[RichyP]

Ah, now the Bhutan thread makes a lot more sense

[Agent Smith]

(Original post by Nightowl)
Aha! I am a genius! Although now Agent looks like a completely random loon.

But the... and the... and then you... but how did the...

I give up.

[brimstone]

Now, what's going on in here

[Nightowl]

(Original post by brimstone)
Now, what's going on in here

I took some off topicness from the Bhutan thread and put it in here,

[JonathanH]

Having read the relevant parts of the UN Charter, the US has noted that the parts involving removal of the veto of an involved party refer only to those situations where there are disputes between states such as over borders or resources and where these are likely to threaten international peace and security, and one of the parties happens to be a SC State, and the issues is being taken to the SC for resolution. ICANN and Guantanamo issues clearly do not fall in to this category (either as disputes between countries of the sufficient type or as threats to international peace and security) and no SC votes or vetoes would be subject to removal in regards to Resolutions or Motions on either topic. The US invites all States to read the relevant sections of the UN Charter - Article 27, paragraph 3 - and the parts it refers to and to make a case for any other possible interpretation, should they so wish. Unless that case is made, the US considers the matter closed and will retain its veto regarding both the aforementioned matters.

[brimstone]

India applauds America's research

[JonathanH]

Hehe, not hard, just found my copy of the UN Charter that I got from the last conference I went to and read it.

[brimstone]

OK then... it was worded very well then

[Knogle]

(Original post by JonathanH)
Having read the relevant parts of the UN Charter, the US has noted that the parts involving removal of the veto of an involved party refer only to those situations where there are disputes between states such as over borders or resources and where these are likely to threaten international peace and security, and one of the parties happens to be a SC State, and the issues is being taken to the SC for resolution. ICANN and Guantanamo issues clearly do not fall in to this category (either as disputes between countries of the sufficient type or as threats to international peace and security) and no SC votes or vetoes would be subject to removal in regards to Resolutions or Motions on either topic. The US invites all States to read the relevant sections of the UN Charter - Article 27, paragraph 3 - and the parts it refers to and to make a case for any other possible interpretation, should they so wish. Unless that case is made, the US considers the matter closed and will retain its veto regarding both the aforementioned matters.

Party spoiler!

[JonathanH]

So is that me doing the knocking out?

And, btw, you have US support for the UK nomination. Call it... grudging respect.

[Knogle]

(Original post by JonathanH)
So is that me doing the knocking out?

And, btw, you have US support for the UK nomination. Call it... grudging respect.

I knew I could count on you.

Don't get the wrong idea.

[Nightowl]

Are you the ice cream?

[brimstone]

Ice cream ^o)

[zav]

(Original post by Nightowl)
Are you the ice cream?

Interesting outlook on it

[JonathanH]

(Original post by Nightowl)
Are you the ice cream?

No, that's me.

[JonathanH]

(Original post by Knogle)
I knew I could count on you.

Don't get the wrong idea.

Smilies making out, smilies licking and sucking lollipops, dancing bananas? How could I get the wrong idea, it's obvious to everyone that you want me, right?

[Knogle]

(Original post by JonathanH)
Smilies making out, smilies licking and sucking lollipops, dancing bananas? How could I get the wrong idea, it's obvious to everyone that you want me, right?

I should do better at hiding my emotions. ^o)

[Agent Smith]

Gawd.

[Knogle]

(Original post by Agent Smith)
Gawd.

You called?

[Agent Smith]

*is at a loss for words*