Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

whatwhat wrote:When did I say the word resolution?

Frazzled wrote:Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere!
Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!

What has that got to do with anything I have said?

It means you're a hypocrite.

The UN isn't a body of enforcement. It's a collection of member states. The UN is just a building, concrete has a hard time enforcing rules and regulations. Stop pretending that the UN is an independent entity from the countries that it's made up from.

That's the joke Shuma. Rules and regulations are meaningless when you're relying on the honors system. EDIT: It has its uses I suppose, but when you tell a country "stop doing that" it's absurdly funny that you actually have no means by which to stop them.

whatwhat wrote:Did I say they did have a monoploy.

Is it possible to make an observation about America without one of you thinking It's a you vs them thing?

It's me vs them? Good thing the UN can't do anything meaningful in the world or I'd really be in trouble.

And my comment was to correct yours. We make fun of the UN because it really is a joke of an organization. Not because we ignore it (EDIT: Ironically, we ignore it for the same reason we make fun of it. Because it can't do anything to stop us). Is it impossible to make a comment in regards to another comment without someone making an assumption about the person making the comment?

ShumaGorath wrote:Much like you, I don't know enough about the situation to actually have an informed and useful opinion. Unlike you I know enough not to scream about it like a child. You don't know the reasons behind their election, you don't care. You just hate the UN and you'll take anything at face value that makes them even the littlest bit less legitimate.

You heard it here, Shuma won't answer whether its ok for Saudi Arabia to be on the agency. Thats epic.

They aren't. They're saying that many of the countries that make up the UN are gak holes that we shouldn't bother consulting about anything other than witch-doctory and how to mistreat women.

Kinda defeats the point of the institution then. If you want a club of rich countries who get along we already have the G8 and G20, the U.N is about creating a forum for world governments so as to allow for the airing of political grievances without resorting to war between individual states. It's not perfect because superman isn't sitting in a chair at the top ready to punch every little dictator in the mouth who doesn't want to "listen to his peers".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Much like you, I don't know enough about the situation to actually have an informed and useful opinion. Unlike you I know enough not to scream about it like a child. You don't know the reasons behind their election, you don't care. You just hate the UN and you'll take anything at face value that makes them even the littlest bit less legitimate.

You heard it here, Shuma won't answer whether its ok for Saudi Arabia to be on the agency. Thats epic.

Give me a break, all I said was that I know absolutely nothing about the situation. Neither do you. Just do research or stay silent. You don't know enough to have a valid opinion here and volume doesn't make you more right then anyone else. It's bad enough that the article you posted was sourced directly from a lobbying group against the admission of Saudi Arabia in this very position, you started from a bad place and really, you're just dragging yourself further down with the crybaby rhetoric.

"Quiet Turkmenistan!"

ShumaGorath wrote:It's not perfect because superman isn't sitting in a chair at the top ready to punch every little dictator in the mouth who doesn't want to "listen to his peers".

So the US should invade more countries and the UN will be perfect?

You heard it here, Shuma wants the US to start more illegal wars in order to create Utopian new world order. That's epic.

Frazzled wrote:

whatwhat wrote:When did I say the word resolution?

Frazzled wrote:Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere!
Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!

What has that got to do with anything I have said?

It means you're a hypocrite.

Right because I'm responsible for the actions of my government arent I.

Frazzled why don't you just change your name to the united states. That way whenever someone makes a negative observation about your country it can be like they are attacking you...oh no wait that's already what you do right? Sorry. Well just for the record, my name is not the The united Kingdom. And whatsmore I never even voted for the government your saying I'm party to.

As already said whatwhat, Falklands was a defensive war. It's hardly hypocritical...

avantgarde wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It's not perfect because superman isn't sitting in a chair at the top ready to punch every little dictator in the mouth who doesn't want to "listen to his peers".

So the US should invade more countries and the UN will be perfect?

You heard it here, Shuma wants the US to start more illegal wars in order to create Utopian new world order. That's epic.

I hate this forum.

whatwhat wrote:Right because I'm responsible for the actions of my government arent I.

wait wait wait.

Let me read this:

But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

I'm seeing a contradiction in these two statements but I can't put my finger on it...

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Right because I'm responsible for the actions of my government arent I.

wait wait wait.

Let me read this:

But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

I'm seeing a contradiction in these two statements but I can't put my finger on it...

Did you actually read that? Or did you clout your head with a baseball bat?

whatwhat wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Right because I'm responsible for the actions of my government arent I.

wait wait wait.

Let me read this:

But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

I'm seeing a contradiction in these two statements but I can't put my finger on it...

Did you actually read that? Or did you clout your head with a baseball bat?

I wish you would all... Clout.. You heads with baseball bats.

I'm going to assume thats some sort of britishism for hitting.

whatwhat wrote:Did you actually read that? Or did you clout your head with a baseball bat?

So, when the US government ignores the UN, we're all responsible (because like, we all totally wanted to go to war in Iraq and want to be a law unto ourselves) but then you're not responsible for the decisions of your government?

I'm sorry. Perhaps I've missed the point but that certainly seems to be the implication.

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Did you actually read that? Or did you clout your head with a baseball bat?

So, when the US government ignores the UN, we're all responsible (because like, we all totally wanted to go to war in Iraq and want to be a law unto ourselves) but then you're not responsible for the decisions of your government?

