:
Posted on 09/11/2002 9:10:08 PM PDT by USA21
They should change their focus to sharing recipes. All they do is blame us for everything and then turn for help when in trouble. They're worse than teenagers.
The UN was irrelevent to the terrorists. The UN is irrelevent to us. The UN is irrelevent.
To hear the input of the UN on this matter is about as pointless as a sperm bank seeking a donation from a castrated pervert.
Hillary as president of the U.S. and him heading up the U.N.? Hmmmm...
MM
What self agrandisment of a paper sh!t bureaucracy that has no personal responsibility nor genuine representativeness of people worldwide. The US has more interest in preserving Afghani lives than the UN, LET US FACE IT.
:
Sounds like Bush is going to present his case to the world body for it's approval.Once, just once, it would be good to have a President with enough stones to tell the UN to piss off. I guess that we must now always have international (UN) approval to do what needs doing, have a multinational coalition to do it, and follow with UN peacekeeping and civilian disarmament when done.
Amen! Although I would amend that to include only nations with a constitution that ensured a limited republican form of government. That would exclude even the U.S. under our current form, whereby the majority of laws are usurped and then upheld by judicial fiat.
Annan will tell President Bush that only the United Nations can sanction the use of forceKofi, if you want to keep that illusion going, you had better get on board and sanction the use of force then.
Sincerely, George.
uh, I don't think so. Now get out of the US!!!
CONDITION OF STAYING IN THE UN THAT ONLY DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES GET A VOTE.I would rather only countries with limited government representational republics get votes. Democracy is very overrated, and is the friend of the populist-minded leftist demagogue.
The founding fathers rightly loathed democracy.
It's become taboo to speak ill of "democracy" but that is a taboo which conservatives need to destroy.
I am no longer amused.
Or what?
It is remarkable that of all the world's conflicts, there has not been a single one where the United Nations attempted to stop senseless killing and massacres in Africa and Asia where it was obvious that the parties had no inclination to even acknowledge that there is a U.N.
So. The deal is what? posturing against "friends" is the safe thing to do?
Posturing against the main contributor?
The host country?
Can you say "delusional"?
Megalomaniac?
Absurd.
For us to be in arrears, the UN would have to have the power to tax us-which they don't.
Like what?
The endless parade of phony resolutions introduced by Muslim Mass Murderers against Israel?
The shameless posturing of international leeches just sucking on the the U.S. financial teat?
Let's move the U.N. to Africa or the Middle East, and test its real value.
Obviously, this isn't the U.N of the 1940s. or the 1950s.
I know the real U.N., and this ain't it.
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.