Motion to Censure Venezuela Watch

This discussion is closed.
Teehar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 12 years ago
#41
(Original post by gemgems89)
That was 5 months ago! On a totally unrelated topic! Why are you bringing past topics up? I can't even remember writing that which totally disproves your point, whatever that may be.
are you trying to defend against calling me 'lying scum'?

that was the last time he was banned. perfectly relevant considering the original comment was in response to your claim that you were not the only one supporting him at the time and my counter claim that you were the only one to neg rep on his behalf. i'm still waiting for that apology.
0
Teehar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 12 years ago
#42
you know waht? do your worst. it is clear that certain members here bear a grudge. i have done my best to prove that, if you want to continue with petty disputes, you may do so, but not with me participating in them, i refuse to comment further in what you have turned into a slanging match.
0
brimstone
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#43
(Original post by 6+6=6)
are you trying to defend against calling me 'lying scum'?

that was the last time he was banned. perfectly relevant considering the original comment was in response to your claim that you were not the only one supporting him at the time and my counter claim that you were the only one to neg rep on his behalf. i'm still waiting for that apology.
What has this got to do with the events happening at this moment at time?
0
gemgems89
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#44
Report 12 years ago
#44
(Original post by 6+6=6)
are you trying to defend against calling me 'lying scum'?

that was the last time he was banned. perfectly relevant considering the original comment was in response to your claim that you were not the only one supporting him at the time and my counter claim that you were the only one to neg rep on his behalf. i'm still waiting for that apology.
Why should I apologise for something that is unrelated to this thread? I do not see the connection. At the end of the day, the point is I support this motion, not because of any past "grudges," because, I personally don't remember that. Therefore, if anyone, it is you who has the grudge. I support it for the same reason the OP does, as well as many other countries. You are going off point purposely to hide the fact people are supporting this motion. And the only person you can attack in this is me because I am the only one that has ever repped you, *cough* 5 months ago! *cough*!

Furthermore, my response was only natural considering that rep is so old. I thought you were referring to recently, as I'm sure anyone would. A mistake is a mistake and I take back the "lying scum" bit.

Israel urges this topic to go back to the original subject now.
0
Ethereal
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 12 years ago
#45
The RSA will have no further part of this.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#46
Report 12 years ago
#46
Teehar, stop bringing your other feuds into this. If your only goal is to disrupt the MUN, I don't see why you bother staying. If you actually bothered to contribute to it instead of lashing out at everybody, then this topic would never be brought up.
0
gemgems89
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#47
Report 12 years ago
#47
(Original post by 6+6=6)
you know waht? do your worst. it is clear that certain members here bear a grudge. i have done my best to prove that, if you want to continue with petty disputes, you may do so, but not with me participating in them, i refuse to comment further in what you have turned into a slanging match.
Speaking for myself, I bear no grudge. I have done my best to be civil in this. If you hadn't beared a grudge, you wouldn't have tried to evict Jonathan, who you have also neg repped in the past. :rolleyes:
0
Ethereal
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#48
Report 12 years ago
#48
Gems, to be fair JohnH's mannerisms were out of line. However, now he has gone I don't see why people can't just DROP IT and move on. That would be aimed at 6, not at you
0
Knogle
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#49
Report 12 years ago
#49
NO.

The UK will VETO any motion to censure the Venezuelan rep.

We have had enough of instability within the ranks of the MUN, and it's time to let things settle.

With that said, I ask the Venezuelan rep to be more diplomatic in the interest of the MUN. Please do not take my kindness and generosity for granted.
0
brimstone
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#50
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#50
(Original post by Knogle)
NO.

The UK will VETO any motion to censure the Venezuelan rep.

We have had enough of instability within the ranks of the MUN, and it's time to let things settle.

