Skip to comments.
POWELL TO U.N.: BUTT OUT
New York Post ^
| 3/27/03
| DEBORAH ORIN
Posted on 03/27/2003 2:21:35 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:12:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
To: kattracks
Chirac's plan last weekend was even more bizarre:
...the U.N. (e.g. France) would run the oil-for-food programs etc., but the U.S. and Brits alone would pick up the reconstruction tab for the "illegal war."
21
posted on
03/27/2003 4:04:15 AM PST
by
angkor
To: George W. Bush
The U.N. has to be excluded. France and Germany and Russia have to be excluded Agreed! I am reminded of a crime scene with tape surrounding it to keep people from corrupting any evidence that may be on premesis. Iraq is the crime scene and France, Germany, Russia and the U.N. are possible suspects. They NEED to be kept out!
22
posted on
03/27/2003 4:06:14 AM PST
by
peteram
To: kattracks
the United Nations failed to live up to its responsibilities in confronting Saddam, meaning its more or less on probation now. Huzzah!
To: kattracks
Get US Out of the United NationsIn God We Trust
..Semper Fi
To: kattracks
Powell?s tough talk signaled that the Bush administration is ready to take a hard line with the United Nations after it failed to get tough with Saddam or enforce 17 resolutions demanding he disarm. A stronger message to the UN could not be sent. It raises the bar for compliance on N. Korea, and terrorism, and lays out the consequences for abbrogation.
25
posted on
03/27/2003 4:25:35 AM PST
by
Starwind
To: goldstategop
I certainly hope we keep our resolve. My [limited] understanding is that going towards the UN at all is for Blair's sake. That didn't work out none too well last time. We should not compound the problem this time by allowing petticoated Chirac and the other "nancies" the opportunity to harp and carp.
We should "little red hen" this next phase: The UN wouldn't help plant, grow, harvest or grind this wheat; they can't have any of the bread.
26
posted on
03/27/2003 4:32:28 AM PST
by
Adder
To: kattracks
"We would not support . . . essentially handing everything over to the U.N. for someone designated by the U.N. to suddenly become in charge of the whole operation," Powell added. He's not saying that there is no role for the U.N. What he's saying is that we will not give carte blanche to the U.N. to put whomever they want in charge of reconstruction. In other words, don't think for a moment that France, Russia, and China are going to run this. But if the management is more acceptable to the U.S., we'll accept a U.N. role.
27
posted on
03/27/2003 4:35:07 AM PST
by
XJarhead
To: kattracks
you're either with us, or you're against usPresident Bush didn't draw a line in the sand, he drew a line on the globe.
Terrific President, Outstanding Administration
28
posted on
03/27/2003 4:43:53 AM PST
by
PGalt
To: gulfcoast6; XJarhead
Could be the end of the UN has started. The end of the UN started a lot earlier with France's statement that they would veto any resolution that resulted in war.
In other words, don't think for a moment that France, Russia, and China are going to run this.
Note to Kofi Anan:
Dear Kofi:
Eat this!
29
posted on
03/27/2003 4:47:22 AM PST
by
Ole Okie
To: kattracks
Based on past experience, Powell is a globalist. His allegiance toward the ideal of nationhood is absent. He bows to the notion of an unelected world governing body.
His words to Congress are standard Situational Ethics 101 - tell 'em anything, if it accomplishes the purpose.
As daily practitioners of the big lie, Congress couldn't see the truth if it was stained into a blue dress.
I would sooner trust a rattlesnake than tust Powell.
To: kattracks
I have long been under the pressure that control of Iraq was the UN's goal anyway. And that they would use American military resources, money and equipment to gain that. They would then badmouth the US and have control of all that oil to further their attempts at global world body domination.
Bill Clinton and other Commucrats will start to have a collective cow because of this.
31
posted on
03/27/2003 5:25:26 AM PST
by
grumple
To: artios
Look for a proposal to move the UN to Iraq after the war!
To: kattracks
Bush has often pulled on a military-style jacket when speaking to troops but this time, perhaps to reflect the solemnity that this is real wartime, the commander-in-chief wore a jacket and tie with a crisp white shirt. Daschle: "This just serves to prove this administration's insensitivity to the painful issues of race confronting this country, in light of the fact that Americans of all stripes are now risking their lives in the field of battle. Extremely disappointing."
To: kattracks; sweetliberty; TheBattman; wirestripper
Oh gee, now I'm getting scared. What if the UN decides to invade the U.S. and
force us to do their bidding?
I can just see hoards of troops with blue berrettes marching down our main streets, forcing us to surrender and bow to their will!
Gosh, maybe I should hide under my bed.
34
posted on
03/27/2003 5:48:20 AM PST
by
Budge
(God Bless FReepers!)
To: kattracks
"The commander-in-chief was greeted rock-star style with cheers, whoops and whistles by troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., where Central Command - which is running the war - is based."
His welcome was awesome and genuine - could not help compare their enthusiasm to that which usually greeted Clinton. . .
God Bless our Military!
. . .and thank God, GW and Colin Powell, we are 'stuffing the UN' just as they deserve to be 'stuffed'.
35
posted on
03/27/2003 6:17:32 AM PST
by
cricket
To: kattracks
Not many people have ever overplayed their hand to the extent that ChIraq did. He went waaaaay out on a limb and couldn't stop it from breaking off. His insufferable ego and arrogance led him to where he is now, and he has absolutely no one to blame but himself. Pride does indeed come before a fall.
36
posted on
03/27/2003 6:22:01 AM PST
by
laz17
(Socialism is the religion of the atheist.)
To: artios
2) UN responds by becoming an aggressive in your face, take no prisoners "obey us or we will be a "preventive" invading force in the future - bad thing Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Really? Oh ho ho ho ha ahahahahahahahahahaha
Dude, stop. You're killing me! LMAO
What are they going to send, the Fifth Column of the Peoples Repubic of Outer Turdistan? Perhaps they can get the French to train them in the proper warfare tactics of Surrender so no one has to get hurt in any confict.
37
posted on
03/27/2003 6:28:26 AM PST
by
Area51
To: Area51; artios
2) UN responds by becoming an aggressive in your face, take no prisoners "obey us or we will be a "preventive" invading force in the future - bad thing
Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Really? Oh ho ho ho ha ahahahahahahahahahaha
Dude, stop. You're killing me! LMAO
What are they going to send, the Fifth Column of the Peoples Repubic of Outer Turdistan? Perhaps they can get the French to train them in the proper warfare tactics of Surrender so no one has to get hurt in any confict.
This was way funnier than my, "No, we have a veto too."
To: kattracks
Way to go Colin...
39
posted on
03/27/2003 2:29:03 PM PST
by
RnMomof7
To: kattracks
Has the globalist socialist Powell turned over a new leaf? We shall see. It was a BIG MISTAKE in the first place to take this to the United Nothing. Wasn't that Powell's idea?? What it did was put our troops in more danger by giving Sodom more time to arm himself and set traps for our precious American warriors. It's a little late now Colin - the damage is done.
40
posted on
03/27/2003 2:35:37 PM PST
by
exmarine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson