NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations has officially outlawed nuclear terrorism. Link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050413/ap_on_re_us/un_nuclear_terrorism)

It is now against the law "for would-be terrorists to possess or threaten to use nuclear weapons or radioactive material"

I feel much safer now. Hows about you?

Of course, it's turned out so well in the past. :rolleyes:

The United Nations has officially outlawed nuclear terrorism. Link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050413/ap_on_re_us/un_nuclear_terrorism)

It is now against the law "for would-be terrorists to possess or threaten to use nuclear weapons or radioactive material"

I feel much safer now. Hows about you?
Oh yes! I can sleep SO much more soundly at night not worrying about whether the UN is ever going to outlaw outlaws! What a relief! :rolleyes:

The United Nations has officially outlawed nuclear terrorism. Link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050413/ap_on_re_us/un_nuclear_terrorism)

It is now against the law "for would-be terrorists to possess or threaten to use nuclear weapons or radioactive material"

I feel much safer now. Hows about you?

Oh yes. The next terrorist I meet, I shall embrace him and call him my brother, so fearless am I that he will not be carrying nuclear material with which he can destroy my fertility rate and increase my chances of cancer by 20%. Hooray!

They are ineffective.. :rolleyes:, but the US would want it their way.

Haha yeah, I remember when they said Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons and then America invaded Iraq... oh wait. Nevermind.

Seriously who the hell bases their intelligence to invade a country on an a guy the GERMANS called a "addicted alcoholic" I mean seriously, when the GERMANS CALL YOU AN ALCHOHOLIC YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.

It's good to know that the U.N. has bravely passed the equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation. A command to all those who don't respect the U.N.'s validity to respect U.N. laws and stop these stupid nuclear pranks.

Seriously, is the U.S. behind in it's U.N. payments to finance idiots legislating this crap?

I see the point has gone cleanly over the heads of all of you. By clearly outlining the illegality of nuclear terrorism, next time the US or other country wants to take action against such a threat things should go much more smoothly in the Security Council or the General Assembly and the countries that host such terrorist can't say they didn't see it coming.

So I imagine the UN will be enforcing this new law, right?

Breaking News: The ME Organization has declared it illegal to own green undergarments.

You guys are so pessimistic...

I hate to gloat, but just last week I sold all of my sword stock and bought plowshare futures. I'm going to be rich!

Wait, the UN banned Nuclear Terrorism? Now isn't that rich.

Just how are they going to enforce it? Will it prevent Nuclear Terrorism?

The answer to number 1 is they cant and the answer to number 2 is no it won't.

Leave it to the UN to pass something that is 100% completely worthless.

So I imagine the UN will be enforcing this new law, right?

Breaking News: The ME Organization has declared it illegal to own green undergarments.

Didn't they rule that girls have to wear microminis 24/7 only?

Wait, the UN banned Nuclear Terrorism? Now isn't that rich.

Just how are they going to enforce it? Will it prevent Nuclear Terrorism?


Hans Blix will inspect all terrorist organizations for possession of nuclear weapons!

Again the Busheviks gloat and mock the U.N. for its deliberately engineered impotence.

:rolleyes:

I mean, when in the history of the world has America ever seriously considered relaxing its collective control freak attitude and let a truly international body handle global problems in a fair and evenhanded manner?

And before any of you Busheviks start singing "Food for Oil" and "Sudan," I would like say Food for Oil would have never happened in the first place if Daddy Bush didn't pussy out on Desert Storm, and Sudan is happening because- BIG SURPRISE- a few Permanent Security Council Members are blocking action there for their own gains.

The United Nations is right now what America wants it to be for eternity; a condom puppet. Something that it can stick its dick inside and wave it around at the same time.

Again the Busheviks gloat and mock the U.N. for its deliberately engineered impotence.

:rolleyes:

A what? Now that's a new term. However, if the Demosocialcrats had put up a better leader I might've voted for them but they didn't so I went with Bush.

I mean, when in the history of the world has America ever seriously considered relaxing its collective control freak attitude and let a truly international body handle global problems in a fair and evenhanded manner?

Because the international body doesn't care about freedom as much as the US and other nations. If they did care then they would be in Sudan right now taking care of things and they're not. Hell the UN couldn't even call Darfur a genocide. I don't think I want this organization running the world.

