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

CharlesBHoff · March 20, 2003, 06:00

I wouldnot be surpise it the General Assembly of the UN kink
the USA and Britian out of the UN and off the security council
and take away they status as permant members of the security council. Than we will have no veto power over this
as only the General Assembly of the UN have the power to decide who is than member of the UN and who isnot than member of the UN and the General Assembly have the power to grant permant status to than nation on the security council or remove permant status from than security
council member this power is grant to the General assembly of the UN by the UN Chater. It doesnot even go to the security council for they approval at all. Cuba is than member of the UN after Fidical took power and the USA was powerless to do anything about it.

The Mad Monk · March 20, 2003, 06:07

Knick us out of the UN?

Those rotten kidnappers!

CharlesBHoff · March 20, 2003, 06:23

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Knick us out of the UN?

Those rotten kidnappers!

It you ever watch America Baseball the Umtripe have the right to expell players and mangerable from the game for not following certain rules like no punching than other player, or trying to hit than other player over the head with than baseball bat. Only the baseball commission or all the tearm owner can overruled than Umtripe ruleing an that happen very very rarely.
The UN have the right and the power to expell member who donot follow the rules of the UN.

C0ckney · March 20, 2003, 06:27

they might even kink us out, the dirty devils...

Robert Plomp · March 20, 2003, 06:35

don't be an idiot.
China, France and Russia haven't been kicked out of the security council after what they did in tjetsenie, Tibet and Ivorcoast as well.

I think the USA and the UK will kick Russia, FRance and CHina out of it earlier. (but even that will not happen)

Demerzel · March 20, 2003, 06:59

somehow I seriously doubt that they would kick us out of the UN unless they wanted to cause its demise.

CharlesBHoff · March 20, 2003, 07:02

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
don't be an idiot.
China, France and Russia haven't been kicked out of the security council after what they did in tjetsenie, Tibet and Ivorcoast as well.

I think the USA and the UK will kick Russia, FRance and CHina out of it earlier. (but even that will not happen)

This isnot the security council that does this , it the General Assembly of the UN all 180's plus member with no nation haveing the veto power. It USA and Britian piss off too many
small nation they can do this to use , just to get back at use.
Busk threaten the President of Mexico that if Mexico doesnot vote the way Bush want then to on the Security Council Bush will have every Mexico in America arrest and he
might invade Mexico too. Bush also threaten other small nations on the Council excpect for Pakistan as Pakistian have nuclear weapon already.
All of these threat he make to the smaller nations on the security council backfire on Bush.. The America Media
was trying to give false infro saying the vote was close on the Security Council and only the threat of Frence veto force Bush to go outside the UN. The vote at UN security
Council would have been 4 yes and either 8 or 11 no votes.

CharlesBHoff · March 20, 2003, 07:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Demerzel
somehow I seriously doubt that they would kick us out of the UN unless they wanted to cause its demise.

Bush need the UN more than the UN need him. Only the UN the the power to declare alot of action legal or illegal.

The Mad Monk · March 20, 2003, 07:06

Is this guy for real?

CerberusIV · March 20, 2003, 07:06

The UN is going to be more about humanitarian aid than world security after this. If the US is kicked out the UN will not have enough money to do anything. If the UK is kicked out that will jeopardise their aid contributions.

If the US and UK are out of the UN they will continue to invade whoever the hell they like and simply ignore an irrelevant UN.

Basically it isn't going to happen because the UN needs the US more than the US needs the UN. End.

DRoseDARs · March 20, 2003, 07:10

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff

Bush need the UN more than the UN need him. Only the UN the the power to declare alot of action legal or illegal.

50 years of world and UN history says otherwise...

LaRusso · March 20, 2003, 07:11

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
don't be an idiot.
China, France and Russia haven't been kicked out of the security council after what they did in tjetsenie, Tibet and Ivorcoast as well.

I think the USA and the UK will kick Russia, FRance and CHina out of it earlier. (but even that will not happen)

except that tibet and chechnya are part of china and russia respectively...and that france did not lead a coalition of agressors against ivory coast.