With that said, I ask the Venezuelan rep to be more diplomatic in the interest of the MUN. Please do not take my kindness and generosity for granted.
Surely this is nothing to do with 'instability in the ranks of the MUN'. This is to do with a comment the representative made about the US, one that was completely unfounded, had no proof, and could be harming.
India does not care about the UK vetoing the motion in the SC, as long as it can manage to go through the GA.
BTW, I would like everyone to know that I would have made this resolution, no matter what representative made those comments.
0
Nightowl
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#51
Report 12 years ago
#51
To be honest, I think President Chavez has said worse things about the US. It was fair of him to criticise the US as that is what Venezuela does a lot recently in the real international debate. I think, in this instance, people have jumped on Teehar's back too quickly.
0
brimstone
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#52
(Original post by Nightowl)
To be honest, I think President Chavez has said worse things about the US. It was fair of him to criticise the US as that is what Venezuela does a lot recently in the real international debate. I think, in this instance, people have jumped on Teehar's back too quickly.
However, despite Chavez criticising, he doesn't make outlandish comments like Teehar did. Not to my knowledge anyway...
0
gemgems89
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#53
Report 12 years ago
#53
(Original post by Ethereal)
Gems, to be fair JohnH's mannerisms were out of line. However, now he has gone I don't see why people can't just DROP IT and move on. That would be aimed at 6, not at you
I agree with all that.
0
Nightowl
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#54
Report 12 years ago
#54
(Original post by 6+6=6)
venezuala hopes that this delegate can better defend the pathetic, imperialistic policies of the US and their continuing interference in other nation's business where it si not wanted.
Is as outlandish as..
(Original post by President Chavez)
"The grand destroyer of the world, and the greatest threat ... is represented by U.S. imperialism"
And he also called Bush "Hitler".
0
aiman
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#55
Report 12 years ago
#55
...and with all of this Venezuala wanted a seat in the Security Council!
0
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#56
Report 12 years ago
#56
(Original post by 6+6=6)
i never said that YOU supported JonH, i know your stance on him, i am merely pointing out that those that did, Apollo and gemgems, to name a few, will no doubt support this in an attempt to gain some sort of retribution for the part i played in his removal.
:rolleyes: China actually wants absolutely nothing to do with this.
0
Knogle
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#57
Report 12 years ago
#57
(Original post by brimstone)
Surely this is nothing to do with 'instability in the ranks of the MUN'. This is to do with a comment the representative made about the US, one that was completely unfounded, had no proof, and could be harming.
India does not care about the UK vetoing the motion in the SC, as long as it can manage to go through the GA.
BTW, I would like everyone to know that I would have made this resolution, no matter what representative made those comments.
Speak all you want brimstone, but this motion would never pass. Like Nightowl said, people have jumped on teehar's back too fast and too soon. Chavez makes such comments on a very regular basis.
0
Refused
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 12 years ago
#58
(Original post by brimstone)
India wishes to form a motion censuring Venezuela for their comments in this thread :
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=232109
We believe that the Representative for Venezuela made accusation that he could not back up. Sources he provided were not viable.
This is not an official motion, but just India testing the water to ensure support.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/a.../cia.chile.02/

The Venezuelan rep's earlier comments that the US have funded "political and military groups opposed to the government of a democratic nation" are 100% correct. If you follow the link above, officially released documents by the US and CIA states their involvment in the Chilean coup of 1973, which lead to the death of the elected president and the appointment of General Pinochet, a serious human rights abuser, who the UN are still trying to prosecute.

Altough, to my knowledge, there are no clear goverment documents which states how the US was involved in the Chavez coup of Venezuela, it is known they funded opposition parties before the military coup. Still, those official documents proves the Venezualian reps earlier comments were true.
0
Nutter
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#59
Report 12 years ago
#59
Indonesia would formally and categorically like to express its disappointment that countries have considered to censure the Venezuelan representative. While Indonesia thinks that the Venezuelan representative has been a little too brash in his behaviour recently, this by no means should demand any form of a censure.

Let it be known that Indonesia would oppose this motion - we want to hear Venezuela's voice in the United Nations. Suppressing it will not do any good.
0
brimstone
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#60
As there is little support for this motion, India wishes to withdraw it.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (344)
37.84%
No - but I will (72)
7.92%
No - I don't want to (65)
7.15%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (428)
47.08%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed