Author Topic: Tha "Blue Helmets" are coming!! (Read 23964 times)

charby · « **Reply #50 on:** October 30, 2012, 09:24:40 AM »

Quote from: Ron on October 30, 2012, 09:01:53 AM

I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to mock and despise them

Ditto

charby · « **Reply #51 on:** October 30, 2012, 09:25:52 AM »

I guess they want to observe in Iowa.

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #52 on:** October 30, 2012, 10:44:20 AM »

Quote

Mind you, I think I qualify as the person on this board that hates the UN the most from first hand experience with them.

Dunno, Rev. My paid government "vacation" monitoring mass graves in Bosnia doesn't exactly endear me to the UN, either...

Boomhauer · « **Reply #53 on:** October 30, 2012, 11:41:05 AM »

Completely off topic, but Gewehr98, your avatar is completely mesmerizing...

mtnbkr · « **Reply #54 on:** October 30, 2012, 11:56:37 AM »

Quote from: Avenger29 on October 30, 2012, 11:41:05 AM

Completely off topic, but Gewehr98, your avatar is completely mesmerizing...

Yup, little dude gets plenty of fiber.

Chris

MechAg94 · « **Reply #55 on:** October 30, 2012, 12:03:04 PM »

Some of this also makes me wonder just how much support the UN actually has in this country. A lot of people hate them passionately, but how many still think it is a useful or a good organization?

TommyGunn · « **Reply #56 on:** October 30, 2012, 12:03:22 PM »

Quote from: Avenger29 on October 30, 2012, 11:41:05 AM

Completely off topic, but Gewehr98, your avatar is completely mesmerizing...

Are the acrobatics really necessary?

RevDisk · « **Reply #57 on:** October 30, 2012, 01:01:28 PM »

Quote from: Gewehr98 on October 30, 2012, 10:44:20 AM

Dunno, Rev. My paid government "vacation" monitoring mass graves in Bosnia doesn't exactly endear me to the UN, either...

Yea, I was in the same neck of the woods. Sigh. Fun times.

Quote from: MechAg94 on October 30, 2012, 12:03:04 PM

Some of this also makes me wonder just how much support the UN actually has in this country. A lot of people hate them passionately, but how many still think it is a useful or a good organization?

Eh, there are fuzzy wuzzy idealistic types that support a true one world government under the UN. Pretty rare, and most of those types lack the ruthlessness to actually change anything meaningful. How many of them have worked in the Peace Corps or similar venues, changing little to nothing strategically?

So, sure, plenty of folks think the UN is vaguely a useful or good organization. And parts of it are. World Health Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Telecommunication Union, etc have all done pretty good things. Plenty of BAD things as well, I don't disagree. But general sweeping statements are never accurate.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #58 on:** November 02, 2012, 01:56:23 PM »

http://washingtonexaminer.com/state-dept-texas-cant-arrest-international-election-observers/article/2511845

Quote

“I’m not going to get into any kind of hypothetical situations or predict where this is going to go other than to say we have every expectation that this will be worked out and to state the fact, which is that under U.S. law they are eligible for immunities,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. Reporters tried to get her to state explicitly that Texas could not arrest election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), but Nuland would only reiterate that OSCE observers have full immunity.

Hrmm. If they're a private organization, just how the hell do they get to claim diplomatic immunity?

lysander6 · « **Reply #59 on:** November 02, 2012, 02:03:53 PM »

Here is a riddle for you since we are discussing the UN. If so many are opposed to world government then why do so many politicos and their adherents in the general population dismiss the idea of America breaking apart into its constituent secessionist parts like the USSR in 1989-91? If bigger is truly better would it not be logical to apprehend that those who wish for the US to be unitary should be just as sympathetic to world government?

Food for thought.

BTW, I despise the UN but think there is enough tomfoolery in US elections to warrant international observation.

RevDisk · « **Reply #60 on:** November 02, 2012, 02:51:46 PM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on November 02, 2012, 01:56:23 PM

http://washingtonexaminer.com/state-dept-texas-cant-arrest-international-election-observers/article/2511845

Hrmm. If they're a private organization, just how the hell do they get to claim diplomatic immunity?

Any country can grant diplomatic immunity to anyone they choose. They generally don't, for obvious reasons.

lee n. field · « **Reply #61 on:** November 02, 2012, 04:27:43 PM »

Quote from: lysander6 on November 02, 2012, 02:03:53 PM

Here is a riddle for you since we are discussing the UN. If so many are opposed to world government then why do so many politicos and their adherents in the general population dismiss the idea of America breaking apart into its constituent secessionist parts like the USSR in 1989-91? If bigger is truly better would it not be logical to apprehend that those who wish for the US to be unitary should be just as sympathetic to world government?

Food for thought.

<sarc>"But, but, we're different"</sarc>

TommyGunn · « **Reply #62 on:** November 02, 2012, 06:34:25 PM »

Quote from: lysander6 on November 02, 2012, 02:03:53 PM

Here is a riddle for you since we are discussing the UN. If so many are opposed to world government then why do so many politicos and their adherents in the general population dismiss the idea of America breaking apart into its constituent secessionist parts like the USSR in 1989-91? If bigger is truly better would it not be logical to apprehend that those who wish for the US to be unitary should be just as sympathetic to world government?

Food for thought.

BTW, I despise the UN but think there is enough tomfoolery in US elections to warrant international observation.

You really think an organization composed of a menagerie of tinpot dictators can keep us honest if we can't do it by ourselves?

RevDisk · « **Reply #63 on:** November 02, 2012, 06:41:52 PM »

Quote from: TommyGunn on November 02, 2012, 06:34:25 PM

You really think an organization composed of a menagerie of tinpot dictators can keep us honest if we can't do it by ourselves?

Except this entity is not part of the UN.

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #64 on:** November 02, 2012, 06:43:59 PM »

Quote from: lysander6 on November 02, 2012, 02:03:53 PM

Here is a riddle for you since we are discussing the UN. If so many are opposed to world government then why do so many politicos and their adherents in the general population dismiss the idea of America breaking apart into its constituent secessionist parts like the USSR in 1989-91? If bigger is truly better would it not be logical to apprehend that those who wish for the US to be unitary should be just as sympathetic to world government?

But... but... 'Muhrica! 9-11! The towers! Didn't you see them towers? U-S-A! U-S-A!

Balog · « **Reply #65 on:** November 02, 2012, 08:01:33 PM »

At what point of granularity does your analogy stop lysander? Unless you're at full on anarchist, any form of .gov meets the criteria you're applying there.

TommyGunn · « **Reply #66 on:** November 03, 2012, 01:07:06 AM »

Quote from: RevDisk on November 02, 2012, 06:41:52 PM

Except this entity is not part of the UN.

Is it associated with the U.N.?
If not what do blue helmets have to do with the price of Perch in Peoria-- or this thread?

ArfinGreebly · « **Reply #67 on:** November 03, 2012, 01:25:15 AM »

Quote from: TommyGunn on November 03, 2012, 01:07:06 AM

Is it associated with the U.N.?

If not what do blue helmets have to do with the price of Perch in Peoria-- or this thread?

See reply #18.

lysander6 · « **Reply #68 on:** November 03, 2012, 11:24:31 AM »

Quote

At what point of granularity does your analogy stop lysander? Unless you're at full on anarchist, any form of .gov meets the criteria you're applying there.

Balog,

I am an individualist anarchist so your observation is correct. I employ the term abolitionist to more precisely define my sentiments.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #69 on:** November 03, 2012, 11:57:50 AM »

Not this stuff again.

RevDisk · « **Reply #70 on:** November 03, 2012, 02:12:16 PM »

Quote from: TommyGunn on November 03, 2012, 01:07:06 AM

Is it associated with the U.N.?
If not what do blue helmets have to do with the price of Perch in Peoria-- or this thread?

Like WHO and other directly sponsored agencies?

No.

It is independent. But they meet with the UN.

seeker_two · « **Reply #71 on:** November 03, 2012, 05:32:56 PM »

Quote from: RevDisk on October 30, 2012, 01:01:28 PM

Eh, there are fuzzy wuzzy idealistic types that support a true one world government under the UN. Pretty rare, and most of those types lack the ruthlessness to actually change anything meaningful.

Not sure how rare....ever been to a STAR TREK convention?....

TommyGunn · « **Reply #72 on:** November 03, 2012, 07:01:53 PM »

Quote from: RevDisk on November 03, 2012, 02:12:16 PM

Like WHO and other directly sponsored agencies?

No.

It is independent. But they meet with the UN.

That's good enough for me -- they keep bad company. Shame shame....

birdman · « **Reply #73 on:** November 04, 2012, 12:44:58 PM »

How come we can't do an indelible ink finger (purple finger) when voting like in other countries where we try to encourage /assist fair elections? it would certainly prevent voting twice, and combined with voter ID, effectively eliminate the most common voting issues (intelligible voters through ID, multi-location voters with the ink)

Also, we try to do ID in other countries when we help, why is it wrong here? All the normal arguments (too hard to get, cost, etc) go out the window when you look at where we do it?

Tallpine · « **Reply #74 on:** November 04, 2012, 12:52:19 PM »

Quote

we try to do ID in other countries when we help, why is it wrong here?

It's racist!

News:

Author Topic: Tha "Blue Helmets" are coming!! (Read 23964 times)