And before any of you Busheviks start singing "Food for Oil" and "Sudan," I would like say Food for Oil would have never happened in the first place if Daddy Bush didn't pussy out on Desert Storm, and Sudan is happening because- BIG SURPRISE- a few Permanent Security Council Members are blocking action there for their own gains.

Its Oil-for-Food dude. As for pussying out, we kicked Saddam right out of Kuwait but thanks to a UN Resolution, weren't allowed to take out Saddam though nothing stood between the US and Baghdad. As for Sudan, France is holding up that action whereas the US is not. At least the US has labeled Darfur a genocide. Why hasn't the UN?

The United Nations is right now what America wants it to be for eternity; a condom puppet. Something that it can stick its dick inside and wave it around at the same time.

This is a very funny comment. You get an E for effort but then again, it was really dumb.

Hans Blix will inspect all terrorist organizations for possession of nuclear weapons!

I wish him luck.

A what? Now that's a new term. However, if the Demosocialcrats had put up a better leader I might've voted for them but they didn't so I went with Bush.

It's not a new term. Even you can see where it comes from theoretically but since you like playing dumb, it's a wordplay on "Bush" and "Bolshevik," which appropriately describes the reactionary mentality and behavior of the typical Bush supporter/apologist.

Because the international body doesn't care about freedom as much as the US and other nations. If they did care then they would be in Sudan right now taking care of things and they're not. Hell the UN couldn't even call Darfur a genocide. I don't think I want this organization running the world.

Yes, and America cares enough about freedom to ignore the undemocratic regime of Saudi Arabia. Then again, when the country is dependent on Saudi oil and the administration is buddy buddy with the House of Saud, I suppose bringing that up would be a sore point.

:rolleyes:


Its Oil-for-Food dude. As for pussying out, we kicked Saddam right out of Kuwait but thanks to a UN Resolution, weren't allowed to take out Saddam though nothing stood between the US and Baghdad. As for Sudan, France is holding up that action whereas the US is not. At least the US has labeled Darfur a genocide. Why hasn't the UN?

Since when has America considered the United Nations anything but irrelevant and weak post-Korea? Saying Bush didn't finish off Saddam like Schwartzkopf said he could have during Desert Storm because of a UN resolution is the most disingenuous copout to date.

:rolleyes:

This is a very funny comment. You get an E for effort but then again, it was really dumb.

Thank you for the fashion commentary Mr. Blackwell.

:rolleyes:

The United Nations is right now what America wants it to be for eternity; a condom puppet. Something that it can stick its dick inside and wave it around at the same time.

That's a pretty apt analogy. I approve.

I wish him luck.

The sarcasm would be more subtle if it wasn't for your signature.

:rolleyes:

It's not a new term. Even you can see where it comes from theoretically but since you like playing dumb, it's a wordplay on "Bush" and "Bolshevik," which appropriately describes the reactionary mentality and behavior of the typical Bush supporter/apologist.

You think I'm an idiot? HAHA!! Your the idiot if you think this will prevent nuclear terrorism! I know full well it was word play. Its just the first time I've heard it so to me its a new term. BTW: did you cook that up yourself?

Yes, and America cares enough about freedom to ignore the undemocratic regime of Saudi Arabia. Then again, when the country is dependent on Saudi oil and the administration is buddy buddy with the House of Saud, I suppose bringing that up would be a sore point.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: I take it you are either a democrat or a non-American? Eitherway, you really need to stop listening to propaganda.

Since when has America considered the United Nations anything but irrelevant and weak post-Korea? Saying Bush didn't finish off Saddam like Schwartzkopf said he could have during Desert Storm because of a UN resolution is the most disingenuous copout to date.

:rolleyes:

And it is 100% fact. You want the UN to run everything so when we followed on a UN resolution to kick him out of Kuwait, you criticize us for not going after Baghdad. What do you want us to do? Do it unilaterally? Sorry, didn't have the allies to do it then. Britain didn't support that and neither did our Middle East Allies. The UN also didn't authorize it so now your blaming the US for following a UN Mandate? Oh wait, we just followed through on a UN mandate that should've been done during the Clinton Years. Nevermind.

Thank you for the fashion commentary Mr. Blackwell.

:rolleyes:

Who the hell is Mr. Blackwell?

The sarcasm would be more subtle if it wasn't for your signature.

:rolleyes:

Truth hurts!

