Jerusalem: UN resolution rejects Trump's declaration

originally posted by: midicon
I think they are all corrupt, including the US administration, but was a blatant attempt by the US to bully others into supporting their position.

If my choices were:

• Bully the UN
  
• Get bullied by the UN

It really isn't much of a choice.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: antar
Right as they also froth at the mouth to send in Militant blue helmets to American streets to clear them of guns.

We should let them try, it would be funny in a not funny kind of way.

The first question would be "who's gonna pay to get them here, since y'know...we're not?"

Aside from that, the phrase "militant blue helmets" is laughable.

I have no issue with the countries voting as they please. Just when they want something from us, I hope the Trump administration gives them the finger as well.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The first question would be "who's gonna pay to get them here, since y'know...we're not?"

Aside from that, the phrase "militant blue helmets" is laughable.

Good point. Since the 'UN peace keepers' are proven kiddie diddlers maybe telling them about a certain pizza joint will compel them to swim here post haste.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And since when are somewhat sacrosanct (but stupid) policy decisions from the 90ies relevant for the here and now? Was there anything from that time and age, policy-wise, that actually deserves another chance?

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Would there be this much controversy if Italy moved their capital to Naples?

For comparison:

California decides that Calexico is it's new state capital.
Then claims that Calexico/Mexicali is an eternal-undivided city and that California has the right to control and settle Mexicali.

Suppose then that the U.S. backs California's claim against Mexico and the civilized World.

My position is that Calexico/Mexicali is not eternal but rather man made. There were millions of years in which no one lived there, and there will be millions of years in which no people will live there before the Earth ends, therefore the words eternal and undivided have no rational meaning when discussing human affairs.

That is one very clever way to drastically slash a foreign aid budget. The UK should try this tactic and then we could stop giving away loads of our money to countries that can afford space programmes, and so that tinpot African dictators can buy new Rolls Royces for themselves and all their friends.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
And since when are somewhat sacrosanct but stupid policy decisions from the 90ies relevant for the here and now? Was there anything from that time and age, policy-wise, that actually deserves another chance?

Considering it passed by the Senate (93–5) and the House (374–37) I don't think it would be much different today. But feel free to contact your Congressional Represenatives and ask them to put it up for a vote again. I would wager they will not.

ETA: The Senate reaffirmed the act 90-0 in June of this year. Good enough?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fair comment but perhaps the best choice would be not to bully at all.

a reply to: pavil

I very very rarely have nightmares but dreamed last week of a bunch of people seated around human flesh, as if cannibalism was ok, normal and acceptable. It was a bizarre part of my connection to an awful collective consciousness. What this has to do with this thread I am not certain but it was one of those dreams you wish upon waking could slip into the forgettable unconscious. I fear for people as we stand at a crossroads, a precipice of multi-directional possibilities, where love not fear fills the collective.

originally posted by: midicon
Fair comment but perhaps the best choice would be not to bully at all.

To be blunt, I despise the United Nations and feel it is a worthless drain on the world's society, it is inept, incompetent and dangerous. Anything that minimizes it further is a good thing.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: pavil

Focus on North Korea if they want to be relevant. Or Syria or Yemen or Burma or Libya or Ukraine or Kurdistan or Afghansitan .......you get the picture.

Yeah , I get the picture and it aint pretty.

But the UN is doing a bang up job.....

Ummm...yep...they're doing a knock up job...specially over there in Africa...Just look at all those under aged girls that literally suffered under the blue helmets...


Cry me a freaking river...




YouSir

a reply to: pthena

You mean relatively that "If Mexico decides" to move their Capitol to Calexico.

a reply to: YouSir

THAT is what comes to my tortured mind everytime I hear about the blue helmets. I recall a horrible thread here, I may have even started it some years ago about that general who did unspeakable horrors including but not limited to the worst atrocities a starving blue helmet occupied nation could imagine, and rather than face the trials of war criminals afterward he became a Christian minister and got away with it all leaving in his wake millions of victims who never found consolation nor salvation.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm fine with the green Krautish vote, thanks. Just asking what's the fuzz with this 90ies policy grunge, that's all. What about all the good stuff from 01 with Bush and Blair? How about war in Iraq again, for good measure?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Just asking what's the fuzz with this 90ies policy grunge..

I just gave you a statistic from 2017, it is now very current policy.

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: YouSir

THAT is what comes to my tortured mind everytime I hear about the blue helmets. I recall a horrible thread here, I may have even started it some years ago about that general who did unspeakable horrors including but not limited to the worst atrocities a starving blue helmet occupied nation could imagine, and rather than face the trials of war criminals afterward he became a Christian minister and got away with it all leaving in his wake millions of victims who never found consolation nor salvation.

Ummm...if I would allow myself to hate...then I would hate them...

They deserve less than that however...they deserve non existence...they deserve the entirety of the sane human race...all five of them...to remove these from the collective conscience...

I will not personally dignify them with emotional manna...let them starve...




YouSir

Belgium, in East Jerusalem
France, in West Jerusalem
Greece, in West Jerusalem (listed under "Israel" on Ministry of Foreign Affairs website)
Italy, with seats in both East and West Jerusalem
Spain, in East Jerusalem
Sweden, in East Jerusalem
Turkey, in East Jerusalem. Its jurisdiction covers the Palestinian National Authority and the corpus separatum with the Jerusalem area.
United Kingdom, in East Jerusalem
United States, in West Jerusalem


Hmm... Seems the U.S. Embassy won't be as lonely as some implied.... I also guess we know which 9 countries voted against it.

Good, now we can quit giving The People's money to each and every one of those freeloader countries.

a reply to: antar

"If Mexico decides" to move their Capitol to Calexico.

Perhaps. If the Vatican (eternal city) had permanent seat in UN Security Council and backed Mexico's claim, citing precedents of Spain's ancient and eternal control on behalf of Christendom.

Yes, I believe that would be comparable.