« Cycle of Ignorance / Spirale der Ignoranz | Main | Debacle for the SPD: Schroeder's Socialists at Historic Low »


Move the UN to Euroland. There would not be a need to build a fence.

It could then become a public building for the citizens of the world. People could just wander in and view everything.

I really like this idea BTW

You mean they are taking security seriously. They didn't need security in Bagdad....they thought that the Iraqies loved them and they would never be touched.

I second Joe's comment. Their crummy old building would make great afforable housing for New Yorkers.

Although I live in New England, I visit NY often enough. I hear repeated stories from both residents and NYPD about the annoying behavior of UN diplomats. They act rude, double park, dirve wrecklessly short-change waitresses, overcharge credit cards.....and declare diplomatic immunity to police when they are confronted about their behavior. No wonder why they needed to grab 10 billion from the Iraq Oil for Food program...an apartment in New York is not cheap.

Hey, they're building their fence on our side of the border!
They're trying to take over our territory.
The world should unite against this tyranny.<[:-p

Save the world............Nuke'm

The learger dispute was IMO more over the current route of the fence, not its existence itself.

So that's why people everywhere are talking about a "new Berlin Wall" and "apartheid"?


You surely do not expect the UN elites to mingle with the citizens.....

Where the hell have you been to the moon with NASA?

>So that's why people everywhere are talking about a "new Berlin Wall" and "apartheid"?

Well, not all people talk the same and many really only complained about the route. As far as I'm aware, the route was changed already. Talking about Apartheid, I saw a documentary about Nelson Mandela, where he explained that when he was young he was very arrogant and treated a lot of people who where close to him in a way he regrets. His time in prison changed him. So may be Israel should exercise some Apartheid on Arafat and do the miracle of turning him into a respectable person with high moral values, like Nelson Mandela.

Werden an diesem Zaun auch Selbstschußanlagen montiert? In der Vergangenheit war man ja auch nicht gerade zimperlich, wenn es um sie Sicherheit Kofi Annans ging. Da wurde die UNO auch schon mal zum Waffenschmuggler.

(Im Verheimlichen hat man an East River ja auch Praxis, wie der wunderbarerweise nach 10 Jahren wieder aufgetauchte Flugschreiber der ruandischen Präsidentenmaschine beweist)



I would think given the security situation and the threat that Kofi feels traveling around NYC, it is time to move the UN. A fence would only protect, the building. It would not protect the diplomats who must work there to insure that the principles of the UN are followed. This is a real undue hardship on them.

Probably a much safer place would be either Paris or even Berlin. Both cities are located in nations, which have much longer histories of domestic security and of democratic principles than the US. The world respects these more than those of America.

I am sure this would please all of Europe, as this would locate the UN in the center of what is considered the most important segment of the world. It would place the UN in an environment where it was surrounded by nations who have the utmost respect for it and also close to its other important institutions such as the ICC and the WCOJ. It would locate it closer to the EU and this is also good as they share so many of the same goals and principles. They could in fact better coordinate their actions and speak as a single voice.

Equally most of the franco African nations would feel more welcomed there. As these nations are relative poor they could visit the french and the UN at the same time saving them money for the development of their internal democratic institutions.

I am sure moving the UN would receive a lot of popular support even in America. The only potential drawback to this would be the UN would have to share the spotlight with the EU. I really do not see this as a problem because the President of france could just tell Kofi to sit down and shut up.

Just out of curiosity: how many New Yorkers have been killed by UN soldiers during - say - the past two days? Compare that number with the number of people that have been killed by Israeli soldiers in Rafah during that same period. And now tell me, is it really appropriate to compare the situation in New York with the situation in Israel? If so, why do you not propose to move the people of Israel to Amerika (I'm sure there is a lot of space in Montana!) in exchange for moving the UN headquarters to Europe?


Jo, and how many Arabic suicid bombers killed how many Israeli? Do you know it? Obviously - you don't care. The Israeli soldiers are there because of these terrorists. No terrorists - no soldiers necessary. It is so easy when you look at the truth. Is is really appropriate to forget the terror in your statement?


And how many New Yorkers killed how many UN employees during the last couple days? The point is, you can't compare building a fence in New York with building that fence in Israel.

And by the way, is it really so easy - "no terrorists - no soldiers necessary"? How about: no soldiers - no terrorists? If we wait for any of these options to happen then nothing is ever going to change.


jo, no soldiers - no terrorists? No brain???

Jo, I found this. Perhaps you like this. Gabi

May 20, 2004
Of Lies and Media
Yesterday's incident in Rafah, in which some PLO Arabs were killed, has highlighted the anti-Israel bias existing in the media today, as well as the lies being disseminated by the PLO Arabs.


"How about: no soldiers - no terrorists? If we wait for any of these options to happen then nothing is ever going to change."

Sure. How about: no police - no crime? How about: no cars - no accidents? How about: no [ Post ] button - no brain surgery?

@no comment, gabi, and Likudniko:

it looks like you guys need some brain surgery yourselves to get rid of that anti-palestinian bias of yours.


Anti-Palestinian? Well, considering that the real Palestinians are in fact the Jewish people who inhabited the former Syrian province which is commonly referred to as Palestine, while the gangsters who call themselves now Palestinians used to be called simply Arabs in pre-PLO times, I have to say, no, I'm not anti-Palestinian at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong but most Palestinians (according to your definition) used to live anywhere in the world but in "the former Syrian province which is commonly referred to as Palestine." So you might as well call them Russians, Germans, Hungarians, ... you name it! If there really was an agreement of what the "real Palestinians" are than we wouldn't have a war right now in that "former Syrian province".


You are wrong, and I'm glad to correct you on this issue. The term "Palestinian" applied to the Jews who lived in that region long before the state Israel was established. Later they were joined by Jews from all over the world ("Russians, Germans, Hungarians"), thus creating the society that is known as Israel, and rightly calling themselves the peoples of Israel, i.e. abandoning the name "Palestinians" which has been used by Arabs to denounce the Jews (als Schimpfwort). Later the PLO picked up the vacant term to fortify their claims on the whole land, thus distorting history.

"If there really was an agreement of what the "real Palestinians" are than we wouldn't have a war right now in that "former Syrian province".

You're on the right track, my dear jo. This war is not about land. It's about the bloodlust of Arafat's terrorists, and a silent majority of the now Palestinian society living in Gaza and West Bank which wants to destroy the Zionist entity, i.e. all traces of Jewish peoples in that region.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29