A wider expansion could be "possibly injurious" to the Council's effectiveness, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said.
---
This guy has got to go... and so does the UN. It's time has passed.
What effectiveness? At fleecing its mian memer states of their money so they can piss it away on corruption, hookers and drugs?
2 posted on
06/16/2005 9:58:56 AM PDT by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ...... The War on Terrorism is the ultimate 'faith-based' initiative.)
To: NormsRevenge
This guy [Nicholas Burns]
has got to goAs if changing a mouthpiece would make any difference? You know who's really doing the talking, don't you?
6 posted on
06/16/2005 10:16:06 AM PDT by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: NormsRevenge
If we can't get rid of the UN then what.
Get rid of France since their no longer viable as a world power.
Get rid of the corruption by replacing Koffee Anus and most of the UN brass.
8 posted on
06/16/2005 10:29:38 AM PDT by
OKIEDOC
(LL THE)
To: NormsRevenge
They're talking about Japan and India.
France should get booted. Perhaps Russia too.
The UN needs to write a Constitution like our Constitution.
9 posted on
06/16/2005 10:29:53 AM PDT by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/canadahealthcare.htm)
To: NormsRevenge
If you contribute to world security in a major way you should be on the security council, if not, you have no business being there. France should not be on the security council at all. Europe has too many seats to even consider Germany.
To: NormsRevenge
I vote for Australia and Poland.
17 posted on
06/16/2005 10:51:58 AM PDT by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: NormsRevenge
Some of the smaller countries like France should be relieved of permanent status.
18 posted on
06/16/2005 10:55:08 AM PDT by
bert
(Rename Times Square......... Rudy Square. Just in.... rename the Washington Post March??)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson