Skip to comments.
Breaking: U.S. Vetoes Security Council Resolution Condemning Israel in Gaza
Fox news ^
Posted on 07/13/2006 12:40:47 PM PDT by slowhand520
that's it for now
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2006israelwar; gaza; israel; israelagressor; oil4food4tyrants; proisrael; un; unsecuritycouncil; usastepsinit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-116 next last
To: slowhand520
Saw this coming. France is in tears, I'm sure.
2
posted on
07/13/2006 12:41:47 PM PDT
by
proud_yank
(Truth to liberals is as useful as a snowblower in hell.)
To: slowhand520
Why is the UN always so preictable?
UN out of the US.
US out of the UN.
3
posted on
07/13/2006 12:41:55 PM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
("Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny. "--Aeschylus)
To: slowhand520
4
posted on
07/13/2006 12:41:56 PM PDT
by
oldleft
To: slowhand520
To: slowhand520
To: slowhand520
7
posted on
07/13/2006 12:42:31 PM PDT
by
sionnsar
(†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Iran Azadi | SONY: 5yst3m 0wn3d, N0t Y0urs | NYT:Jihadi Journal)
To: slowhand520
8
posted on
07/13/2006 12:42:42 PM PDT
by
SlowBoat407
(What is our exit strategy in the war on poverty?)
To: slowhand520
YeeHah! John Bolton's got a pair!
9
posted on
07/13/2006 12:42:45 PM PDT
by
CholeraJoe
(A brevet or a coffin! Mors ab alto.)
To: slowhand520
Close down that filthy pest-hole Now! UN out, out, out!
10
posted on
07/13/2006 12:42:52 PM PDT
by
claudiustg
(dou•ble•think ('d&-b&l-"thi[ng]k), noun, 1949: a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.)
To: proud_yank
11
posted on
07/13/2006 12:43:05 PM PDT
by
roaddog727
(Bullsh## doesn't get bridges built.)
To: slowhand520
what was the breakdown on the other votes?
To: slowhand520
Freakin UN.
13
posted on
07/13/2006 12:43:56 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(I'm trying to think but nothing happens)
To: slowhand520
if the United States didn't have a veto, Israel would probably be attacked (by stronger countries and groups than a bunch of Southwest Asian Muslims).
To: oceanview
That's a good question ... and if China and/or Russia were on the other side of the vote, any chance they might "editorialize" on our veto in an upcoming vote on Iran?
15
posted on
07/13/2006 12:44:29 PM PDT
by
Mac94
To: slowhand520
Good. At least we're still on the right side. When will the other nations learn, ya' just don't mess with Israel.
16
posted on
07/13/2006 12:44:35 PM PDT
by
Jemian
(PAM of JT ~~ Thanks for putting our boys in harms way, Rep. Murtha, you treasonous jack@ss!)
To: slowhand520
UN = Unnecessary Nonsense.
17
posted on
07/13/2006 12:47:01 PM PDT
by
msnimje
(There is no way we can lose if we stay in Iraq and no way we can win if we cut and run.)
To: CholeraJoe
YeeHah! John Bolton's got a pair!Now if his boss would get around to using his very first veto in his own country!
To: CholeraJoe
No doubt, but I thought he was on his was over there. No matter, whoever was representing the US at the time would vote the same way for that no-brainer.
19
posted on
07/13/2006 12:48:24 PM PDT
by
NonValueAdded
(Go home and fix Mexico)
To: claudiustg
I agree. Bolton doesn't need a pair to veto this. The UN is a farce and we are their fools as long as we keep giving them the impression that they are important. I personally will be embarrassed when we go hat in hand begging the UN for sanctions against Iran. Their useless UN forces rape little girls and we ask for their approval before we take action. Just shut it down and send the useless bastards back to their third world countries.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-116 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson