Current Events » in reply to the UN needs the US we don't need the UN especially when ruled by hidden agendas and motives

The whole thread (41 posts)

• Bush U.N. speech persuades few - Don - 9/24/2003 4:56:22 AM
  • Meanwhile: Baghdad Blasts Undermine Bush Bid for Iraq Backing - Don - 9/24/2003 2:06:34 PM
    • is this some of your primo evidence we should let the UN take over? - Buster - 9/24/2003 10:10:10 PM
    • And: One Year After Dossier, UK Intelligence Under Fire - Don - 9/24/2003 2:12:38 PM
  • Bush refuses to kiss U.N. ass - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 6:32:09 AM
    • Why did he address the UN, then? - alcaray - 9/24/2003 5:28:41 PM
      • can't answer a simple question can you? - Buster - 9/25/2003 1:13:47 AM
        • Read Mary Anne's simple answer. Don't get why you think it's such a hard question. (n/t) - alcaray - 9/25/2003 4:28:22 PM
          • I don't. you're the one that didn't answer it (n/t) - Buster - 9/25/2003 10:53:40 PM
            • All right, knucklehead - alcaray - 9/25/2003 11:38:06 PM
              • Meaningless arguments - Tom Brosz - 9/26/2003 12:00:11 AM
                • If you assert that none of the items on my list are valid... - alcaray - 9/26/2003 3:55:46 PM
                  • Whoa...just noticed a big chunk of my post disappeared. - Tom Brosz - 9/26/2003 8:39:22 PM
        • A couple benefits of UN support that we don't have - Mary Anne - 9/25/2003 12:27:25 PM
          • your faulty assumption is - Buster - 9/25/2003 11:03:24 PM
            • Fortune telling - Mary Anne - 9/26/2003 1:51:05 AM
              • re: Fortune telling - gbaikie - 9/27/2003 2:03:07 AM
          • re: UN support - Tom Brosz - 9/25/2003 4:32:00 PM
            • The third alternative - Mary Anne - 9/25/2003 5:49:42 PM
      • re: Why did he address the UN, then? - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 5:37:38 PM
        • re: "He went in front of them to lay out a reasonable approach to bringing Iraq into the community of nations." - alcaray - 9/24/2003 9:23:31 PM
          • Reconstruction plan - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 10:13:36 PM
            • I really don't agree that the UN is happy with the current state of affairs (n/t) - alcaray - 9/24/2003 10:36:04 PM
              • you no doubt base this on their rush to help Iraq right? Only someone satisfied with the satus quo would do nothing but make chest beating speeches (n/t) - Buster - 9/25/2003 12:59:35 AM
                • Huh? (n/t) - alcaray - 9/25/2003 4:29:51 PM
                  • the sarcasm escaped you - Buster - 9/26/2003 11:36:11 PM
    • Perhaps you are asking the wrong question - McFly - 9/24/2003 2:22:07 PM
      • re: the wrong question - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 5:32:06 PM
        • re: the wrong question - gbaikie - 9/24/2003 11:42:06 PM
          • Whoa. Good point. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 11:58:05 PM
      • But you are offering the right answer - Don - 9/24/2003 2:49:13 PM
    • re: No - Raoul - 9/24/2003 12:20:42 PM
  • Bush’s U.N. fiasco - Don - 9/24/2003 4:59:35 AM
    • the UN needs the US we don't need the UN especially when ruled by hidden agendas and motives - Buster - 9/24/2003 6:47:45 AM
      • Rome didn't need no outside help, neither! (n/t) - LJ - 9/24/2003 3:42:34 PM
        • not until internal strife and ineptidude made it weak - Buster - 9/25/2003 1:05:43 AM
      • So why is it that... - Don - 9/24/2003 1:31:27 PM
        • you confuse what is desirable with what is necessary. The US can do it alone albeit with a little pain. The UN is squat without the US. (n/t) - Buster - 9/25/2003 1:02:00 AM
        • Can we clear something up? - Tom Brosz - 9/24/2003 5:40:28 PM
          • Because he IS, but he DIDN'T (n/t) - LJ - 9/24/2003 6:01:32 PM
            • we should impeach anyone who dares learn from mistakes eh? - Buster - 9/25/2003 1:16:59 AM