TheStinger · March 20, 2003, 07:17

Well Tibet being part of China is debateable.

CharlesBHoff · March 20, 2003, 07:19

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
The UN is going to be more about humanitarian aid than world security after this. If the US is kicked out the UN will not have enough money to do anything. If the UK is kicked out that will jeopardise their aid contributions.

If the US and UK are out of the UN they will continue to invade whoever the hell they like and simply ignore an irrelevant UN.

Basically it isn't going to happen because the UN needs the US more than the US needs the UN. End.

Not realy. I than sure other nations will give the UN more money once the USA and Britian are out of the UN. America doesnot have the manpower and resource to occuprate the
whole world.

LaRusso · March 20, 2003, 07:22

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
Well Tibet being part of China is debateable.

so is scotland or n. ireland being part of the UK

Harovan · March 20, 2003, 07:23

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
Well Tibet being part of China is debateable.

As debateable as Ulster being a part of Britain.

Demerzel · March 20, 2003, 07:27

Somehow I think the UN needs the UK and the USA more than the other way around. Plus if you kick the UK out of the UN then with the UK being increasingly more part of the EU, then you annoy the EU too.

The EU is one hell of a contributor to world humanitarian aid, so annoying them would be a big mistake.

CharlesBHoff · March 20, 2003, 07:27

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Is this guy for real?

Irsael was knick out of the UN once for awhile. Tibet was not
recoignite by many nation as being than Nation when China
march in. I think is wrong but Tibet never estrate diploration
ties with other Nation. The Ivory Coast is than action to hely
foreign leave the nation unharm and the UN Sectary General
ask France to do this for the UN as the Ivory Coast was once than French Colony. French doesnot have interest in taken over the Ivory Coast again it only temp action on French part.

TheStinger · March 20, 2003, 07:28

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

so is scotland or n. ireland being part of the UK

Bollocks

Scotland would become independant when the people voted for it.The same for NI. You are allowed to campaign for independnce in both NI and Scotland, remind me what happens if you do that in Tibet.

NI is in some respects an artificial construct however it was populated by protettants over 300 years ago, that is too long a time frame to start chucking them out or overiding their views.

TheStinger · March 20, 2003, 07:29

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff

Irsael was knick out of the UN once for awhile. Tibet was not
recoignite by many nation as being than Nation when China
march in. I think is wrong but Tibet never estrate diploration
ties with other Nation. The Ivory Coast is than action to hely
foreign leave the nation unharm and the UN Sectary General
ask France to do this for the UN as the Ivory Coast was once than French Colony. French doesnot have interest in taken over the Ivory Coast again it only temp action on French part.

I'm not a spelling nazi as I'm dreadful, but can you spell kicked correctly

LaRusso · March 20, 2003, 07:32

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger

Bollocks

Scotland would become independant when the people voted for it.The same for NI. You are allowed to campaign for independnce in both NI and Scotland, remind me what happens if you do that in Tibet.

NI is in some respects an artificial construct however it was populated by protettants over 300 years ago, that is too long a time frame to start chucking them out or overiding their views.

okay, alternatively, look at the map of china. is there a tibet in it? you do the math

TheStinger · March 20, 2003, 07:37

So its ok for a big power to do what it wants, I thought that was you didn't like it when the US did.

DRoseDARs · March 20, 2003, 07:39

LaRusso, Tibet was an independant kingdom prior to the Communists taking power in China. They conquered and have oppressed Tibet ever since.

There's a reason people make "Free Tibet" t-shirts: That country isn't a Chinese province by choice...

CerberusIV · March 20, 2003, 07:44

I picked this off the UN website. It is fairly recent but I could not find anything more up to date. I have cut it down a bit but you will get the general idea that the UN doesn't have enough money and no-one is rushing to fill the gap.

"Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3395 14th Meeting (AM) 17 October 2000
Committee Work Programme
This morning, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met to hear a statement by the Under-Secretary-General for Management, Joseph E. Connor, on improving the financial situation of the United Nations.

but it had not been followed by the same number of payments. As a result, at 30 September 2000, unpaid assessments -- regular budget, peacekeeping and Tribunals together -- totalled $3.094 billion.

