WARNING: This is a high volume ping list
Posted on 09/12/2004 6:14:23 PM PDT by kcar
WARNING: This is a high volume ping list
btttttttt
Prolly the way it all went down. Hizbuallah paid off the Indian UN troops who were stationed back then at the Leb border.
2. The IDF is clearly justified in considering UN forces as potential enemies. Shoot first, sort sh!t out later.
later
WHAT!? A UN ambulance waited for a terrorist attck so that they could immediately help the terrorists?
Agreed. The UN is the enemy of the US as well (or of any proud and sovereign nation). I worried the whole convention about the security holes possibly created by our UN ambassadors. Get thee to Africa or Europe.
Why is this not in the news?
Why do we let the UN do this?
Why are we still in the UN?
This is the entity, chock full of our enemies, that Kerry wants to go, hat in hand to, to request permission to defend ourselves.
THAT, Miss Pie, is the key to the whole enchilada with Bush vs Kerry.
Im just disappointed Bush hasnt (yet) told the UN the US is outa there...seems he wanted to...
Wanna read the best speech of his Presidency? Read or listen to the Three Pillars speech at Whitehall Palace in England. Among many other valid points, he questions the legitimacy of the UN.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031119-1.html
This is the link to the video and audio of this, one of the greatest speeches Bush has given during his Presidency.
Its long, but awesome. If you listen to it, Freepmail me with your comments.
The U.N. is like a tar baby, hard to decide if unsticking oneself is a better idea than staying and attempting to control their damage.
If the U.S. leaves the U.N. and loses it's veto power, the U.N. will quickly impose a world tax on international travel and money transactions, making itself independent of it's reliance on U.S. money.
The smart move would be to end trade with any nation accepting or supporting any type of U.N. taxation. The chances of that working looks better when the communist news media and their howling gets put out to pasture.
An excerpt....
"On September the 11th, 2001, terrorists left their mark of murder on my country, and took the lives of 67 British citizens. With the passing of months and years, it is the natural human desire to resume a quiet life and to put that day behind us, as if waking from a dark dream. The hope that danger has passed is comforting, is understanding, and it is false. The attacks that followed -- on Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombassa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad, and Istanbul -- were not dreams. They're part of the global campaign by terrorist networks to intimidate and demoralize all who oppose them.
These terrorists target the innocent, and they kill by the thousands. And they would, if they gain the weapons they seek, kill by the millions and not be finished. The greatest threat of our age is nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists, and the dictators who aid them. The evil is in plain sight. The danger only increases with denial. Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. We will face these threats with open eyes, and we will defeat them.
America and Great Britain have done, and will do, all in their power to prevent the United Nations from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance and inviting the fate of the League of Nations.
It's not enough to meet the dangers of the world with resolutions; we must meet those dangers with resolve.
The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to restrain aggression and evil by force. There are principled objections to the use of force in every generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views.
Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend them. And that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men. In some cases, the measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force.
And who will say that Iraq was better off when Saddam Hussein was strutting and killing, or that the world was safer when he held power?
Who doubts that Afghanistan is a more just society and less dangerous without Mullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world.
Peoples of the Middle East share a high civilization, a religion of personal responsibility, and a need for freedom as deep as our own.
It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it.
We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay a bitter cost of casualties, and liberate 25 million people, only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins.
We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East. And by doing so, we will defend our people from danger.
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.