# Bush wants the UN to clean up his mess: Fuck HIM! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 3, 2003, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266 "2003-09-03T03:32:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/81 "2003-09-03T15:51:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*If they want to start some new Neo-Saddamist party, let 'em, ala the Neo-Nazi situation in Germany. But the Baath party itself should be, and AFAIK, is, banned. \*\* Well, I agree with you there…in fact, I’d go further than you and say that we should ban any Neo-Saddamist party too. I just don’t think that a total purge of Baathists is practical or desirable. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are Baathists out there, for that matter, who joined the party for selfish reasons…not because they believed in the party or loved Saddam, but just because, to get a decent job, you had to be a member of the party. I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis…if the Baathist was involved in the terrors of the regime, ban him, and prosecute him…if not, don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/82 "2003-09-03T16:08:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > To an extent, irrelevant. It’s not like the Iraqis voted for us to be there; We are there to protect and expand our interests. 😕 I thought the US is in Iraq because of the immediate threat of WMDs. Or maybe it was because them poor Iraqis needed help to get rid of Saddam. I mean, it was all humanitarian, wasn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Ben\_Hicks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbce88/32.png) [@Ben\_Hicks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben_Hicks)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/83 "2003-09-03T16:14:36Z")
No, it was because Saddam had links to A-Quaeda, and masterminded 9/11…or something. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/84 "2003-09-03T16:20:54Z")
DtC: So let me see if I get this straight. Your worldview is such that you believe the UN is a better organization than the US for dealing with situations like Iraq. You believe that the UN could save lives of both Iraqis and non-Iraqis, but you’d rather not save those lives so that you can get back at Bush. Interesting thought process… ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/85 "2003-09-03T16:29:28Z")
Of course, what _you_ like about the stance you’ve advocated is not that it saves any lives (because it won’t), but rather that it might hurt Bush’s reelection chances. Sticking around to try and force democracy and western ideals on people who don’t want them isn’t going to solve anything, whether it’s the US or the UN or any coalition trying. Our meddling is just setting them up for a bloody civil war. Naturally, when that war comes, the interventionists will be calling for our “peacekeeping” efforts there, and all sorts of international coalitions will plow in to try to stop it, and yet more of our guys will die. We need to get the fuck out of Iraq and leave the Iraqis to the business of deciding how they want to govern themselves. If it’s an Iranian-style theocracy, so be it. Continued presence of soldiers there, whether US or UN, isn’t going to do any good. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and get out of the game. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, we have no better reason to be there now. And it’s not Bush over there in Iraq, it’s our soldiers. Those are friends and family of mine, and surely those of most Americans on this message board. Putting them under UN control only punishes _them_, not Mr. Bush. BTW, **RedFury** , no matter how bad Iraq might be now, we could leave today will the sure knowledge it’s better off than it was when we showed up. Or do you think the Iraqi people preferred pre-war Iraq (living in fear of Saddam’s secret police, being murdered and piled into mass graves) to post-war Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/86 "2003-09-03T16:30:15Z")
OK, here’s the scenario. The US withdraws immediately, and a theocratic fundamentalist group takes over Iraq and begins causing trouble in the region. The US warns them, but they still keep murdering innocent people, exporting terrorism, etc. So the US is forced to invade Iraq for the third time, kick out the terrorist thugs, and establish a new government. How about we skip a step, and simply not allow the fucking terrorists, fascists, Islamic fundamentalists, and other nogoodniks to take control of Iraq in the first place? Yes, eventually Iraq will get the sort of government it desires. But democracy is more than just holding votes. If the majority votes to murder and enslave a minority, does that make it morally correct? Of course not. If a majority of Iraqis want to install a dictatorship, does that mean we step aside and let them create that dictatorship? The most important principle of representative government is not holding elections and then doing whatever people voted for, the most important principle is the rule of law and human rights. Handing over Iraq to any sort of dictatorship, Islamic or secular, would be a betrayal of the Iraqis…even if they claim to want such a dictatorship. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/87 "2003-09-03T16:47:28Z")