Unpaid peacekeeping assessments alone had reached a staggeringly high level of $2.5 billion, he said.
the major contributor owed 61 per cent of the amount outstanding, he continued. Fourteen other major contributors accounted for 25 per cent. All other Member States owed 14 per cent. Unpaid regular budget assessments at 30 September were some $533 million, an amount higher than what had been anticipated would be owed at 31 December.

Payment of current assessments by the United States would only begin when that Member State started its new budget year on 1 October, he continued. The United States, owed at 30 September 2000, 81 per cent of aggregate regular budget amounts. Two other Member States among the next 14 principal contributors, Brazil and Argentina, had outstanding regular budget contributions amounting to 12 per cent.
Unpaid peacekeeping assessments at the end of September reached a high of $2.5 billion. There was real concern over the imbalance in the amount of assessments unpaid compared to the current levels of assessment. Another concern was that the amount of assessments was highly concentrated. The United States alone accounted for 58 per cent of the aggregate.

In October a number of significant contributions had been received, he continued, including $200 million from the United States, $61 million from Italy and $17 million from France. The United States had also informed the Organization that an additional $100 million should be expected shortly. These two payments from the United States would bring down that Member State's share and percentage of the total owed.

Assessment payments had not kept pace, and unpaid assessments were now at $54 million, up from $20 million in 1997, he continued. One hundred twenty-two Member States had unpaid assessments at 30 September 2000. Three Member States -- United States, Russian Federation, France -- accounted for the largest component. Each of the three owed $12 million. France had informed the Secretariat that its Tribunal payments would be made by year-end. The Russian Federation had made no payment for the current year or, in fact, for prior years. The United States arrears continued to grow as that Member State did not pay the full assessed amount."

Sorry about the length (this is the edited version) but the UN needs US money like you or I need air to breath.

CharlesBHoff · March 20, 2003, 07:47

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
So its ok for a big power to do what it wants, I thought that was you didn't like it when the US did.

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. Plus in NI the british arenot useing heavy bomber to
bomb the cities in NI from air. Britian was useing minual force in NI compare to what force they would have use. Plus
England didnot threaten to Invade Ireland over the support the IRA got from some people in Ireland. And I donot think that Ireland want to have NI unless the people of NI agree to it.

DRoseDARs · March 20, 2003, 07:52

CerberusIV
That, I think, is the crux of the problem with the UN: support is voluntary for nations. Payment, soldiers, equipment, it's all on the whim of member nations with almost no threat of punishment or restrictions if they fail to provide their fair share.

If I were king, I'd make voting rights and most aid programs in the UN conditional, based on whether or not you've paid your damn dues.

I've worked at 2 different gyms and both have had problems with people coming in who've failed to pay their full membership dues...and we kick their asses out of the building (in a nice, non-lawsuit-inviting way

) until they do pay. The United States, and others, should lose voting rights until they've lived up to their obligations in the UN.

Robert Plomp · March 20, 2003, 07:54

Wow LaRusso,

I'm stuned! You're already defending China / Russia in their actions! This is really absurd.
Soon you'll say that Kuwait is indeed from Sadam.

AND even if these countries do belong to China / Russia (which is NOT the legal situation) than still China / Russia break all international rules overthere!
And you back them up!

It's like you say "It's ok if you slaughter people as long as they are your own people"

TheStinger · March 20, 2003, 07:55

Thats the Problem with the UN charter IMO, you can do anything to people in your own country. I really don't know why that is so.

CharlesBHoff · March 20, 2003, 07:55

One it not the worker at the UN who voted in the General Assemble but the member nation that vote in the General Assembly an it they are real piss off at USA and Britian they might just vote USA and Britian out.

Serb · March 20, 2003, 07:56

Quote:

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

I've said it twice today and I'll say it again: DO IT!!!

Heal the World...
...make it better place.