The USA and Britian can be knick out of the UN. - Page 2

TheStinger · March 20, 2003, 07:59

Wouldn'y the UK/US have a veto on any decisiont o vote them out.

The UK also pay their contributions on time so it might not be wise to throw them out

Demerzel · March 20, 2003, 08:04

It is depressing when

The USA won't pay its backdues to the UN

The UN doesn't do exactly what the USA wants

The USA says "phew its lucky we didn't pay those backdues then"

Nice vicious circle.

Tibet was invaded and its people subjugated by the Chinese authorities - which is unacceptable. Similiar to the treatment of the Irish by my government centuries ago

do you really see it as likely CharlesBHoff that of the 198 or so countries in the UN General, the required two-thirds to achieve "the kicking out" will vote to do so?

DRoseDARs · March 20, 2003, 08:04

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
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.

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.

Serb · March 20, 2003, 08:13

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
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"

Complete crap. Chechnya isn't country. It's part of Russian Federation which was under control of bandits, murders and international terrorists who constantly commited crimes and terorirst attacks against Russian Federation.
Which international rules Russia break overthere?
Name a single such rule.
So-called Chechen government invaded Russian territory- Dagestan in 1999 and violated terms of cease-fire treaty.
And you think Russia broke some kind of international rule, when Russians striked back, launched a COUNTER-OFFENSIVE operation?
You need some serious medication because obviously you're suffers from serious brainwashing.

We have right to defend ourselves and we will defend.
Every country have right to defend itself.
Had Iraq attacked USA I was the first who condemn Iraq and shown my solidarity to Americans.

The case is closed.

DRoseDARs · March 20, 2003, 08:17

Latest: 3 Iraqi missiles launched into Kuwait, none were Scuds, no one hurt; airstrike in Bagdad earlier wounds 14, kills 1 Jordanian; Iraqi drone believed crashed in northern Kuwaiti desert.

I need to go to bed now, I've work later this afternoon.

LaRusso · March 20, 2003, 08:20

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
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"

kuwait and iraq and everything else are mostly artifically divided by the leaving british.

i am defending china and russia because they are defending their territorial sovereignty. i would defend us actions if they were suppressing secession of new mexico (like that will ever happen)

legal situation (recognized by your and all other governments) is that china and russia have complete sovereignty over tibet and checnya. russian army is hunting down crazy terrorists. (on a passing note, try to see 'war' by russian director balabanov).

TheStinger · March 20, 2003, 08:23

So you don't agree with self determination of people

LaRusso · March 20, 2003, 08:27

how does agreeing with it change the legal status of a territory?

if a state prohibits divorce, agreeing with the institution of divorce in principle does not make any difference...

mrboo123 · March 20, 2003, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
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.

Does that mean Canada can become memeber of it?

Serb · March 20, 2003, 08:30

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
(on a passing note, try to see 'war' by russian director balabanov).

I guess some Apolutoners really need to watch this movie, for better understaniding of what's going on there.

LaRusso · March 20, 2003, 08:34

i especially liked the part when he deals with a chechen 'shepard'

Serb · March 20, 2003, 08:39

I prefer the moment when helicopters arived

Edan · March 20, 2003, 08:42

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Irsael was knick out of the UN once for awhile.

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

Stuie · March 20, 2003, 08:46

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

i am defending china and russia because they are defending their territorial sovereignty. i would defend us actions if they were suppressing secession of new mexico (like that will ever happen)

Dude, what don't you understand. Listen:

TIBET WAS A SOVEREIGN NATION prior to being forcibly annexed by China.

Would you defend the US if we annexed Cuba and suppressed the right of the population to self determination?

Sava · March 20, 2003, 08:46

Silly Russians

Lincoln · March 20, 2003, 08:50

The UN is a joke. What difference does it make who "they" kick out? The United States and Great Britian effectively told the UN to go to hell anyway. A new UN needs to be formed without the veto authority of a few select nations. The opinions of all nations need to be counted not just the powerful ones.

Sava · March 20, 2003, 08:52

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

DinoDoc · March 20, 2003, 08:54

I'm tempted to start the DL dance just for the sheer stupidity of this thread.

LaRusso · March 20, 2003, 08:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Stuie

Dude, what don't you understand. Listen:

TIBET WAS A SOVEREIGN NATION prior to being forcibly annexed by China.

Would you defend the US if we annexed Cuba and suppressed the right of the population to self determination?

tibet sovereign?
so was the confederacy until you quelled the rebellion

btw, i am not a 'dude'. and, stop listening to r. gere...

Jack the Bodiless · March 20, 2003, 09:11

I don't recall the Confederacy having 2000 years of history and centuries of existence as an independent nation.

Demerzel · March 20, 2003, 09:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
The UN is a joke. What difference does it make who "they" kick out? The United States and Great Britian effectively told the UN to go to hell anyway. A new UN needs to be formed without the veto authority of a few select nations. The opinions of all nations need to be counted not just the powerful ones.

Reminds me of the Polish parliament in the 18th or 19th Century when to have something done, all 500 members had to unaminously agree on it. Unsurprisingly that never happened and the Russians beat them up.

Having all 200 UN countries involved in the decision process would be foolish to the extreme. What chance would you ever have of gettting things done? Even the UN GA requiring just 2/3 majority to pass a resolution would still be unsurmountable for real-life decisions.

LaRusso · March 20, 2003, 09:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I don't recall the Confederacy having 2000 years of history and centuries of existence as an independent nation.

but you recall the US having 2000 years of history?

you can make a case for tibetan independence all day long, but legally it is a part of china. ask your government about it...

TheStinger · March 20, 2003, 10:00

Russia of course has always been a great respecter of legality. Legally Hungary had a right to make its own independant choices, Oh well

Robert Plomp · March 20, 2003, 10:01

LaRusso: get real man.
The freedom of the western world has poisoned your brains. You're not able to think clearly!

Or you have played to much civilization and you see the world as one big game.
"Look, on the map! It's ony country! It has the same color!"

next thing you're going to say is: "You can abandon a city legally (= kill all people in it) as long as it's your own city!"

Sovereign territority....
that means that if you keep invaded countries long enough you do legally own them?
Thus, if we, The Netherlands invade Belgium, and we can surpress them for 150 years, after that we can do with them whatever we want, because they're our personal toys?

DaShi · March 20, 2003, 10:10

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

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

According to my map, the US and Iraq are the same colors. Is this a civil war then?

Stuie · March 20, 2003, 10:10

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy

Sovereign territority....
that means that if you keep invaded countries long enough you do legally own them?
Thus, if we, The Netherlands invade Belgium, and we can surpress them for 150 years, after that we can do with them whatever we want, because they're our personal toys?

That would appear to be the crux of his argument.

Jack the Bodiless · March 20, 2003, 10:14

Maps show the West Bank territories as part of Israel too.

So the Palestinian problem is solved!

Robert Plomp · March 20, 2003, 10:17

We should tell Bush that all he needs is a map of the world, and the microsoft-paint fill-tool!

TheStinger · March 20, 2003, 10:21

In 1941 maps showed lareg parts of Russia as part of Germany, was that legally theirs

Ozz · March 20, 2003, 10:42

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
kuwait and iraq and everything else are mostly artifically divided by the leaving british.

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.