The USA and Britian can be knick out of the UN. - Page 3

The Emperor Fabulous · March 20, 2003, 11:03

Maybe France should be kicked out...that'd teach them.

Ok now that I made the connection, I'll post this here:

Due to complete lack of support by the French (and in fact an all out refusal by this nation to be battered into agreeing with our completely correct point-of-view), Congress and others have decreed that we take anything with "French" in it and make it "Freedom".

We now have Freedom Fries, Freedom Toast, Freedome Kisses, and Freedom Prostitutes. This method of public distaste for the frogs is a surefire way to show the world community that we won't stand for their cries for diplomacy, as well as confuse the average McDonald's employee.

However, the American mantra is more more more, so I say, WHY STOP THERE?

The Statue of Liberty.

This so called "symbol of freedom" was a gift by the French way back in 18xx to show solidarity and friendship with the American people.

We must send this obviously mocking symbol back across the ocean. It is both of French design and French material. We don't want it, we don't need it, because the U.S. doesn't want any French polluting this great land (or water.)

So I say, gather some money from your armoir, bid your parents adieu, and rendezvous en masse on Liberty Island where, in a great tour de force, we will tear down this crap du jour and send it like a cheap souvenier back where it came from!

USA!!

USA!!

USA!

Spiffor · March 20, 2003, 11:07

Nah ,we already have a small Statue of Liberty in Paris, offered by the Americans to show their thanks. With 2 Statues of Liberty, Paris would become really messy

CerberusIV · March 20, 2003, 11:09

It is worth remembering that much of the motivation China had for invading Tibet was a backlash against the treaties China was forced to sign at gunpoint in the 19th century. When China was weak other powers took bits of China. When China became strong they wanted the land back. Two wrongs don't make a right but it is understandable.

Tibet is more complicated but China had a historic claim to sovereignty over the area. The problem international law has not AFAIK resolved is at what point a country loses any right to land it previously controlled.

No-one really wants to open that can of worms. The only reason the colonial borders in Africa, bad as they are, have not been redrawn is that the consequences of arguing about it would be worse than the status quo.

DinoDoc · March 20, 2003, 11:11

France will not be getting the statue back. We went to too much trouble removing the armpit hair from the version they sent over.

PS Yes, I know that I've posted that before but the exact same moronic joke keeps coming back up time and again.

Spiffor · March 20, 2003, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
France will not be getting the statue back. We went to too much trouble removing the armpit hair from the version they sent over.

first time I read this one. Sure puts the fun in the old "French women don't shave" misconception

LaRusso · March 20, 2003, 11:14

it is really funny to see some posters here go over maps and even invoke 1941 maps.
even israel refers to some territories as 'occupied'
chechnya is a russian republic. if you do not like that, try waging a war against russians for a change. likewise for tibet. if you armchair generals think that those nations are sovereign, look for their seat in the united nations or any other body not comprised of drugged-up hollywood snobs who do not have better thing in their life than to fight for fancy causes.
as for my dutch counterpart, dutch civility dates a long way back, ever since they massacred people of indonesia, so please no more moral lessons

Spiffor · March 20, 2003, 11:18

Are you sure you're not American LaRusso ?

TheStinger · March 20, 2003, 11:18

All your argument seems to be based on is if a country is occupied , tough thats the position. Does it not matter what the people think.

You seem to be taking a psoition or realpolitik which would make the US government gasp

TheStinger · March 20, 2003, 11:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Are you sure you're not American LaRusso ?

No he's Russian so he likes the idea of authoritarian governments telling people what they can and can't think or do

Koyaanisqatsi · March 20, 2003, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
drugged-up hollywood snobs who do not have better thing in their life than to fight for fancy causes.

That damned drugged up snobby Dalai Lama.

When is his next picture out again?

Harovan · March 20, 2003, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
France will not be getting the statue back. We went to too much trouble removing the armpit hair from the version they sent over.

Yes. Good thing the Freedom is so rich clothed, or else you'd have to shave her legs as well.

Quote:

PS Yes, I know that I've posted that before but the exact same moronic joke keeps coming back up time and again.

I can feel your pain. I had to fire my Freedom Maid, because she kept repeating it again and again.

DinoDoc · March 20, 2003, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
No he's Russian

Serbian. I'll grant you that it isn't much of a difference though.

DarthVeda · March 20, 2003, 11:35

And the US could kick the UN out of the US...

Willem · March 20, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff

The Leader of Tibet in excile in India doesnot want force use
to free Tibet as Tibet is too far inland for America force to invade.

So the fact that he's a devout Buddhist and a staunch pacifist has nothing to do with it I suppose.

The Mad Monk · March 20, 2003, 11:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
World government won't succeed until countries are willing to give some of their authority up.

Excellent. I can live without world government -- in fact, I prefer it that way.

