As the President of Iran began to speak at the United Nations today, the United States delegation stood up and stormed out, dutifully followed by each NATO member - France, Germany, UK and the rest of the gang - who obediently slinked behind it in a scripted stage-play.
All except Canada who, seeking to please Big Brother , weirdly stormed out before the session even began. (Yes, they walked in and sat down just so they could make a show of standing up and storming out.)
Among NATO states, only Turkey exhibited the basic decorum and manners that befit a civilized nation. Meanwhile, the 165 nations who remained seated glanced momentarily at the unpleasant disruption before continuing to listen to the President's speech.
Image:The U.S. and her equal partners and allies storm out of the UN. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. had a juice and cookie party for her equal partners and allies, then gave Canada a piggy-back ride before taking Britain and Belgium out for ice cream cones.
Last edited by saxitoxin on Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for slavery ... using a nuclear bomb against "defenceless people," and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations.
A - The people of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands were extremely angry - just unimaginably irate - Iran had dared accuse U.S. of supporting totalitarian military dictatorships and their government storming out was a democratic representation of their desire.
or
B - The governments of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands dutifully jump when they're told.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for slavery ... using a nuclear bomb against "defenceless people," and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations.
A - The people of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands were extremely angry - just unimaginably irate - Iran had dared accuse U.S. of supporting totalitarian military dictatorships and their government storming out was a democratic representation of their desire.
or
B - The governments of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands dutifully jump when they're told.
Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for slavery ... using a nuclear bomb against "defenceless people," and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations.
A - The people of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands were extremely angry - just unimaginably irate - Iran had dared accuse U.S. of supporting totalitarian military dictatorships and their government storming out was a democratic representation of their desire.
or
B - The governments of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands dutifully jump when they're told.
Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for slavery ... using a nuclear bomb against "defenceless people," and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations.
A - The people of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands were extremely angry - just unimaginably irate - Iran had dared accuse U.S. of supporting totalitarian military dictatorships and their government storming out was a democratic representation of their desire.
or
B - The governments of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands dutifully jump when they're told.
Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for slavery ... using a nuclear bomb against "defenceless people," and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations.
A - The people of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands were extremely angry - just unimaginably irate - Iran had dared accuse U.S. of supporting totalitarian military dictatorships and their government storming out was a democratic representation of their desire.
or
B - The governments of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands dutifully jump when they're told.
saxitoxin wrote:Which of the following did the walkout represent?
A - The people of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands were extremely angry - just unimaginably irate - Iran had dared accuse U.S. of supporting totalitarian military dictatorships and their government storming out was a democratic representation of their desire.
or
B - The governments of European countries like Germany, UK and Netherlands dutifully jump when they're told.
C - They were upset at being referred to as arrogant powers D - They were upset at his outright lies about 9/11 E - They were upset at his re-hashing of decades old events like the slave trade and WW2. F - They were upset that as he lectures the world his own people are ignoring basic human rights in his own country. G - They were upset at his denial of the holocaust H - He's a total douche-bag I - _______ J - _______ K - _______
Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for slavery .......... using a nuclear bomb against "defenceless people," and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations.
I had a look at that report. In between the dots it also says "causing two world wars". I only know of two world wars, both caused by conflicting colonial interests and arms escalation of the European and other colonial powers. Perhaps the president of Iran had in mind a couple of other world wars which I dont know about. Blaming them for slavery doesnt make much sense to me either. They simply joined in something the other nations had been doing since the year dot.
Dropping the nuclear bomb and supporting dictatorships are two things which are clearly appalling, and furthermore it is hard to argue that they were aberrations or out of character with US foreign policy in general. In my opinion, if President Amedinajad wanted to discredit the USA, he should have stuck to more clear-cut things like those, rather than strange conspiracy theories. This is the problem, the people who we see in the media as cheerleaders of against US hedgemony in these things are either people who clearly want their own kind of hedgemony or just people with verbal diorrea who cant stop talking nonsense. The staged walkout of course helps to keep the idiots in the spotlight.
There are of course national leaders who adopt more reasonable positions. I found the summaries on the UN web page quite interesting.
Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for slavery .......... using a nuclear bomb against "defenceless people," and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations.
I had a look at that report. In between the dots it also says "causing two world wars". I only know of two world wars, both caused by conflicting colonial interests and arms escalation of the European and other colonial powers. Perhaps the president of Iran had in mind a couple of other world wars which I dont know about. Blaming them for slavery doesnt make much sense to me either. They simply joined in something the other nations had been doing since the year dot.
Dropping the nuclear bomb and supporting dictatorships are two things which are clearly appalling, and furthermore it is hard to argue that they were aberrations or out of character with US foreign policy in general. In my opinion, if President Amedinajad wanted to discredit the USA, he should have stuck to more clear-cut things like those, rather than strange conspiracy theories. This is the problem, the people who we see in the media as cheerleaders of against US hedgemony in these things are either people who clearly want their own kind of hedgemony or just people with verbal diorrea who cant stop talking nonsense. The staged walkout of course helps to keep the idiots in the spotlight.
There are of course national leaders who adopt more reasonable positions. I found the summaries on the UN web page quite interesting.
Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for slavery .......... using a nuclear bomb against "defenceless people," and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations.
I had a look at that report. In between the dots it also says "causing two world wars". I only know of two world wars, both caused by conflicting colonial interests and arms escalation of the European and other colonial powers. Perhaps the president of Iran had in mind a couple of other world wars which I dont know about. Blaming them for slavery doesnt make much sense to me either. They simply joined in something the other nations had been doing since the year dot.
Dropping the nuclear bomb and supporting dictatorships are two things which are clearly appalling, and furthermore it is hard to argue that they were aberrations or out of character with US foreign policy in general. In my opinion, if President Amedinajad wanted to discredit the USA, he should have stuck to more clear-cut things like those, rather than strange conspiracy theories. This is the problem, the people who we see in the media as cheerleaders of against US hedgemony in these things are either people who clearly want their own kind of hedgemony or just people with verbal diorrea who cant stop talking nonsense. The staged walkout of course helps to keep the idiots in the spotlight.
There are of course national leaders who adopt more reasonable positions. I found the summaries on the UN web page quite interesting.
I'm not here to engage in clear headed or rational dialog. I'm here to whip people into a frenzy.
lol good one Saxi
As someone said in a discussion elsewhere: "If Canada left the UN General Assembly before the US and the rest of the nations holding Ahmadinejad in contempt, then I guess Canada led the 'mass walkout,' not the US."
Also, I agree with what was said about the UN at an earlier time: "A multiple-voting system linked either to population, economic product, and human-rights criteria should be instituted at the UN General Assembly, to replace the current one country/one vote system. In the alternative, any country with apparently less respect for human rights than China should be temporarily reduced to non-voting observer status until it changes its ways (so should China itself, but that is completely impractical)."
The first one to walk out is the leader in the literal sense. But normally we think of the leader as the one who tells the others what to do.
Whoever wrote the comments in italics seems to to advocate a voting system which give China an enormous advantage in all the votes and then immediately after says that China shouldnt really have a vote at all. So they have advocated the worst possible system accordsing to their own judgement.
Ahmadinejad attacked the United States for slavery .......... using a nuclear bomb against "defenceless people," and imposing and supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African and Latin American nations.
I had a look at that report. In between the dots it also says "causing two world wars". I only know of two world wars, both caused by conflicting colonial interests and arms escalation of the European and other colonial powers. Perhaps the president of Iran had in mind a couple of other world wars which I dont know about. Blaming them for slavery doesnt make much sense to me either. They simply joined in something the other nations had been doing since the year dot.
Dropping the nuclear bomb and supporting dictatorships are two things which are clearly appalling, and furthermore it is hard to argue that they were aberrations or out of character with US foreign policy in general. In my opinion, if President Amedinajad wanted to discredit the USA, he should have stuck to more clear-cut things like those, rather than strange conspiracy theories. This is the problem, the people who we see in the media as cheerleaders of against US hedgemony in these things are either people who clearly want their own kind of hedgemony or just people with verbal diorrea who cant stop talking nonsense. The staged walkout of course helps to keep the idiots in the spotlight.
There are of course national leaders who adopt more reasonable positions. I found the summaries on the UN web page quite interesting.
Ray Rider wrote:Also, I agree with what was said about the UN at an earlier time: "A multiple-voting system linked either to population, economic product, and human-rights criteria should be instituted at the UN General Assembly, to replace the current one country/one vote system. In the alternative, any country with apparently less respect for human rights than China should be temporarily reduced to non-voting observer status until it changes its ways (so should China itself, but that is completely impractical)."
How about measuring intervention and peacefulness?
Compared to the US, China is much more peaceful. When was the last major war which China was directly involved? 1960s v. India. Last direct proxy war? Vietnam, 1960s-early 1970s. And that's it.
How about the US? How many wars has it launched against other countries? How many proxy wars has the US engaged in? How many non-peaceful nations has it propped up and maintained with counter-insurgency programs?
Ray Rider wrote:Also, I agree with what was said about the UN at an earlier time: "A multiple-voting system linked either to population, economic product, and human-rights criteria should be instituted at the UN General Assembly, to replace the current one country/one vote system. In the alternative, any country with apparently less respect for human rights than China should be temporarily reduced to non-voting observer status until it changes its ways (so should China itself, but that is completely impractical)."
How about measuring intervention and peacefulness?
Compared to the US, China is much more peaceful. When was the last major war which China was directly involved? 1960s v. India. Last direct proxy war? Vietnam, 1960s-early 1970s. And that's it.
How about the US? How many wars has it launched against other countries? How many proxy wars has the US engaged in? How many non-peaceful nations has it propped up and maintained with counter-insurgency programs?
Good point. Okay, add that to the list of factors affecting the voting system. Switzerland would definitely gain authority through it...
