Article

2003-11-05 Fifth Column

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-11-05 10:52:29 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 whether the U.N. could assume responsibilities at least on paper for the security operations

How about seeing if the UN can do a better job of providing security for just their buildings in Iraq first, then re-visit the issue.

As an aside to Bill Clinton, "STFU!!!"

Posted by snellenr 2003-11-5 10:59:25 AM|| 2003-11-5 10:59:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 How about we see if the UN can get control of the corruption and slavery rings being run out of its offices?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-5 11:45:51 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-5 11:45:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Who the hell gives a rat's ass what Clinton thinks?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-5 11:51:04 AM|| 2003-11-5 11:51:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Can't miss you Bill if you won't go away...

Posted by tu3031 2003-11-5 12:10:43 PM|| 2003-11-5 12:10:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Someday, somewhere, someone will finally get through to Bill: We don't want you any more. Get out of our face. Go away, far, far away.

In the meantime, we all have to put up with this loser that caused no small part of the problem until he either hits on someone's wife once too often, or he says the wrong thing in the wrong place, and someone offs him.

Early onset Alzheimers would be a horrible thing to wish on anyone, but Bill's pushing the limits.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-5 12:20:01 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-5 12:20:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Maybe Clinton has been talking to Gen Jones USMC: NATO Commander Sees Proactive Missions

Posted by Super Hose 2003-11-5 12:25:18 PM|| 2003-11-5 12:25:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I doubt that Clinton speaks to any military besides his puppet Clark

Posted by Frank G 2003-11-5 12:45:33 PM|| 2003-11-5 12:45:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Maybe instead of locking up Presidential papers for 60 years, we should lock up the Presidents themselves. If they can't manage to STFU, as all their predecessors (save one, anyway) did.

Posted by mojo 2003-11-5 12:54:52 PM|| 2003-11-5 12:54:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 He brought this up at a C-Span show w/Bob Dole last week. Dole agreed that a NATO ran force w/UN as the umbrella was a good idea. In theory not a bad idea, but in practice probably not the right move right now.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-5 1:49:10 PM|| 2003-11-5 1:49:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Damn, someone send him to Iraq and have his convoy take a "wrong" turn.

Posted by Charles 2003-11-5 2:16:16 PM|| 2003-11-5 2:16:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 But, when the rubber hits the road, WE are NAT0. The rest of them shmucks are worthless (not counting the Brits, of course).

See, Bill is really on our side after all. He just needs to speak in "code" as were lest Hillary smacks him up the side the head ( risking injury to Monica).

What a guy.

Posted by Michael 2003-11-5 3:42:06 PM|| 2003-11-5 3:42:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 And who, exactly, from NATO is going to do this?

UK? Already in. France? hahahaha. Germany? hehehehe. Turkey? They said they'd help, but the Iraqis don't want them. Greece? Give me a break.
Italy? Already in.

This is pure BS from the King of BS.

Posted by R. McLeod 2003-11-5 4:41:09 PM|| 2003-11-5 4:41:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 True Mr. McLeod... but if NATO worked thru the commiteee process and vetteed it up to the secondary FM level and then took 20% percent off the top there would be buy in. In which case.. UK already in... France Hahahaha, Germany? hehehehe, Turkey? they'd be massing forces at the border.

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-5 4:52:26 PM|| 2003-11-5 4:52:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Can someone send him an intern or two so he will STFU!

Posted by CrazyFool 2003-11-5 10:26:10 PM|| 2003-11-5 10:26:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 But if it were NATO running the security under a UN mandate wouldn't it mean participation by France and Germany and full participation by other western Eueopean countries instead of token forces? Sounds like a good idea to me--what is the downside?

Posted by NotMikeMoore 2003-11-5 11:40:22 PM|| 2003-11-5 11:40:22 PM|| Front Page Top

12:32 alaskasoldier
08:34 Brian (MN)
07:53 B
04:42 Super Hose
04:08 Bulldog
04:01 Bulldog
00:12 NotMikeMoore
00:07 NotMikeMoore
23:56 NotMikeMoore
23:52 Uncle Joe
23:51 Alaska Paul
23:46 Grunter
23:46 NotMikeMoore
23:40 NotMikeMoore
23:36 Bomb-a-rama
23:34 NotMikeMoore
23:30 NotMikeMoore
23:29 Mike Kozlowski
23:22 Dev
23:19 marek
23:15 NotMikeMoore
23:04 NotMikeMoore
23:01 NotMikeMoore
22:55 NotMikeMoore