----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 8:35 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
> > -------Original Message------- > From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The UN Resolution says "serious consequences", it doesn't say "war". The consequence "war" is merely America's interpretation of the phrase "serious consequences"; the various UN members are not in agreement about the how it > should be interpreted. > ****************************************************** > > Get real. > > Every person in the world new exactly what the US meant when it wrote the words "serious consequences." Right, but everyone also knows that the US would have preferred to write something along the lines of: <quote from 678> Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; <end quote> The meaning that the US gives to 1441 is the clear and plain interpretation of the text. It is indeed the interpretation that makes the most sense. At the very least, these consequences would involve significantly more than heavy bombing and intrusive inspections. However, 1441 has wiggle room for France and Russia. Otherwise they would not have voted for it. Its interesting that they are not using this wiggle room, but are instead arguing for a position (a little progress is being made, so we should continue inspections) that is not in 1441. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