I'm sorry. Perhaps I've missed the point but that certainly seems to be the implication.

Which part of "But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else." makes you think I'm talking about American individuals?


I guess you did clout your head with a baseball bat then? Or maybe you didn't even need to.

whatwhat wrote:Which part of "But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else." makes you think I'm talking about American individuals?

Oh whatwhat. Frazzled states "This is why we make fun of the UN" 'we' of course implying Americans. You respond "the US wants to be a law unto itself and that's why we make fun of the UN" creating a broad implication that all Americans agree with what their government does. You then respond later, that you "are not responsible for the actions of your government."

Maybe you clunked your head with a baseball bat? That's a rather simple 2+2 equation.

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Which part of "But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else." makes you think I'm talking about American individuals?

Oh whatwhat. Frazzled states "This is why we make fun of the UN" 'we' of course implying Americans. You respond "the US wants to be a law unto itself and that's why we make fun of the UN" creating a broad implication that all Americans agree with what their government does. You then respond later, "that you are not responsible for the actions of your government."

Maybe you clunked your head with a baseball bat? That's a rather simple 2+2 equation.

"the US wants to be a law unto itself and that's why we make fun of the UN"

funny because i don't think I typed that.

I did remember you saying "I'm an ejit" a few times though. Nice being misquoted huh?

Why don't we play a game of: type a statement in a agreement of yourself then put it in quotation marks and tag it to someone else.

ShumaGorath wrote:I wish you would all... Clout.. You heads with baseball bats.

I'm going to assume thats some sort of britishism for hitting.

indeed

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

What? Someone is ignoring the UN? QUICKLY! Do something- Oh wait... The UN can't do anything... Maybe that's why everyone ignores the UN when it's decisions are inconvenient or disliked...

The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignoring UN resolutions/regulations/decisions. Everyone's done it in some way. You know why? Becaase the UN is a powerless body of people who stand around (or sit) blabbering on about problems but don't ever make real pushes to solve them. Even when the UN passes a resolution, the only punishment the UN can dish out for ignoring it is to pass another resolution condemning your ignoring the previous resolution that is likely to be just as equally ignored.

The UN isn't a body of enforcement. It's a collection of member states. The UN is just a building, concrete has a hard time enforcing rules and regulations. Stop pretending that the UN is an independent entity from the countries that it's made up from.

They aren't. They're saying that many of the countries that make up the UN are gak holes that we shouldn't bother consulting about anything other than witch-doctory and how to mistreat women.

That's my understanding of their position anyway.

MR wins the thread.

I can't believe this gets a thread yet McDonald's bringing back the delicious McRib™ sandwich* gets no fanfare whatsoever.



*for a limited time only

None of you get to have opinions any more.

whatwhat wrote:funny because i don't think I typed that.

Sure? In response to:

Here's an example of why the UN is laughed at in the US

You said:

But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

The implication being that we make fun of the UN because we want to be a law unto ourselves. Perhaps if that is not what you wanted to imply, you should have stayed on topic as to the question of the legitimacy of Saudai Arabia being on a women's rights organization, rather than going with a "bash the US" statement?

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:funny because i don't think I typed that.

Sure? In response to:

Here's an example of why the UN is laughed at in the US

You said:

But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

Doesn't look much like "the US wants to be a law unto itself and that's why we make fun of the UN" to me.

LordofHats wrote:The implication being that we make fun of the UN because we want to be a law unto ourselves. Perhaps if that is not what you wanted to imply, you should have stayed on topic as to the question of the legitimacy of Saudai Arabia being on a women's rights organization, rather than going with a "bash the US" statement?

Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend said stupid statement by saying I implied differently.

whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.

No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.

As an impartial observer, I'm going to have to agree with LordofHats on this one.

> implying implications were implied

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.

No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.

Monster Rain wrote:As an impartial observer, I'm going to have to agree with LordofHats on this one.

Well lets have it down on the record... you think

"Right because I'm responsible for the actions of my government arent I."

contradicts:

"But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else."

just as long as you're ok with that.

The Dreadnote wrote:> implying implications were implied

Get out of here 4chan.

whatwhat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

whatwhat wrote:When did I say the word resolution?

Frazzled wrote:Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere!
Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!

What has that got to do with anything I have said?

It means you're a hypocrite.

Right because I'm responsible for the actions of my government arent I.

Frazzled why don't you just change your name to the united states. That way whenever someone makes a negative observation about your country it can be like they are attacking you...oh no wait that's already what you do right? Sorry.

Exactly. I am a Texan (the other states just folllow along). Someone has to, and the quarter said "heads."

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.

No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.

It's not like any of you have managed to put out a coherent and logical opinion on this issue yet anyway.

Ketara wrote:As already said whatwhat, Falklands was a defensive war. It's hardly hypocritical...

So was Afghanistan. So was the German invasion of the USSR.

ShumaGorath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.

No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.

It's not like any of you have managed to put out a coherent and logical opinion on this issue yet anyway.

It would have been interesting, but I gave up having a real discussion on UN policy when someone had to go off and make a sweeping generalization about Americans, which I could have let go, but then he had to go and contradict himself, and I felt the need to point it out, but apparently explaining that contradiction 3 times wasn't enough for him to get the point.

So here we are again, in another thread that could have been much more informative.