But who's going to protect us against the 3rd world punks who make up most of the u.n.? (Yeah, I know it's not capitalized) :mad:

You think I'm an idiot? HAHA!! Your the idiot if you think this will prevent nuclear terrorism! I know full well it was word play. Its just the first time I've heard it so to me its a new term. BTW: did you cook that up yourself?

I doubt I was the first to happen upon the term. Type up the phrase on any internet search engine.

:rolleyes: I take it you are either a democrat or a non-American? Eitherway, you really need to stop listening to propaganda.

Funny you should tell me to stop listening to propaganda. Has the same irony and hypocrisy one would find in Ted Kennedy doing a public service announcement for MADD, or Michael Jackson doing one for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

And it is 100% fact. You want the UN to run everything so when we followed on a UN resolution to kick him out of Kuwait, you criticize us for not going after Baghdad. What do you want us to do? Do it unilaterally? Sorry, didn't have the allies to do it then. Britain didn't support that and neither did our Middle East Allies. The UN also didn't authorize it so now your blaming the US for following a UN Mandate? Oh wait, we just followed through on a UN mandate that should've been done during the Clinton Years. Nevermind.

Anyone who can read their computer screen can see that you give no credit whatsoever to the United Nations, so you falling back on the "We Complied With The UN" apology for Bush failing to make Iraq a democracy 20+ years earlier reeks of disingenuity. If you're going to comply with the United Nations you do it all the time or none at all. Picking which ones you want to comply with is disingenuous.

Who the hell is Mr. Blackwell?

A loser who has nothing better to do than make an annual report declaring who is the best dressed and worst dressed for the previous year.

Eh, doesn't change the global enviroment much...

I doubt I was the first to happen upon the term. Type up the phrase on any internet search engine.

I will when I have more time

Funny you should tell me to stop listening to propaganda. Has the same irony and hypocrisy one would find in Ted Kennedy doing a public service announcement for MADD, or Michael Jackson doing one for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Nice analogies. I don't like Kennedy anyway so I don't even listen to him. Jackson right now is hopefully going to be sent up the river. Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Anyone who can read their computer screen can see that you give no credit whatsoever to the United Nations, so you falling back on the "We Complied With The UN" apology for Bush failing to make Iraq a democracy 20+ years earlier reeks of disingenuity. If you're going to comply with the United Nations you do it all the time or none at all. Picking which ones you want to comply with is disingenuous.

Sounds like Iraq who never complied with the UN but yet your not criticizing them for not following the UN. We at least had a UN mandate to throw him out of Kuwait then on subsequent Resolutions to toss him from power if he didn't comply with the UN Cease-Fire or said resolutions. The US followed through on these resolutions. So yes, we followed through on what the UN wanted in 1991 and then again backed up the Cease-Fire (UN Approved which was violated) as well as 17 UN Resolutions that Iraq also violated. We complied with them. If your going to criticize nations for not following them, look at France and Russia. Russia sold GPS Jammers to Iraq just prior to the war. Didn't work though. The buildings were still destroyed by GPS guided bombs. Your criticizism of the US is rather disingenous when France, Russia, Iraq and other nations have violated resolutions.

A loser who has nothing better to do than make an annual report declaring who is the best dressed and worst dressed for the previous year.

Your right. He is a loser and I don't care. Probably why I had to ask. *goes back to the topic at hand*

Eh, doesn't change the global enviroment much...

YOur right. I like to know how they're going to enforce it personally. I like to know if it'll prevent Nuclear Terrorism. However I already know the answers to these two questions:

It is unenforcable and it won't prevent it either.

So I imagine the UN will be enforcing this new law, right?

Breaking News: The ME Organization has declared it illegal to own green undergarments.

The UN doesn't enforce anything. It's not their role. They don't even have an apparatus to enforce the behavior of their own staff.

The UN is only as good as the nations that are its members. And before you blame the US for not enforcing things, or for blocking things, remember that there are other permanent members of the Security Council who block things.

In its current form, the UN is a useless, moribund, corrupt, and archaic institution.

Wait, the UN banned Nuclear Terrorism? Now isn't that rich.

Just how are they going to enforce it? Will it prevent Nuclear Terrorism?

The answer to number 1 is they cant and the answer to number 2 is no it won't.

Leave it to the UN to pass something that is 100% completely worthless.


The UN should be handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500 any moment now...