Serb · March 20, 2003, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger

No he's Russian so he likes the idea of authoritarian governments telling people what they can and can't think or do

A little surprise for you, he is not Russian.

LaRusso · March 20, 2003, 14:24

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Serbian. I'll grant you that it isn't much of a difference though.

There is. Their words are backed by nuclear weapons

Re: realpolitik - I suppose our American and English posters really recon that what their governments are doing for the past 200 years is not realpolitik. Why don't you save us from North Korea, too? Oh yeah, they have some nukes...

Re: will of the people. You mean the people of Kurdistan?

LaRusso · March 20, 2003, 14:26

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger

No he's Russian so he likes the idea of authoritarian governments telling people what they can and can't think or do

Aren't all British people gays who drink their tea at 5 and shout things like 'Blimey!'?

Serb · March 20, 2003, 14:29

Arrian · March 20, 2003, 14:35

LaRusso,

Rip on us for GulfWarII all you want, but don't claim that what China did to Tibet is fine.

Russia in Chechnya is more of a gray area, but the allegations of Russian army tactics in that conflict are worrisome.

Because one's own country may have bloody hands in the past or even the present does not mean one cannot criticize the mistakes of others, but when you defend obvious acts of aggression like the annexation of Tibet, you undermine your argument against the US. So why do it?

-Arrian

Japher · March 20, 2003, 14:36

Where's CharlesBHofff, and why can't he write so good? hehe.

Maybe he is on to something... The Knicks SUK!

Joseph · March 20, 2003, 14:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz

The Mid-east was set up by the Allies and Arabs after
WW1 (1920) by a international meeting in bagdad chaired by W. Churchill.

It is NOT just a British construct, It is an Arab, British,
Italian, French compromise on what to do with the
Ottoman empire.

Churchill grandson was on Crossfire the other night and he said his grandfather may a few mistake making up the middle east as we now know the middle east. But it is easy to Monday morning quarterback history.
BTW Mr. Churchill is behine us 100%.

Joseph · March 20, 2003, 15:14

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

There is. Their words are backed by nuclear weapons

Re: realpolitik - I suppose our American and English posters really recon that what their governments are doing for the past 200 years is not realpolitik. Why don't you save us from North Korea, too? Oh yeah, they have some nukes...

Re: will of the people. You mean the people of Kurdistan?

Hey guy hang though, North Korea and Iran may just be down the road a bit. You know, one at a time. One should not have try to kill daddy because, payback are a !@#$%^ @#$%^&..

Sava · March 20, 2003, 15:26

For the record:

Tibet should be free.
I support Russian action in Chechnya.

Ozz · March 20, 2003, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Joseph
grandfather may a few mistake making up the middle east as we now know the middle east.

If WSC had had his way entirely it would have been
setup like British India without the national divisions (and without the French and Italians), another and lesser jewel in the crown.

CharlesBHoff · March 21, 2003, 04:25

Quote:

Originally posted by DRoseDARs

Hmm...not sure exactly what was said there, but I'll try responding. Member nations (re: their governments, not their private citizens) send representatives to the GA. Those reps cast votes, based on what they are told to do by their respective governments, on who while be the next Secretary General, what resolutions to pass etc. Can a permanent member state, like the United States, be voted out of the Security Council? I don't believe so, not legally anyway. The GA is a different beast; all legitimate nations NEED to have representation there, even if they don't have voting rights, though I seriously doubt the US will lose those rights, even if put to a vote. Many nations stand to lose A LOT in terms of aid packages from the US if such a slight was made against this country. It'd almost be better for the US to leave the UN voluntarily.

We are permant member for now by the UN chater as founding member but once kick out we lose that status automatic and it down the road we are again member of the UN our being permant member of the UN security Council is up to the General Assembly to give or not to give to use. The UN worker that work for the UN donot have the right to vote that only nation have the right to vote.. When Mainland became than member of the UN they got the veto power as it make no sense for Taiwan to have the veto power..

Dis · March 21, 2003, 04:29

to the thread title:

how is this a bad thing?

The Mad Monk · March 21, 2003, 04:33

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

There is. Their words are backed by nuclear weapons

Re: realpolitik - I suppose our American and English posters really recon that what their governments are doing for the past 200 years is not realpolitik. Why don't you save us from North Korea, too? Oh yeah, they have some nukes...

Patience. Why do you think we've been giving them the run-around? One step at a time.

The Mad Monk · March 21, 2003, 04:35

Diss: a lot of us are wondering the same thing.

CharlesBHoff · March 21, 2003, 04:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan

When was Israel kicked out of the UN? AFAIK, it's retained membership since it became a member of the UN.

I read it somewhere in a book along time ago and they also
said on than tv show that Israel was kicked out of the UN for awhile, that why Israel is very anti-UN as they think they right in verything they do..