**Coldfire** : not in the Constitution. The injunction against getting too entangled in the affairs of other nations appears in George Washington’s Farewell Address: > [@](#): > > Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence… > In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim. One of my favorite quotes. Thanks for giving me the opening to post it. Still, as for Iraq, we at least have to stick around to give them some sort of Federal style government that will allow the minority Sunni Arabs, Kurds, and whoever else a chance not to get steamrolled by the Shias. **Brutus** is being straightforward about this. Unfortunately, in the present situation, he is correct to this extent: we have to forge a system with the kinds of checks and balances that keep the tyranny of the majority away. And by “we” I’m not excluding the UN; far from it. I agree with the OP that the UN has to insist on the US ceding control. The return on that for us here in the US should be an international force that allows a majority of our boys to come home. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/88 "2003-09-03T16:47:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo \* > \*\*I’m pretty sure, even as a non American, that Thomas Jefferson was MORE THAN adamant that the US Constitution included a caveat that she should never get involved in foreign disputes. I’m astonished this incredible piece of wisdom is so easily overlooked time, and time again. \*\* When Washington left office he left a warning that the United States beware of European entanglements. Would you rather we had stayed out of WWI, WWII, and Bosnia? Marc ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/89 "2003-09-03T16:50:59Z")
Yikes! That was **Boo Boo Foo**? I made a boo boo? Anyway, **MGibson** , WWI at least, and I’m not too sure about Bosnia: the EU should have had the courage to take the lead on that. ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/90 "2003-09-03T16:51:31Z")
How does putting US soldiers under UN control punish them? What it does do is take the decisions establishing Iraqi policy out of Bush’s hands, which I consider a _good thing_. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/91 "2003-09-03T17:04:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*The WP article is full of shit. America has more then enough combat power floating around to maintain a rotation of forces, at their current levels, in Iraq. And if we need more? Pull our troops out of Bosnia. Not like they are doing much over there. > > Senator Byrd is almost as biased as **DtC**. If he only took a look at a [orbat](http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/wherearethedivisions.asp) every now and again, he wouldn’t come off sounding so clueless. \*\* Perhaps you should read your own sources on the US order of battle. The fourth paragraph on the page, bolding mine: > [@](#): > > With these deployments, over 50% of the Army’s ground combat brigades are committed to overseas service. **It can be argued that there is effectively no strategic reserve as every active division is either deployed in its entirety, has substantial elements deployed, or is preparing or recovering from deployment.** Two National Guard Divisions are being used for peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, while one is preparing to deploy. **One could make a strong case for federalizing and mobilizing two National Guard Divisions to begin their training for possible employment in an as of yet unknown theatre of war.** And what are Sen. Byrd and the CBO saying? > [@](#): > > The CBO said it would cost up to $19 billion and take three to five years to recruit, train and equip two more divisions with about 80,000 in troops and support personnel. Those 2 National Guard divisions your own source talked about federalizing are going to need to be replaced by something eventually. If they remain permanently federalized they are de facto 2 new divisions that will then need to have their old roles replaced by 2 new reserve divisions. It seems your source is in agreement with Byrd and the CBO. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/92 "2003-09-03T17:15:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Coldfire \* > \*\*Hey, is that brush wide enough for ya? As you can see, there are plenty of “left” posters here who disagree with the notion that the UN should give GWB his comeuppance. \*\* Then my rant wasn’t aimed at you. It _was_ aimed at anyone who would agree that what is in the best interests of reconstructing Iraq into a civilized nation should be disregarded, in favor of carrying out **Diogenes the Cynic** ’s masturbation fantasies of revenge on the anti-Christ, George Bush. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/93 "2003-09-03T17:18:18Z")
If **Brutus** is so gung-ho for the US to go it alone in Iraq, let’s send him the bill. 😃 As for the OP: While I can certainly sympathise with **DtC’s** desire to see George W. Bush shamed by the UN for getting the United States into this fiasco, the pragmatist in me thinks that the best thing for Iraq right now would be a UN-led multinational peacekeeping/stabilizing force. The US _can’t_ go it alone, either financially or politically, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. Of course, the odds are almost nil that the Bush Administration would agree to such a plan, but it’s the fastest way to salvage this deteriorating situation. As for embarassing George good 'n proper, maybe the UN Security Council could require him to put on a clown suit, juggle a few eggs, and sing “I’m a Little Teapot” before the General Assembly before agreeing to save his bacon… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/94 "2003-09-03T17:25:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dissonance \* > Those 2 National Guard divisions your own source talked about federalizing are going to need to be replaced by something eventually. If they remain permanently federalized they are de facto 2 new divisions that will then need to have their old roles replaced by 2 new reserve divisions. It seems your source is in agreement with Byrd and the CBO. \*\* Not to mention that the word “permanently” isn’t applicable anyway. As terms of enlistment expire, and “working conditions” continue to be much different from those expected when the Guard troops signed up, re-enlistment and replacement is going to be a growing problem. It’s always been one, anyway. That’s true of Reserve units, and even regular forces, to some extent. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/95 "2003-09-03T17:25:57Z")
