Sheesh, I can just *feel* the clock speeding back from midnight right about now.

I'm going to sleep soundly tonight in my well-within-the-Washington-nuclear-blast-radius bed tonight knowing that the U.N. cares enough to pass such important resolutions.

Really, seriously. . . I will be very surprised if we make it past the next fifty years without an American city going up.

So Ace, what's it gonna be? NYC or DC? You, or me?

Man, it sure would be nice if the Jihadis get pissed off at Kansas City for some reason. . . or maybe even 'Frisco?

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

If bad men want to kill you, you're probably doing something right.

Not that this will be a great relief if the bad men succeed, of course. But it is some small consolation for those of us living in major population centers (my whole family lives in midtown Manhattan).

The U.N. has become about as useful as a condom vending machine in the Vatican.

What a total fucking farce!

compos mentis wrote: The U.N. has become about as useful as a condom vending machine in the Vatican.

There're probably a few altar boys out there who might have a, uh, bone to pick with you on that one.

Looking back, I am genuinely sorry about all that Unicef money I collected when I went trick-or-treating as a kid. I'd have fewer regrets today if I'd just stolen the change and gone out and bought a big bottle of Val-U-Rite vodka.

Megan: There're probably a few altar boys out there who might have a, uh, bone to pick with you on that one.

~knocks hat off of head, puts hand over heart and gasps, "Ya got me pardner!"

If the world is getting major heebie-jeebies about the possibility that a terrorist nuke might be set off in a major world capital and the state nukes that could fly in consequence afterwards..that is a good thing.

The US simply cannot win the war against Radical Islam without allies. We have no choice in the matter.

We have had success with working with the UN to eradicate slavery, major diseases.

The difficulty defining terrorism is real. How do you deal with civilian invaders? Do you fight them? Is any action taken against civilians, backed by an Army...automatically terrorism?

Were the Indians that attacked wagon trains automatically terrorists? The Tibetans fighting back against 100's of thousands of Chinese settlers moving onto their lands? The Palestinians fighting back against Israeli Settlers seizing their land and water in contravention of both UN Res 242 and the 4th Geneva Convention that the USA is signatory to??

If you consider, as the Israelis do, any resistance to be terrorism, then we will never get global agreement on what is universally to be condemned and outlawed.

By law, the Palestinians are entitled to armed resistance against an occupier until a signed peace is achieved. Soldiers of the occupation Army Israel sent in are legitimate targets, likely too armed Settlers. But the Arabs go too far in saying that random bombings against civilians, attacks against civilian targets inside Israel Proper are OK. They are not, as they would be the first to agree if Israeli snipers started shooting women or Israeli artillery fire was directed against Palestinian schools or market places.

So we do need a definition of terrorism. One that includes any 1st use of a biological or nuclear WMD against a civilian target. But we also have to admit that armed resistance against armed civilian settlers violating the 4th Geneva Convention and escalating actions to dislodge such illegitimate occupations is NOT terrorism.

It is imperative that we soon obtain protocols on defining & deterring terrorism, use of global actions and sanctions on indentified terrorist groups, and agreement on - God Forbid - consequences to use of WMD against a nation by a terrorist group.

And equally imperative that UN agencies set up to block nuclear or biological proliferation are strengthened and made more functional.

And just as important that the US cease.... saying that all these rules and protocols apply to all, that all nations must sign non-proliferation pacts.... except for Israel.

I guaran-double-tee you that this resolution will be used to criticize the US about depleted Uranium shells. Just like how when the left talks about being against "terrorism in all its forms" all they're really talking about is Israeli and US military action.

This isn't going to be used to criticize DU shells. This is going to be used to criticize the 9,000 warheads we have pointed at everyone else. We don't cram those into silos and submarines to freshen the air, they're there to kill people.

Anyone care to guess the next country that will have a nuclear facility attacked? I'll give you a hint, its initial is "I" and it ends with "ran"

This resolution has just made it "illegal" (to the extent the General Assembly has any legislative power) to possess nuclear weapons, and has made it "illegal" to keep anyone else from getting nuclear weapons.

The pointlessness of the resolution can be summed up by its margin of victory and the list of countries supporting it.

Next up will be a resolution against hurting children (non-Jewish). I think the U.S. Senate should worry that it might be losing its place as the world's greatest deliberative body.

I'm thinking about the terrorists waking up cranky today. You know, the ones that were this close to having their nuclear device in working order. Mere days away from wreaking unprecedented havoc on the world, yet foiled...foiled by the blue helmet guys who outlawed their weapon.