Sounds like Iraq who never complied with the UN but yet your not criticizing them for not following the UN. We at least had a UN mandate to throw him out of Kuwait then on subsequent Resolutions to toss him from power if he didn't comply with the UN Cease-Fire or said resolutions. The US followed through on these resolutions. So yes, we followed through on what the UN wanted in 1991 and then again backed up the Cease-Fire (UN Approved which was violated) as well as 17 UN Resolutions that Iraq also violated. We complied with them. If your going to criticize nations for not following them, look at France and Russia. Russia sold GPS Jammers to Iraq just prior to the war. Didn't work though. The buildings were still destroyed by GPS guided bombs. Your criticizism of the US is rather disingenous when France, Russia, Iraq and other nations have violated resolutions.

Israel has violated more resolutions on its own that most of those other countries combined, yet they continue their ethnic cleansing campaign under an informal green light and funding from America. Saying that it's okay for the US to do whatever it feels like just because the other UN members are doing it is a copout, especially when America has been the loudest in publically taking a moral superiority stance to the rest of the world.

And this is on topic, since the whole thread is basically America sticking its penis into the United Nations and waving it around as a condom puppet.

The UN is only as good as the nations that are its members. And before you blame the US for not enforcing things, or for blocking things, remember that there are other permanent members of the Security Council who block things.

In its current form, the UN is a useless, moribund, corrupt, and archaic institution.

True. Again though, America having preached the loudest on morality and democracy in relation to the rest of the world should not cop out and act out such questionable foreign policies just because the other members of the Security Council are doing it. Otherwise it smacks of the lip service Americans are always hanging the UN for being guilty of.

The UN doesn't enforce anything. It's not their role. They don't even have an apparatus to enforce the behavior of their own staff.

The UN is only as good as the nations that are its members. And before you blame the US for not enforcing things, or for blocking things, remember that there are other permanent members of the Security Council who block things.

In its current form, the UN is a useless, moribund, corrupt, and archaic institution.

Thanks for the in current form caveat. We've had this conversation before. :)
The US, according to my understanding, was the nation that sponsored this bill, and it certainly pleases the Bush administration that the UN is at least making some noise on terrorism.
And yes, the security council makes it impossible to drive anything meaningful through, because one of the countries on it will veto the bill.

True. Again though, America having preached the loudest on morality and democracy in relation to the rest of the world should not cop out and act out such questionable foreign policies just because the other members of the Security Council are doing it. Otherwise it smacks of the lip service Americans are always hanging the UN for being guilty of.

The same people who make this complaint are also the same people who don't want the US to act unilaterally.

Since there are other members of the Security Council, and they rarely go along with the US, even when it's in their interest (like Kosovo - no one wanted to let the UN bother, so the US went in with NATO and NATO did the job), the US cannot force the UN to do ANYTHING.

Got that? We are blamed when we are unilateral. We are blamed when the UN doesn't do what it should do, even when we're not the ones doing the veto. We are blamed for everything, period.

Sorry. Can't do it. We're doing our own thing, now. The UN is about to be reamed from behind without the courtest of a reacharound by John Bolton.

Thanks for the in current form caveat. We've had this conversation before. :)
The US, according to my understanding, was the nation that sponsored this bill, and it certainly pleases the Bush administration that the UN is at least making some noise on terrorism.
And yes, the security council makes it impossible to drive anything meaningful through, because one of the countries on it will veto the bill.

Saying that the bill would help would be like saying I like GB, its not going to happen.

Now the quote I forgot what it said so i shall read it again then respond on this.

Oh yeah, damn that one third world country. Kick them out of the world or annex them I say.

Oh yeah, damn that one third world country. Kick them out of the world or annex them I say.

I was talking about the permanent members. Russia, China, the US, France, Germany- you know?
The powerful nations fear a powerful UN. So they do their level best to hamstring it. It isn't just the US, but the US does it as much as anybody else.
Untill nations are willing to give up some power (not likely) to an international entity, the UN will remain powerless.

The same people who make this complaint are also the same people who don't want the US to act unilaterally.

Since there are other members of the Security Council, and they rarely go along with the US, even when it's in their interest (like Kosovo - no one wanted to let the UN bother, so the US went in with NATO and NATO did the job), the US cannot force the UN to do ANYTHING.

Got that? We are blamed when we are unilateral. We are blamed when the UN doesn't do what it should do, even when we're not the ones doing the veto. We are blamed for everything, period.

