U.S Ambassador basically tells U.N to F@CK OFF

Did anyone watch the U.N meetings today ? Well it was a doozey. The United Nations adapted a charter to condemn and stop the U.S from continuing its embargo on Cuba. Well the US ambassador in the most diplomatic way told the UN that it has no power to stop the US embargo since only the United states Congress can make and change laws as stated by the U.S constitution. It was the diplomatic way of saying FUCK OFF you have no power of us. The reaction of the faces of the other members was pure gold.

What good is the UN? Can someone explain it to me. From reading up on the UN if found that the US is the major source of its funds and its the country contributes majority of the Soldiers and hardware if the UN need to enforce peace in some country.


  • Wow, the lady ambassador is taking after the boss. I'll be damn.
  • edited November 2017
  • Trump is going to Hawaii to get some chocolate coated macadamia nuts to take with him to Korea and Japan.
  • His visit is the first leg of his journey to Asia to assure allies of the US commitment to the Pacific-Asia region.
  • Sinbad, a sonap an Trump esap mochen mongo kon me iik. Nge sia satun uwow ngeni omotun nemenen China me Korea. A men watte ei kon non Honolulu non kei fansoun.lol
  • Was great to see the faces of the other members!!! image
  • GOOD SHOW, Madam Ambassador. Tell them to take a flying leap, who are they to tell the Good Ole US of A how to handle its own affairs? Let's lay down a blockade around that little island, just like Jack Kennedy did way back then.
  • It really boils down to the basic principle of "sovereign states". All members of the UN General Assembly are independent and "sovereign state" no matter how rich a country is; or the size of population They don't take orders from other sovereign states.

    Yes, they can choose to act together, where possible, to promote programs and recommendations that are for the benefit of the group or the group's interest--whether domestic or international. And, yes, the US is providing a big chunk of cash to support the operation of the UN--even when at times, the UN member states take action that are against the US The group (UN members), cannot dictate to an individual member.

  • I am proud of the FSM, Belau & Marshall Islands for voting in favor of the UN Resolution calling for an end to US embargo on Cuba.

    191 of 193 nations voted in favor of the resolution. Only the US and Israel voted against it. Finally, the Micro states are beginning to grow some balls. ...lol.

    This ain't the first time the UN General Assembly introduced or adopted such a resolution. This is actually the 25th or 26th time the UN has adopted such resolution demanding an end to US embargo on Cuba.

    The great irony of all this is that the US played a leading role in the creation of the United Nations whose main purpose is to maintain worldwide peace and security, develop relations among nations and foster cooperation between nations in order to solve economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian international problems.

    In the UN Charter's Preamble, it sets an objective ,"to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained".

    The development of, and respect for international law has been a key part of the work of the United Nations. This work is or can be carried out in international courts, tribunals, multilateral treaties - and by the Security Council, which can approve peacekeeping missions, impose sanctions, or authorize the use of force when there is a threat to international peace and security, if it deems this necessary

    Marc, I think the real issue is not about US' sovereignty or another nation's sovereignty. It's about US' refusal to accept the International law, US' refusal to accept Cuba's sovereignty & Cuba's right to select it own leader & direction/destiny. We now know that after Trump released or declassified the Kennedy Assassination papers, they clearly showed how the US government, intelligence agencies tried to come up with ways to assassinate Fidel Castro.

    I can almost guarantee that if you're a Cuban living in Cuba, you'll be pissed at the US embargo unless you're a Cuban living in luxury in Miami, Florida or New York.

    In essence, the US, unfortunately, is once again in breach of its obligation as a UN member state to abide by or comply with customary international law. In other words, the US has once again violated international rule of law because the United States accepted the legal obligations under the UN Charter when it ratified it back in 1945. That means that the UN Charter is also part of US law, under the US Constitution’s provision recognizing treaties as the “Law of the Land.”

    And yes, the US has once again told the UN F@CK OFF just like in 1986 when the US refused to accept the UN's International Court of Justice ruling that US violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors or just like when US attacked or shot 50 plus Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria without UN's approval.

    IronYouth, good question.

    What good is the UN..... if US is above the law? So much for the so-called American Exceptionalism.
  • It all comes down to the US constitution. The U.N DOES not have power to force the US to opey its resolutions no matter how many resolutions there are. The UN does not have the power to stop the US from using its military like you mentioned when US bombed Syrian airbase that was behind the chemical attacks on syrian civilians.

    Shorter Haley: Dearest UN, America isn’t your bitch. You’re ours…
  • So only the US can defy UN resolution, but none other can when US proposes one and take charge.
  • US--and the resolutions that it sponsors-- are always rejected by majority of the General Assembly members. Most of the time, the rejection is not based on merits but on the childish reaction on the part of some states--to try to embarrass the US or try to show that they are big enough to stand up to the US. This is why oftentimes, many US-sponsored resolution are supported only by Israel, FSM, RMI and Palau--which are the closest US allies in the UN. But that is how it goes. Each country can decide what they want because they are sovereign countries; and are not obligated to support the US.

    In the Security Council, there are many times that US requests or resolutions cannot go thru because one of the Permanent Members can veto; and that's it.

    It is thus amazing the current US UN Ambassador was able to get the resolutions approved in the Security Council regarding North Korea; and Russia and China did not veto. It's not because of their love for the US but because the US Ambassador made it clear that they all had a stake in approving the resolution. So it was a good diplomatic strategy which caused approval in the Security Council; whereas in the past, such resolution against N. Korea would have been vetoed by either China or Russia. Just some thoughts.
  • Sinbad the us will support resolutions by other countries and when its against their interests or constitution thats when they don't.
  • How effective is the U.N. Security Council? How is it that they, the Security Council not able to stop the U.S. from invading Iraq?
  • I have to think the resolution was, for all intents and purposes, symbolic. A sort of petition stating "we disagree". Being a Ga Voter, I find it amusing. we support what is inline with our interests, if it isn't, do what the Brits recommend- KCCO.
  • It was also a symbolic F u from the US side too.
  • Can't disagree with you there, IronYouth.
Sign In or Register to comment.