Thursday, 27 September 2012

Cameron At The United Nations

Dave Cameron: I have to speak at the UN today, what you got for me?
Speechwriter: Well, i scribble a few lines about about World peace and ridding the World of poverty. Any good?
Dave Cameron: Not that load of nosh again. Look, Libya seems to have been forgotten and i'm really unpopular after all those cuts and flogging off the NHS and all that, and i need to find a way to go to war with someone without actually sounding like i want to go to war with someone. Humanitarian intervention, that sort of thing.   
Speechwriter: Syria or Iran?
Cameron: What you got on Syria?
Speechwriter: How about something along the lines of 'The blood of these young children in Syria is a terrible stain on the reputation of this United Nations. And in particular, a stain on those who have failed to stand up to these atrocities and in some cases aided and abetted Assad's reign of terror'.
Cameron: Yes, i like it. Makes me look a big tough guy and that's the most important thing.
Speechwriter: Of course the real stain is people like us, the USA and Israel who instead of working though the UN to do what is possible to negotiate a solution in Syria, have been taking sides and fanning the flames of war.
Cameron: Duh, of course but we won't tell them that.
Speechwriter:  Or that we twist enough arms at the UN to legitimise the regime changes that us and the yanks want.
Cameron: Damn straight. Now type that up and let me have a copy. I'm off to find a disabled person to abuse for scrounging benefits and not getting a job.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

lucy,

you would think that after thousands of years of people in that region killing each other using reasons that date back to before the pyramids, and the last 60 years of attempts by every US president and UK PM you would get the point that negotiation isn't going to work... did you hear amdenijad? did he say anything different than his predecessors or peers?

q

Lucy said...

The alternative to negotiation is war q and to my knowledge billions have died through wars so far, less so many through negotiations so i know which i would prefer every single time.

david g said...

Lucy, you'll never convince an American that negotiation is better than bombing and shock and awe.

The Americans didn't negotiate with the Red Indians. They slaughtered most of them. Then they fought against each other (Gettysburg, etc).

Americans are barbarians, primitives. They love killing!

Anonymouse said...

It seems it is always the same people urging a bit of war, the US, the UK and Israel. Why is it always them and not any of the other 200 odd countries at the UN?

Anonymous said...

i didn't advocate war... yawl are acting evil. i said negotiating OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT WORK. You got any data to disprove that!?

no, you don't have any data or logic that indicates that negotiating in the middle east will work.

two things have worked:
1. putting tyrants in place that were loyal to the us, uk, and france
2. paying off selected muslim kings - we promise them military protection and we guarantee to use their oil instead of ours

DG your comments indicate that you are a hater, so you shouldn't cast stones.

anonymous - you have selective hearing or a bad memory... what does armendinijad say weekly?? Oh yeah kill Israel.
- The African countries don’t even bother they just start killing.
- Ditto most arab countries: Syria, Libya, iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
- If the chinese thought we would turn our back they’d attack Japan and Taiwan.
So acknowledge all the data not just the data that suits your views. Are you really just DG using another style?

q

Cheezy said...

Q - "1. putting tyrants in place that were loyal to the us, uk, and france"

Hmmm, well... Franco, Batista, Pinochet, Abacha, Duvalier, Pol Pot, Suharto, Salazar, Mubarek, Saddam, Marcos, Rabuka, Mobutu, Dihn Diem, Noriega, Somoza... I could go on)... All supported politically and militarily by the US and often the UK too... Not all of these dictators were worse than the alternative at the time, but some of them certainly were. So saying that this 'worked' in any way certainly needs some qualification.

David - Yet again, you bring nothing to the table bar mindless xenophobia. Can you really not see this yourself? Drop the racism and that'll be first step to people taking your words more seriously. Filling the gaps with actual 'content' would be the next step.

Anonymous said...

cheezy,

i'd argue that most of those suited our purpose (some unknown greater good for the US or UK at the time that we citizens can't ever know). i was specifically thinking of mubarack for the last 40 years egypt was not a problem... also the saudis and kuwaitis have worked out fairly well.

q

Cheezy said...

Yes, that's exactly the sort of qualification I'm talking about... i.e. admitting that (a) some of them backfired big-time and also that (b) some of them were perpetrated directly against the democratic wishes of the people concerned (Pinochet's accession being a classic example in this regard).