2007-10-31 00:10:35 · 8 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Unfortunately, it is still valid. And should the UN revoke Bullshit's immunity for war crimes, an amazing thing would happen: Bullshit would adopt Ron Paul's view on quitting the UN...
2007-10-31 00:20:03 · answer #1 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Simplified the UN ... IS ... the USA.
No decision without, no initiative either.
It became a convenient blamegame target
for spamtards - including Onan Office, like
"highest priority for us is to enforce UN resolutionXX"
flipflopping to "the UN is meaningless" sulking next day.
( we knew that already, as un-enforced resolution 242 shows.)
They do not set Bush on spot though,
(equal rights as for the Iranian president)
won't charge him and are not intended to,
not even for cultivating stupidity and sycophants.
2007-10-31 07:31:12 · answer #2 · answered by fabhra 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He has not been charged by the UN, to my knowledge, he (Bush) has however been indicted in Japan for war crimes.
2007-10-31 07:13:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
In case you hadn't noticed in history, the guys with all the guns don't get brought up on war crimes...not that I think Bush is resposnsible for any crimes, but even if someone did it would be unenforceable....duh! I know your question was just being a pot stirrer.
2007-10-31 07:30:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
The UN has no power over President Bush.
2007-10-31 07:13:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Do you mean the United Notions?
I Cr 13;8a
2007-10-31 17:26:30 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President Bush has committed no crimes, war or otherwise, and the UN is nothing more than an organization of stooges for third world crackpots. There's no imunity to be revoked.
2007-10-31 07:15:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 7⤋
move on will ya? get over it..
2007-10-31 07:15:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