"J. van Baardwijk" wrote:
>
> At 22:34 7-3-2003 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> >And if you can't understand the difference between the two types of
> >resolution when it's spelled out for you for the third time,
>
> Until a few days ago I didn't even know there were two types of resolution.
> I can assure you that I do understand the difference between them (and did
> so from the first time it was mentioned).
Your post did not indicate such an understanding. And I thought you were a
lot brighter than that, so I assumed that there was some other reason you
seemed to fail to understand, hence my response.
> I just don't think that it makes sense to have two types of resolution. I
> mean, what's the point of making a resolution if you can't enforce it? It's
> just a waste of time and money then; such a system turns the UN into a
> paper tiger.
Maybe there's a limited number of things the UN wants to try to back with
force. Other resolutions may indicate a general consensus as to what most
everyone would *like* to have happen, but are not willing to commit their
military forces to enforce.
As for the UN being a paper tiger, there are people who believe that's true
anyway.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