Sorry. Can't do it. We're doing our own thing, now. The UN is about to be reamed from behind without the courtest of a reacharound by John Bolton.

Let the United States act unilaterally and declare preemptive strikes in the world from now on. I'll just laugh though if and when other countries start doing the same thing, like say India and Pakistan pre-emptively striking each other and America suddenly takes a "No no no you're not allowed to do that bad bad bad" stance on the situation.

George Orwell looked at the wrong side of the Pond when he wrote his novels.

Some are More Equal than others, indeed.

yey

As far as I'm concerned, the United Nothin...er...Nations is just an organization to inflate the egos of those on the Council and for US conservatives to guffaw at.

That's all that it's there for, and if any US leader gives up any US soveregnty to the UN, they need to be impeached and hanged for treason.

As far as I'm concerned, the United Nothin...er...Nations is just an organization to inflate the egos of those on the Council and for US conservatives to guffaw at.

That's all that it's there for, and if any US leader gives up any US soveregnty to the UN, they need to be impeached and hanged for treason.

Thank God you don't dictate world policy. US sovreignty is not exactly an endangered species at this point in time.

US sovreignty is not exactly an endangered species at this point in time.

Frankly, I'd like it to stay that way. The UN has no right to govern any aspect of the United States. It must stay this way. The gall of people that think some fucking shitland in Africa or socialist nation in Europe can dictate anything involving US policy sickens me.

Frankly, I'd like it to stay that way. The UN has no right to govern any aspect of the United States. It must stay this way. The gall of people that think some fucking shitland in Africa or socialist nation in Europe can dictate anything involving US policy sickens me.

The gall of people that think America can dictate anything involving Iraqi policy sickens many of those "fucking shitlands" you just referred to.
Moreover, your implication that they are "fucking shitlands" while the US is not implies a certain degree of arrogance, wouldn't you say?

The problem with the UN is that it tries to be what it isn't supposed to. Contrary to popular belief, the UN was never meant to be some kind of global democracy with the powers of a world government. Their original goal was to merely be a discussion room for the state representatives to sit down and sort stuff out.

Let's face it people: the UN is screwed up beyond any and all repair. Even Kofi Annan himself had admitted that the UN Human Rights commission is dominated by the worst human rights abusers. Their peacekeeping missions are a joke, with the multi-national troops operating under rules of engagement made up by clueless bureaucrats. The General assembly is almost entirely controlled by the Arab League. And their proposed reform is...to add the same third world dictators to the list of the permanent Security Council members. There isn't a single good thing about this inefficient bureaucratic monster.

The gall of people that think America can dictate anything involving Iraqi policy sickens many of those "fucking shitlands" you just referred to.
Moreover, your implication that they are "fucking shitlands" while the US is not implies a certain degree of arrogance, wouldn't you say?

First off, I'd like to apologize for anything that I might have or will say that was brash and rude. I'm not in a good mood right now.

Other than that,

It does imply arrogance. Frankly, all REAL United States citizens should have a little bit of it. It's hard not to when you live in the Greatest Nation on God's Green Earth. Granted, there's always room for improvement, (which isn't happening, unfortunately), but we ARE the best, and we can afford a little arrogance.

You're just jealous. :p :D ;)

Great! The useless organization passed a law that they will never enforce, just like the Security Council passed resolutions they had not intention of enforcing. :mad

"Stop that you terrorists, or we will pass another law.”

Great! The useless organization passed a law that they will never enforce, just like the Security Council passed resolutions they had not intention of enforcing. :mad

"Stop that you terrorists, or we will pass another law.”
Haha! Indeed.

First off, I'd like to apologize for anything that I might have or will say that was brash and rude. I'm not in a good mood right now.

Other than that,

It does imply arrogance. Frankly, all REAL United States citizens should have a little bit of it. It's hard not to when you live in the Greatest Nation on God's Green Earth. Granted, there's always room for improvement, (which isn't happening, unfortunately), but we ARE the best, and we can afford a little arrogance.

You're just jealous. :p :D ;)

I was offered a fifteen thousand dollar scholarship to study at an American university, and a twelve thousand dollar one to stay in Canada. I stayed in Canada, because I prefer a slightly more humble, accepting attitude (especially towards other cultures and their ideas) and because I think the quality of education (in terms of bias) was better.
I've been to the US, but I sure wouldn't want to live there.