To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"Take the question of security. I don't think the U.N. would want to take on that," Annan said. "There has been a suggestion that the U.N. wanted to take over the whole Iraq and run it, which was also not the case." What the United Nations could contribute beyond humanitarian assistance was "political facilitation," Annan said.BS. Annan tries to grab power whenever he can. He's admitting defeat.
2 posted on
05/02/2003 8:49:44 PM PDT by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Limit?
Limit UN?
What UN?
They're history. Obsolete. Gone.
If we don't pull out of there and stop this "yank-our-chain" nonsense we might as well start buying "French" fries again, instead of "FREEDOM" fries.
3 posted on
05/02/2003 9:29:00 PM PDT by
MeekMom
((HUGE Ann Coulter Fan!!!) (Life-long Python Addict))
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
hear, hear, the UN is worthless.....
5 posted on
05/03/2003 6:59:34 AM PDT by
The Wizard
(Saddamocrats are enemies of America, treasonous everytime they speak)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said this week that the body has no interest in policing a postwar Iraq, although it could contribute to the political resuscitation of the country. Under NO circumstances, should the UN have anything to do with politics in Iraq.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson