Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lou Weed who wrote (93991)	4/16/2003 6:02:21 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

if the language was so clear why the need for GW and Blair to spend weeks on the phone trying to get 9 members of the council to authorize a war Let's see, how could the Security Council have misunderstood the meaning of 'serious consequences'. Could have been the speech George Bush gave to the UN on September 12, that might have given it away. Or, perhaps the act approving war against Iraq approved by the Senate and the Congress before the vote on 1441. Maybe the aircraft carriers on their way to the Gulf might have shed some light on the matter. There wasn't a single person in the world, including the 15 who voted, who didn't understand what 'serious consequences' meant. Nice try, though. I had to like the UN there for a second. Paul