Try to read my posts in context. I was responding to someone's remarks about the UN. My #10 was in response to #5, where someone said the UN would be involved. I responded that in addition to harsh words, there'd be a time out. (What one would expect from the UN, yes?) I think all three of you owe man an apology.
"Try to read my posts in context. I was responding to someone's remarks about the UN. My #10 was in response to #5, where someone said the UN would be involved. I responded that in addition to harsh words, there'd be a time out. (What one would expect from the UN, yes?) I think all three of you owe man an apology."
My response wasn't to your post specifically as much as to a disparaging trend I was seeing. I was reading your post when it hit critical mass. I don't recall anything in what you said that didn't seem to be about Blair; if it was aimed at the UN, fire away as far as I'm concerned - although having a unanimous opposition if it is available CAN mean something, like showing the Iranian people that their regime has seriously overplayed its hand.
It might help to avoid confusion and misunderstandings if you include reference to what you're responding to. I find it awkward to try to constantly flip back and forth between posts to see what the writer's train of thought is. Just my lazy way, but it helps.
For now, no apologies. I think Blair's playing it just right, and have no doubts about his willingness and ability to use necessary force at a time and conditions of his choosing. If he is able to actually use the UN, he'd be making a silk purse out of a sow's bunghole, but God bless him.