[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
At stake here is not whether the US will invade Iraq, but whether the UN will be relevant to world politics and opinion. Seventeen times now, they have told Saddam, "You stop that or else!" Some of these "or elses" have enumerated the consequences of not stopping. If they fail to enforce their Chapter VI (i.e., binding) resolutions, then they no longer have any authority.

So then I suppose the UN needs to follow up military action against Iraq with military action against Isreal? As another person pointed out, they've been glibly ignoring numerous UN resolutions for years. Or perhaps one can establish one's authority through non-military means, hmm?

That alone is "material breach" according to UN Sec. Council Res. 1441, which demands military repercussions.

As to whether or not this constitutes a material breach can be (and is being) argued. And furthermore, I don't remember anything about material breaches demanding military repercussions. IIRC, the word was that a material breach would have "grave consequences". Bush takes this to mean "We get to bLast 'em, an' right now!", whereas the "old" Europeans take this as "We shall pass another resolution saying that we get to bLast them, should we see fit". This double interpretation was to my knowledge generally acknowledged as the reason why the US and OE were able to agree on 1441, as it "gave" them both what they wanted...

They will be like a parent who nags his child rather than disciplines him. (Apologies to you PC types who don't like the use of the masculine gender for the neuter gender, the way English is meant to be. )

Um, no. No, no, no. English isn't meant to be anything in particular, other than whatever Anglophones make it into. There is no fixed "standard" of what English should be (no, not even the OED ), and to claim otherwise is pushing an agenda. Yes, English traditionaly used the masculine as the default gender (but not the neuter gender, mind; one can and must make a distinction 'twixt the two), but that doesn't mean that Anglophones ought to continue to speak thusly (argumentum ad antiquitatem). I'll spare you examples of analogous reasoning, but I reiterate: smiley or no, language can change, will change, and must change, and to demand that it oughtn't is naught but to jam one's finger into one of the multitude holes in the dike whilst ignoring all others...

As an aside (and likely a rant, but still), I'm annoyed by the lack of a generally recognized neuter gender in English. Yes, you can use "one", but if you speak to an average Anglophone, they'll think you're rather odd. And you can refer to people in the third-person plural, but again, if an average speaker is addressed, one will regard you strangely. And I'll admit, neither of the preceding solutions really sound "right" to my ear, tho' I personaly tend towards they-ing.

Eh, 'tis naught but the whimsy of the current structure of the language clashing with my worldview; for comparison, French has a nice, common neuter gender (tho' yes, it also has a masculine default, but word gender has slightly different implications en français), but I'm maddened by the lack of an equivalent to "Ms.". What it comes down to is that language is formed by consensus, so I either need to find a language tied to a culture that matches my worldview very tightly, bend my own langauge to my worldview, or get over it and accept that people will use and change language in ways that might trouble me...