Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Martlet on April 14, 2003, 08:47:43 PM
-
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/14/1050172536432.html
-
Too right!
-
The Aussies.. common sense from an uncommon ally!
-
Danes should definitely have veto rights and be a permanent member of the Security Council.
I could get the job. Vote once or twice a year, otherwise chill out.
And cars are cheap in the US.
Definitely doable. Where do I sign up?
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Danes should definitely have veto rights and be a permanent member of the Security Council.
I could get the job. Vote once or twice a year, otherwise chill out.
And cars are cheap in the US.
Definitely doable. Where do I sign up?
Denmark?
Is that still a country?
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Danes should definitely have veto rights and be a permanent member of the Security Council.
ROFLMFAO
1st get an Army
2nd Defeat a modern enemy
3rd keep dreaming:rolleyes:
-
Fair dinkum idea there from the Ausies!
Aussies AND the Brits as well! Good folks to have at your back.
-
Well that just makes too much sense for the UN to even consider it. If France wasn't on the Security Counsel there's the possiblity that something could actually happen at the UN. Buy that I mean that they actually made a decision....
Aaah.. It bogles the mind.... Too much for me to think about..
-
If France wasn't on the Security Counsel there's the possiblity that something could actually happen at the UN. Buy that I mean that they actually made a decision....
Except regarding Israel of course. The US has unilaterally vetoed resolutions regarding Israel many times, in direct contradiction of the UK and all the other permanent members of the security council.
Where were the British cries of 'traitor'?
-
Non! France is a world power 200 years ago! Non!
Yes i think its bizzare that France is on the UNSC when Japan, Germany and India are not. And yes I know why Japan and Garmany are not but its still stupid... Not that I would want the current German communist governemt and mindset withing 100 miles of a UNSC veto power but hell they do deserve it..
-
ROFLMFAO
1st get an Army
2nd Defeat a modern enemy
3rd keep dreaming
1) We HAVE an army. I think. At least we have some people walking around in same kinda greenish clothes carrying bang-sticks and stuff.
2) Dunno if Al Qaeda is modern enough for you. We sent our Jaegers down there, along with 10% of our air force fighters (6 F-16's :D). And we defeated the Germans in WWII. Just waited a bit to keep the suspension up. And of course people forget that we saved the world from the Aliens with the Forget About Heroic Deeds By Danes guns. But we know. Too bad our only photographer forgot to put film in camera.
3) Dreams are, for the most part, quite enjoyable. Can even teach people something about themselves if we are to believe psychotherapists. So thank you for your encouragement; I shall do my best to live up to your expectations.
Now you do your part; a) when will I gt the job and b) can you get me a nice penthouse apartment worthy of my future position?
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Except regarding Israel of course. The US has unilaterally vetoed resolutions regarding Israel many times, in direct contradiction of the UK and all the other permanent members of the security council.
Where were the British cries of 'traitor'?
If the US vetoed it, it was just a proposed resolution.
1441 was a adopted resolution, which certain security council members did not wish to back up.
I think that there lies the rub.
-
No, the issue was that a second resolution was to be automatically vetoed by the French. The idea, pushed predominantly by Blair, was to go back for a second resolution which explicitly authorized the use of force. France said they would veto any such move. Most people did not support war without a second resolution - France scuppered any attempt to get one.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
1441 was a adopted resolution, which certain security council members did not wish to back up.
Originally posted by Dowding
No, the issue was that a second resolution was to be automatically vetoed by the French. The idea, pushed predominantly by Blair, was to go back for a second resolution which explicitly authorized the use of force. France said they would veto any such move. Most people did not support war without a second resolution - France scuppered any attempt to get one.
scratches head... thinks to himself.."isn't that what I said?"
-
You were talking about the French not upholding 1441.
I am talking about the second, proposed resolution that would be vetoed by the French.
I am also talking about proposed resolutions vetoed by the US.
I am making a comparison.
I am saying there is no moral high ground.
I am hoping you understand. :D
-
Sorry, I thought I was talking about the French and the Russians threatening to veto any resolution that would more explicitly say the same thing 1441 said. (a proposal to clear some of the diplomatic language fog, but essentially reiterate 1441)
1441 did say in a kind diplomatic way "or else"
I guess I was wrong. Maybe I wasn't talking about that after all.
-
Martlet, Denmark not a country per se. It's more of a esoteric place wherein blonde babes who like to show off their bodies dwell (and occasionally french kiss) each other.
Since Danish males are very ugly, myself included, it is a good place. Mostly because I am slightly less ugly than the rest.
Some call it Paradise. I call it home. :D