Really gone after Osama in Afghanistan, his longtime friend and business association with Osama's brother Salem, and stayed out of Iraq. A coalition of one is not conducive to international support.
2007-02-28 17:56:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by michaelsan 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
What I found funny is that they made a statement that they were not going into Iraq as the United States but as the "Coalition of the Willing"! This coalition of the willing comprised of coutries that have enough problems of their own. These included Afghanistan, Turkey, Ethiopia, Latvia, Estonia etc.
In hindsight this should have been called the "Coalition of the Unwilling" because Bush and his team probably didnt leave them too much choice. I can only imagine what they offered them as incentives?
They just should have let Hans Blix and his team do their jobs and let the United Nations do their job. Instead they went on the rampage and acted like renegades by going after Iraq alone.
NB. Big up to France and Germany for standing up to the US even if Rumsfeld called the "Old Europe" by choosing to stay out of this mess.
2007-02-28 18:32:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Wanda 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Let's be honest: the United Nations is a We Hate America club. The only time that the United States is even remotely tolerated is when we are doing their bidding ( or their fighting). Unless we bow the the power that they think that they have they will never be happy with us or this nation, regardless of who is in charge.
2007-02-28 18:00:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by utopian citizen 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Dont be fooled the UN is behind a lot more that it appears
same as the Bilderberg group check them out in the browsers or on www.infowars
2007-02-28 18:01:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
When have we ever got support from the UN. They will support us when we surrender to them. Just take a look at who is on the Security Council. Clue, our enemies.
2007-02-28 17:59:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by ric9757 3
·
1⤊
0⤋