of the Security Council (warmongers, by the way, agreed the inspections should continue.
* A second report, as requested by the ministers, was delivered.
* Again, an overwhelming majority of the ministers of the Security Council (the warmongers lost again) agreed that the inspections should continue.
* A new report date is set.
* A second resolution for use of military force is now being drafted by the US and Britain.

Fourth, if what you're claiming is true then there'd be no need for any inspections at all, and any subsequent inspection report would be meaningless.

Fifth, here are the verbatim transcripts of the last meeting, a meeting at which Hans Blix did not pronounce Iraq in "non-compliance."

Sixth, the penalty phrase as worded in 1441 is that non-compliance would mean "serious consequences." In no way can this be interpreted--except by you for emotional reasons only--as meaning that non-compliance "SHALL cause the United Nations to sanction the use of military force against Iraq in order to achive compliance." Any lawyer worth his beans would easily know the difference and operative meaning of serious consequences as opposed to shall force compliance.

Anyway, this is too much work. If you don't want to get then you don't want to get it. And that's the way it is. I'm not wasting my time with you on this issue any longer, so accept it or reject it--I don't care!
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext