Move the UN and all its support community to Southern Lebanon.
Discuss.
Discuss.
Stupid.
Just because you didn't think of it first
Are you are talking about moving the UN headquarters from New York to Lebanon? Would it get a veto vote?
Actually, no. Just stupid.
lol and yes UN HQ. Veto the move? no way.
I think terrorists would think twice about acting up near UN HQ. After 10 yrs it could be moved to another hot border somewhere.
I think terrorists would think twice about acting up near UN HQ. After 10 yrs it could be moved to another hot border somewhere.
lolChuckles wrote:
Actually, no. Just stupid.
trolling today eh chuckles?
Terrorists thinking twice about bombing UN HQ? Hello, they're terrorists, they'd just bomb the damn place, plus the people inside would be too scared to do anything.
Demilitarization of Israel and the incorporation of Palestine and Israel into a new Palestinian state with democratic involvement of both former Palestinians and Israelis.
Behind the Palestinian shield the Israelis will be protected from outside involvement of their neighboring states and old enemies. At the same time, the Palestinians will regain their old lands and free of former opression in a symbiotic relationship. The foundations for this kind of a change are already in place with Israeli citizens providing humanitarian aid to oppressed Palestinians.
Internal conflict will arise, but will be shorter lived than the current warring. Eventually the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be reduced to racism between citizens of the same state. We already know how to deal with racism.
With true diplomatic mediation from neutral states such as many of the european or asian states, this plan is possible.
Behind the Palestinian shield the Israelis will be protected from outside involvement of their neighboring states and old enemies. At the same time, the Palestinians will regain their old lands and free of former opression in a symbiotic relationship. The foundations for this kind of a change are already in place with Israeli citizens providing humanitarian aid to oppressed Palestinians.
Internal conflict will arise, but will be shorter lived than the current warring. Eventually the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be reduced to racism between citizens of the same state. We already know how to deal with racism.
With true diplomatic mediation from neutral states such as many of the european or asian states, this plan is possible.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-02 11:33:47)
Because terrorists were (allegedly) so scared to strike near the US government HQ? [/sarcasm]OpsChief wrote:
lol and yes UN HQ. Veto the move? no way.
I think terrorists would think twice about acting up near UN HQ. After 10 yrs it could be moved to another hot border somewhere.
Nah, Israel would take it out first.k30dxedle wrote:
Terrorists thinking twice about bombing UN HQ? Hello, they're terrorists, they'd just bomb the damn place, plus the people inside would be too scared to do anything.
Since destruction and death of the locals doesn't seem to be imperative enough for Lebanon-Israel or Israel-Palestinians to take that action (or any other permanent action) what could create it?jonsimon wrote:
Demilitarization of Israel and the incorporation of Palestine and Israel into a new Palestinian state with democratic involvement of both former Palestinians and Israelis.
Behind the Palestinian shield the Israelis will be protected from outside involvement of their neighboring states and old enemies.
Internal conflict will arise, but will be shorter lived than the current warring. Eventually the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be reduced to racism between citizens of the same state. We already know how to deal with racism.
With true diplomatic mediation from neutral states such as many of the european or asian states, this plan is possible.
Moving the UN HQ into the neighborhood. The largest UN peacekeeping force in history would be there until things calmed down I bet.
Glad that u aren't the guy in charge of thatOpsChief wrote:
Move the UN and all its support community to Southern Lebanon.
Discuss.
The difference is 200 nations gettin pissed at the terrorists instead of two or three nations. no safe place to hide at some point.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Because terrorists were (allegedly) so scared to strike near the US government HQ? [/sarcasm]OpsChief wrote:
lol and yes UN HQ. Veto the move? no way.
I think terrorists would think twice about acting up near UN HQ. After 10 yrs it could be moved to another hot border somewhere.
Kinda retarded point.
Vote thread close.
Vote thread close.
The kind of change I recommend would not happen voluntarily. It would require an intermediary military force or an internal revolution to displace the current Israeli zionist government.OpsChief wrote:
Since destruction and death of the locals doesn't seem to be imperative enough for Lebanon-Israel or Israel-Palestinians to take that action (or any other permanent action) what could create it?jonsimon wrote:
Demilitarization of Israel and the incorporation of Palestine and Israel into a new Palestinian state with democratic involvement of both former Palestinians and Israelis.
Behind the Palestinian shield the Israelis will be protected from outside involvement of their neighboring states and old enemies.
Internal conflict will arise, but will be shorter lived than the current warring. Eventually the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be reduced to racism between citizens of the same state. We already know how to deal with racism.
With true diplomatic mediation from neutral states such as many of the european or asian states, this plan is possible.
Moving the UN HQ into the neighborhood. The largest UN peacekeeping force in history would be there until things calmed down I bet.
lol yes I know I might accidently solve the problem then the defense industires would go broke. and we would all end up playing Sim City after that...RDMC(2) wrote:
Glad that u aren't the guy in charge of thatOpsChief wrote:
Move the UN and all its support community to Southern Lebanon.
Discuss.
What mechanism would you use to bring your concept about?jonsimon wrote:
The kind of change I recommend would not happen voluntarily. It would require an intermediary military force or an internal revolution to displace the current Israeli zionist government.OpsChief wrote:
Since destruction and death of the locals doesn't seem to be imperative enough for Lebanon-Israel or Israel-Palestinians to take that action (or any other permanent action) what could create it?jonsimon wrote:
Demilitarization of Israel and the incorporation of Palestine and Israel into a new Palestinian state with democratic involvement of both former Palestinians and Israelis.
Behind the Palestinian shield the Israelis will be protected from outside involvement of their neighboring states and old enemies.
Internal conflict will arise, but will be shorter lived than the current warring. Eventually the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be reduced to racism between citizens of the same state. We already know how to deal with racism.
With true diplomatic mediation from neutral states such as many of the european or asian states, this plan is possible.
Moving the UN HQ into the neighborhood. The largest UN peacekeeping force in history would be there until things calmed down I bet.
You can't stop friggin terorissm, there like fucking everywhere, U think u got rid of them and they pop u in another country using a new name,OpsChief wrote:
lol yes I know I might accidently solve the problem then the defense industires would go broke. and we would all end up playing Sim City after that...RDMC(2) wrote:
Glad that u aren't the guy in charge of thatOpsChief wrote:
Move the UN and all its support community to Southern Lebanon.
Discuss.
how so? please explain how that isn't a valid possibilityAlexanderthegrape wrote:
Kinda retarded point.
Vote thread close.
How about getting all of the countries that supply weapons to both sides to sign a "no weapons" act, then let them fight it out on their own.
1st of all, the U.N. is comfortable in a secure building in New York.OpsChief wrote:
how so? please explain how that isn't a valid possibilityAlexanderthegrape wrote:
Kinda retarded point.
Vote thread close.
2nd Lebanon is a war zone, and the U.N. is not likely to set up shop in the middle of one.
3rd, there is no rational point to such a move; a do nothing organization in New York will be a do nothing organization in Lebanon.
As long as people say it can't be solved and most believe it they are right, I guess. Agreement creates "reality".RDMC(2) wrote:
You can't stop friggin terorissm, there like fucking everywhere, U think u got rid of them and they pop u in another country using a new name,OpsChief wrote:
lol yes I know I might accidently solve the problem then the defense industires would go broke. and we would all end up playing Sim City after that...RDMC(2) wrote:
Glad that u aren't the guy in charge of that
Finding the enemy center of gravity is the key to undermining them. Dangling a juicy tidbit like the UN HQ in front of them will either make them try to bomb it or open a souvenir shop across the street and get rich. So where do they go next?
I agree except the conclusion.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
1st of all, the U.N. is comfortable in a secure building in New York.OpsChief wrote:
how so? please explain how that isn't a valid possibilityAlexanderthegrape wrote:
Kinda retarded point.
Vote thread close.
2nd Lebanon is a war zone, and the U.N. is not likely to set up shop in the middle of one.
3rd, there is no rational point to such a move; a do nothing organization in New York will be a do nothing organization in Lebanon.
I think its a bad thing that the UN HQ gets comfortable anywhere.
The UN has trouble gaining agreement in this part of the world. While I am generally against it, sometimes we need to micro-manage. Sometimes we need to take a risk. The absolute requirement for a secure buffer and the UNs ability to get sufficient forces to man the parapets would or might stop them without a fight and brind wealth to the area. If terrorists/israel/lebanon/others as applicable continued to act up there it would be shielded by member nations.
The rationality is weighing values, risks and outcomes. I haven't seen this suggestion discussed seriously so validity of it is not established. That's why I asked
Would Sec'y Gen Kofi Annan do this voluntarily? lol
Vote for a close or a move to 'Not BF2/BF2s' because this isn't a serious suggestion.
Apart from anything it didn't make any difference when Israel blasted the U.N. outpost, so why would risking more UN workers lives help the sitation? ... and anyway if the news is to be believed (hmmm, chinny beard wiggle, chinny beard wiggle) Hezbollah would just set up behind it and wait for Isreal to blow it up anyway.
To sum up, it's like dangling your child from a rope into the lion cage in the zoo just to prove that the lion isn't safe with children so that the zoo will be forced to have it put to sleep.
Apart from anything it didn't make any difference when Israel blasted the U.N. outpost, so why would risking more UN workers lives help the sitation? ... and anyway if the news is to be believed (hmmm, chinny beard wiggle, chinny beard wiggle) Hezbollah would just set up behind it and wait for Isreal to blow it up anyway.
To sum up, it's like dangling your child from a rope into the lion cage in the zoo just to prove that the lion isn't safe with children so that the zoo will be forced to have it put to sleep.