yardie
Member

Registered: Feb 2000
Location:
Posts: 1571 |
Yes. I understand what the reslution says. But what is serious consequences? It can be anything. It was vague for a reason. If the resolution has said or face war or an invasion or military action do you think it would have passed? I think not.
I don't think I understand your milquetoasts statement so I cannot comment on that. 
quote: Originally posted by MarkEagle
Resolution 1441 said: prove there are no (not "let us look for") weapons of mass destruction or "face serious consequences"... where's the water in that? It may not be specific in terms of time, or what those "consequences" are, but I don't see how it's watered down.
Are you suggesting that the UN Security Council is made up of a bunch of milquetoast's?
The use of force was NOT what France, Russia, etc, were complaining about. Didn't they all want to see more time given to diplomacy (and the inspectors) first?
Everyone MINUS one...
__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
|