Muammar Khaddaffy takes charge of the UN's "Human Rights" subcommittee

[Frimost]

Libya chairs human rights body

They say Bush is making the UN ill relevant…Bullshit, the UN made itself ill relevant a LONG TIME AGO.

 

[Cleopatra]

Libya chairs human rights body

They say Bush is making the UN ill relevant…Bullshit, the UN made itself ill relevant a LONG TIME AGO.

*ironic hysterical laughter*

 

[Somme]

what an interesting concept, concidering that most of the vetos of the past years came from the US......?...72 all told, unless I'm drastically wrong
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm

 

[Viper Vic]

what an interesting concept, concidering that most of the vetos of the past years came from the US......?...72 all told, unless I'm drastically wrong
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm

You may be correct, the UN has become increasingly anti-US. So the vetoes were probably a good thing.

 

[Frimost]

No shit the UN is anti-US, who the fuck came up with the idea of putting Syria on the Security Council anyway?

And why does France even have veto power as well? India is much larger and more powerful then those surrender monkeys.

 

[sexyguy2]

Frimost,

I take it your spelling of "irrelevant" was on purpose?

As for Libya and the UNHR committee, think of wolves guarding sheep.

 

[Frimost]

They’re lack of relevance makes me ill. lol
The UN always seems to make my gut churn.

 

[JazzManJim]

And for additional yucks, Iraq is slated to be the next chair of the UN committee that handles disarmament.

 

[Spinaroonie]

And for additional yucks, Iraq is slated to be the next chair of the UN committee that handles disarmament.

No they're not. They were taken out of rotation a while back. Get with the times, Jimmie.

 

[Spinaroonie]

You may be correct, the UN has become increasingly anti-US. So the vetoes were probably a good thing.

How is vetoing such things as basic medicine and school desks "probably" a good thing?

 

[JazzManJim]

No they're not. They were taken out of rotation a while back. Get with the times, Jimmie.

Yes. They are.

At least that's what the UN says.

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

You may be correct, the UN has become increasingly anti-US. So the vetoes were probably a good thing.

It's not the UN that is anti-US, it's the United States government. Apparently the interests of big oil and Israel have a higher priority than the interests of the American people, but what can we expect from a president who was not elected.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Yes. They are.

At least that's what the UN says.

Like I said in my original post - Get with the times.

All of your sources rmnuary, before Iraq was removed from the rotation. But don't take my word for it.. would you accept Former Senator Robert Dole's?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/16/60minutes/main544160.shtml

But, all in all, nice try. I mean, news is news, isn't it? Who REALLY cares about it being current or accurate?

 

[Somme]

It's not the UN that is anti-US, it's the United States government. Apparently the interests of big oil and Israel have a higher priority than the interests of the American people, but what can we expect from a president who was not elected.

It appears to be so, doesn't it?