UN tells UK to get rid of the queen

[pocketfullofshells]

I think anyone who advocates wiping out an entire race of people has to be insane. The president of Iran has advocated for this more times than I could count. Hitler was not sane either and he wanted to do the same thing to the same people just by different methods.

Yes he has, talks big, puts on nice show, contols the population...and does jack squat. Its not insane its smart given his position and wanting to Build up Iran as the power of the middle east. He can gain some level of support all over the middle east with his hard talk, while the middle east nations goverments do nothing and make deals with live with Iran.

That said , he is a threat, but one we can deal with without war or bombing. He may not even be the leader when Obama or McCain are in office, he is not doing well with the population in Iran.A population who wants Iran to stop its Nuke programs.

 

[Bunz]

I certainly think the UN needs reform in some ways, we need to keep in mind that this was the human rights council, of which the UK is a member of(or at least its listed, but does expire in 2008). This isnt the General Assembly or anything. For instance the US is not a member of this council. I found it quite funny though. This little gem I found funny.

Advisers to the Queen refused to comment publicly. But privately they admitted being astonished.

One senior Palace official said: “People here certainly haven’t detected any appetite for a referendum.



“The Queen is a focus for national unity, identity and pride.”

It goes on to mention that it only costs 62p a year from each Briton towards the Queen.
I hope 9sublime chimes in here sooner than later. He has some interesting views about the Monarchy.

As for the UN, I have mixed views on what should be done. There is no easy solution. I think we need a solid and accountable world peace organiztion of some form. That has a better way to actually dealing with offending countries. Whether it needs to happen through the UN or another form of it with a different name it matters little. Putting more than diplomatic and financial requirements on member nations would be a good start.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The comment was OBVIOUSLY a joke - there was even a smiley. Get hold of yourself.

Smileys don't ameliorate the extremism that your posts usually embody.

 

[Libsmasher]

Smileys don't ameliorate the extremism that your posts usually embody.

Going to militantly hold on to your misperception? OK!

 

[Bunz]

Smileys don't ameliorate the extremism that your posts usually embody.

Folks, lets stay on topic.

Ill throw these questions out for anyone who would like to answer.

Should the UN have a standing army/peacekeeping/world police type force? What form and general function would it have?
How would it be manned and payed for?

 

[9sublime]

It goes on to mention that it only costs 62p a year from each Briton towards the Queen.
I hope 9sublime chimes in here sooner than later. He has some interesting views about the Monarchy.

62p spent on a monarchy that pseudo power, kind of like the UN. A monarchy whos riches were built on an empire of slavery, and whos family members are so out of touch with the general public that they serve no purpose except to sell novelty hats in Trafalgar square and jet around meeting other royal families.

The 60 million inhabitants of Britain might want to spent that 62p more wisely. I certainly do.

 

[Libsmasher]

62p spent on a monarchy that pseudo power, kind of like the UN. A monarchy whos riches were built on an empire of slavery, and whos family members are so out of touch with the general public that they serve no purpose except to sell novelty hats in Trafalgar square and jet around meeting other royal families.

The 60 million inhabitants of Britain might want to spent that 62p more wisely. I certainly do.

The royals probably bring back 100 pounds in tourism for every one spent on them.

 

[9sublime]

Yes, but I have a moral objection to the fact that I have to pay for an institution that has no use, but has power over me, and that the power they have is restricted to a bloodline. The fact that this institution was built on many negatives things of our history and that now it is useless.

Maybe I'm just a bit too progressive in this matter for the convservartives on the board, without meaning to sound arrogant. You all seem like you want to grip onto the past, however detached and pointless some of the tradition is.

 

[Bunz]

Hi 9sub, I hope all is well with you. Shame England hasnt done better in the soccer recently. Either way Ill respond.

Yes, but I have a moral objection to the fact that I have to pay for an institution that has no use, but has power over me, and that the power they have is restricted to a bloodline. The fact that this institution was built on many negatives things of our history and that now it is useless.

In America we have plenty of institutions that have no practical use, has power over me that I dont agree with. Most churches, plenty of government bodies. Now the issue about bloodline is something I can understand to a point. It sounds like the GOP
In theory, cant anyone marry into the family?

Maybe I'm just a bit too progressive in this matter for the convservartives on the board, without meaning to sound arrogant. You all seem like you want to grip onto the past, however detached and pointless some of the tradition is.

In your opinion, is there a general sense of pride and unity concerning the royal family, as is suggested in the news article?

 

[The Scotsman]

...You all seem like you want to grip onto the past, however detached and pointless some of the tradition is.

That's what makes a country, its traditions and its institutions are the bedrock of society...welll at least the British folk anyway... mind you we could be really trendy and get rid of parliament and go back to a hereditry Monarchy..... Great Idea that way we can save money on the Politicians who squander untolled millions on their personal expenses their second mortgages and their fact finding missions to the Hilton on the Caman Islands and paying their WAGs a salary for blow jobs in the office!!....

Mind you at least they're elected to waste our money and fu*k up the country and not have referendum on giving more power to an even bigger and more worthless talking shop....tah dah... the European Parliament. Home to the Galactically profligate, this non-accountable "public" institution doesn't even have to account for its expenses so their Politicians can squander untolled billions on their personal expenses their second mortgages and their fact finding missions to the Hilton on the Caman Islands and paying their WAGs a salary for blow jobs in the office!!.... all good and above board though aye Sub...coz they're elected parasites!!!!

So there we have it Sub, by all means sack the queen and turn Buck Palace into the soft furnishings department of House of Fraser but all in all I think I'd rather have the Queen and the pointless traditions rather then the F*ckwit politicians.

 

[Libsmasher]

The point is the monarchy is the business of the people and government of the UK, not a bunch of dictator's representatives from the UN.