regular features 
greatest hits 
archives 
search 
links 
email us 
The Daily Blog 

February 25, 2003

A Happy Fun Pundit UN Resolution

Well, since everyone seems to be submitting Iraq resolutions to the U.N. these days, we at Happy Fun Pundit decided to draft our own resolution. Here is the text of that resolution:

   Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, blah blah blah, etc.,
   Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that Saddam could save his sorry ass only by agreeing to the conditions of the previous resolutions and disarming;
   Recalling that resolution 1441 (2002), while acknowledging that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, still gave him more time to play games and shoot his shotgun into the air,
   Recalling that, nonetheless Jaques Chirac is a backstabbing son of a bitch,
   Recalling that in its resolution 1441 (2002) the council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution, would constitute a further material breach, not that we needed another one to hang Saddam by his ugly mustache and let his people use him for a pinata,
   Recalling that the subsequent declaration submitted by Iraq contained more false statements than an Oliver Stone movie,
   Noting, that in that context, that in its resolution 1441 (2002), the council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,
   Noting that 'serious consequences' to the French apparently means being forced to shower more than once a week,
   Noting also, that the only thing the Russians could recall was the size of their Iraqi oil contracts,
   Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring states,
   Noting, however, that a commitment to security from the French typically means you'll be lined up against a wall and shot while the French sit on their snotty asses and eat brie on the Riviera,
   Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,
   Aware, however, that the U.N. is about as responsible as a baby shower hosted by Michael Jackson and Woody Allen,
   Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
   Recognizing that Hussein's continued existence poses a threat of more Hollywood nincompoops annoying the crap out of all of us,
   Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,
   Well, determined to pretend we are, anyway,
   Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,
   Noting that if we don't vote for this, the U.S. and Britain will do it anyway and we'll look like idiots,
   Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441 (2002).

Posted by Dan at February 25, 2003 12:18 PM
Comments

If only diplomats could get away with saying what we really think...

Related point: Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, and Tim Robbins made a movie a few years back called "Dead Man Walking."

Too bad they didn't pay attention to their own movie. If they had, they'd understand that it takes the pressure of a firm deadline to make evil men change.

Further thoughts:

http://punditree.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_punditree_archive.html#89788277

-Stephen Gordon

Posted by: Stephen Gordon on February 26, 2003 01:06 PM

If the UN fails to adopt the resolution, we should tell those who voted against that they will accept full responsibility for the actions of Iraq. If Iraq performs an act of aggression against another country, uses its proscribed weapons against its own people or provides them to a third party, the US will perform a full nuclear strike against Iraq and all countries who voted against. If the other countries protest, we can tell them we're tired of being the global cop and facing WMDs from rogue nations and terrorists, it's their turn. ;)

Posted by: John P. on February 28, 2003 08:28 PM

Good idea, John P. WE could become a rogue nation. Just forward any other ideas including nuclear strike to my address, you dithering moron.

Posted by: Mitch on March 1, 2003 12:09 PM

Mitch,

Sorry you didn't understand the humor and resorted to name-calling. The anti-war protestors and the government of France are already treating us as if we are a rogue nation, and France has repeatedly urged us to ignore the UN resolutions, drop the economic sanctions and let the French businessmen handle the situation. I thought it humorous if we took them up on their offer but also truly acted like the rogue cowboys they think we are. After all, we would never behave like petulant Frenchmen, would we?

PS. This isn't all that far from the truth when the US ambassador to France makes an official statement that a veto would be viewed as "a very unfriendly act."

Posted by: John P. on March 1, 2003 01:32 PM

I'm sorry, too.

Posted by: Mitch on March 1, 2003 06:51 PM

Don't mind Mitch. He's in the running for the "Best Performance As A Sanctimonious Prick" Oscar and really going for the gold.

Posted by: Steve on March 2, 2003 01:42 PM

Actually, I think they tried to give that award at the Conservative Political Action Comittee a couple of months ago. Everybody tied. Steve, you remember, you were there.

Posted by: Mitch on March 3, 2003 09:35 AM

The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.

Posted by: Levenberg Karen on May 3, 2004 09:15 AM
Post a comment