Couple of points: **Coldie** , that post of yours on the first page describing the Iraq invasion and Bush/Clinton from a foreigner’s perspective? Bullseye! Succint and to the point. I subscribe to it heartily. Well said. Of course, as you well know by now, our non-American opinions _don’t_ count. No matter that as a direct result of this mess, both of our countries have sent soldiers to spill their blood for American interests. That’s right, our own prominent pom-pom waver, Assnar, has had little choice but to commit 1,300 of our finest “peace keepers” in order to justify all of his pre-invasion bluster. Ironically enough, he’d been trying quell public outcries by pointing out that the Spanish-led _Plus Ultra_ brigade was going to be in charge of a “very tranquil” part of Iraq. Lo and behold, the mission includes taking control of Najaf. Yep, real “peaceful,” so much so that the transfer’s been delayed for a while – besides the fact that Latin-American troops under Spanish command have yet to receive the technological equipment promised by the US, night goggles and radios, thus rendering them useless for night patrols. BTW, you gotta love the logo the Spanish Defense Ministry came up with for our troop – [**Spanish troops in Iraq to wear St James “the Moorkiller” Cross patch on their sleeves**](http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1005509,00.html). Great thinking there. Perchace we’ll build a Church right in the middle of Najaf while we’re at it. :rolleyes: As for **Brutu’s** screeds, lovely, “liberation” becomes “protection.” Paid for in Iraqi red blood and black gold, no doubt. Not that it should come as surprise to anyone – those opposed to this invasion have been saying as much from the start and most of those in favor, have copped a new plea as seen right here on this board: “I didn’t support the war on the basis of WMds and their immediate threat, it was always about Saddam being eeeeevil.” Which of course, when you get right down to it, is saying basically the same thing with some added flourish. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/96 "2003-09-03T17:34:07Z")
Wow, **RedFury**. The Spanish government appears to have found a true peer in Dubya. Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![sickboy51](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@sickboy51](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sickboy51)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/97 "2003-09-03T17:44:54Z")
Yikes, **RedFury** , I though I was the only spanish around here, hello! And yep **pantom** , our government supports heartedly Bush administration due to economical interests. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/98 "2003-09-03T17:51:10Z")
**sickboy51** : Actually, I meant in terms of its apparent intellectual firepower, which appears to need some reinforcement, much like Bush the Unready. ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/99 "2003-09-03T17:54:38Z")
Alas, poor **Brutus** the **december** that cannot rhyme. Also when someone shoots down your misinformation and goofy historic falacies, pretend you said something different. Nice- except what you said _was in this thread rocket scientist_. You stupidly stated as immutible fact: > [@](#): > > “It takes very little force, if properly applied, to keep power, even in the face of heated resistance.” Your own dumb words, exactly. To which I pointed out: > [@](#): > > Is that why we lost Vietnam? The Soviets lost Afganistan? And why we are doing so poorly in Iraq and Afganistan now? Oops. Given the large forces involved and the rather poor results to date in each of those conflicts your statement holds no water. So you pull a **december** and pretend you said something completely different. Now you claim to have said: > [@](#): > > If you think we were militarily ‘kicked out’ of Vietnam, then it is you that needs to do some boning up on history. Ditto the Soviets in Afghanistan. Simply put for your simple mind, the cost of being in those places exceeded the value of having them. To preempt your next simpering fop of a question, the cost in Iraq, with its central position in the region, will be high, but the value, higher still. Nobody said anything remotely like that but you, just now. That is the sort of intellectual cowardice I expect from you. No cites, evasive answers and now abject bullshitting when caught out. Nice. More from our self-appointed military expert: > [@](#): > > America has more then enough combat power floating around to maintain a rotation of forces, at their current levels, in Iraq. And if we need more? Pull our troops out of Bosnia. Not like they are doing much over there. Well, looks like nobody agrees with our “expert” yet again: > [@](#): > > The postwar operation is costing the United States at least $3.9 billion a month and has strained the American military, which has some 140,000 troops stationed there. The administration has struggled to attract broader international participation, and sees the new U.N. resolution as the way to make other nations more comfortable with contributing militarily and financially. and > [@](#): > > The effort to secure international assistance is ‘‘a tacit admission that we don’t have the forces there to get the job done,’’ Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Wednesday on ABC’s ‘‘Good Morning America.’’ ‘‘If we don’t turn things around in the next few months we are facing a very serious long-term, problem.’’ But what would a Republican Senator and war hero know? **Brutus** has opined, so it must be true! :rolleyes: Stupid George W. Bush, didn’t he get **Brutus’** memo? > [@](#): > > “We heard from the president that he is willing to follow the U.N. track, a larger responsibility for the U.N., and that is very good,” said the prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, after a breakfast meeting with Bush. > > After months of insisting the United States and Britain could go it alone, despite near-daily attacks on American soldiers and a creeping death toll since Saddam Hussein’s government was toppled, Bush decided on Tuesday to support greater U.N. participation in Iraq. [http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3380059](http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3380059) Oh my god, they fooled Rupert too! > [@](#): > > The US had initially signalled its intent to lead the rebuilding of Iraq with the help of only a handful of nations, including Britain. > > But the mounting cost - both financially and in terms of casualties - has forced it into a climbdown. > > Several key nations, including India, Pakistan, Turkey and Russia, have refused to help the Coalition without a more assertive UN role. > > Last week, deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, said America may be willing to accept UN leadership of an international force if commanded by a US general. > **[The Latest News from the UK and Around the World | Sky News](https://news.sky.com/)** > > Sky News delivers breaking news, headlines and top stories from business, politics, entertainment and more in the UK and worldwide. Either that, or somebody forgot to get this week’s talking point sheet. “UN in Iraq is now **good**. Please adjust your rhetoric accordingly.” Oops I cited again: > [@](#): > > President Bush agreed today to begin negotiations in the United Nations Security Council to authorize a multinational force for Iraq but insisted that the troops be placed under American command, according to senior administration officials. > > Mr. Bush’s decision came in a meeting this afternoon with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. While not unexpected, it was a tacit admission that the current American-dominated force is stretched too thin. It also amounts to one of the most significant changes in strategy since the end of major combat in Iraq. > > The White House acted just as a new Congressional study showed that the Army lacked the active-duty troops to keep the current occupation force in Iraq past March, without getting extra help from either other services and reserves or from other nations, or without spending tens of billions to vastly expand its size. And more from the Bush Administration: > [@](#): > > With Mr. Bush concerned about the ramifications of continued daily casualties in Iraq and the possibility that he may need forces elsewhere, perhaps including the Korean Peninsula if the nuclear crisis there worsens, the need to draw more international forces became “very clear in the past few weeks,” a senior State Department official said today. > **[THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: WHITE HOUSE; BUSH LOOKS TO U.N. TO SHARE BURDEN ON...](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/world/struggle-for-iraq-white-house-bush-looks-un-share-burden-troops-iraq.html)** > > Bush administration officials say Pres Bush agreed at meeting with State Sec Colin L Powell to begin talks in United Nations Security Council to authorize multinational force for Iraq, but insisted that troops be under American command; decision, key... **Brutus** its clear those crazy liberals in the Bush White House need the help of a military genius like you. Your wisdom is wasted here-- off to D.C. with you before George signs us up for the one world government! :smack: Or you can research before you post (a novel concept): > **[Google News](https://news.google.com/topstories?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en)** > > Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News. ---
**Author:** ![sickboy51](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@sickboy51](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sickboy51)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266/100 "2003-09-03T18:00:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\ ***sickboy51** : Actually, I meant in terms of its apparent intellectual firepower, which appears to need some reinforcement, much like Bush the Unready. \*\* Ooops! my mistake. Anyway you´re right too. He also has Bush´s manners. When he had an interwiev with “Dubya” in his ranch, he came back speaking with a Texan accent… in Spanish!!! Oh boy! How we laughted at that!😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wants-the-un-to-clean-up-his-mess-fuck-him/199266.md?page=6)