Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. A Proposal on Embassy Locations

 

128 countries have decided that they have every right to tell another nation what can and cannot be its capital city. Each of these countries marked in green has said that Jerusalem is not Israel’s capital city and that agreeing with Israel that it is should be punished.

Let us extend the principle. If one nation can tell another nation what its capital is, then it follows that the United States can declare for those nations where their capitals are. Instead of having to put our embassies close to their governments and where they think their capitals are, we can put our embassies in places convenient for us.

  • Oh, look, the United Kingdom has endorsed this principle. So, we can move our embassy to their new capital, according to us, of Brighton. Less traffic, fewer people, lower real estate prices, and it’s a nice seaside town.
  • Who else do we have? Japan? New capital on the island of Iwo Jima, perhaps?
  • Zimbabwe? Nobody wants to actually be in Zimbabwe. Let’s move their capital to somewhere more convenient, like Newark, New Jersey. Nobody wants to be there, either, but it’s much more convenient than Harare.
  • The Principality of Andorra? Wait, we don’t have an embassy or other mission in Andorra. Well, that’s okay. We’ll move the capitals of both Spain and France there, and then we will have an embassy there.

If they complain, we just say, “But in the UN, you said…”

There are 114 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Zafar Member

    Arahant:

    128 countries have decided that they have every right to tell another nation what can and cannot be its capital city.

    I like your idea for Zimbabwe, but for that to work Zimbabwe would have to pretend that Newark fell within Zimbabwe’s borders, and the rest of the world would need to accept those borders. Which would be defined, now that I think of it.

    Might be a ‘good thing’ for the rest of the US, but what would the worthy denizens of Newark think of this, I wonder?

    • #1
    • December 22, 2017, at 2:01 AM PST
    • 1 like
  2. Arahant Member
    Arahant

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Might be a ‘good thing’ for the rest of the US, but what would the worthy denizens of Newark think of this, I wonder?

    We really don’t care, do we? Have you ever been to Newark?

    Zafar (View Comment):
    I like your idea for Zimbabwe, but for that to work Zimbabwe would have to pretend that Newark fell within Zimbabwe’s borders, and the rest of the world would need to accept those borders.

    No, Zimbabwe’s opinion does not matter in this case. The rest of the world’s opinion does not matter, either. That’s why this overturning of the old Westphalian system of statehood will lead to chaos.

    • #2
    • December 22, 2017, at 2:08 AM PST
    • 11 likes
  3. Judge Mental Member

    There is also the flip side; they also voted that they have the right to tell us where to put our embassy. So, I don’t think there embassies should be in our capitol city, they should be somewhere less controversial. Like say, Wichita.

    • #3
    • December 22, 2017, at 2:09 AM PST
    • 23 likes
  4. Arahant Member
    Arahant

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    There is also the flip side; they also voted that they have the right to tell us where to put our embassy. So, I don’t think there embassies should be in our capitol city, they should be somewhere less controversial. Like say, Wichita.

    No, all of US territory is too controversial. After all, Native Americans once claimed it all. Just like with Australia, these 128 countries cannot have an embassy to the United States of America.

    • #4
    • December 22, 2017, at 2:11 AM PST
    • 9 likes
  5. Judge Mental Member

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    There is also the flip side; they also voted that they have the right to tell us where to put our embassy. So, I don’t think there embassies should be in our capitol city, they should be somewhere less controversial. Like say, Wichita.

    No, all of US territory is too controversial. After all, Native Americans once claimed it all. Just like with Australia, these 128 countries cannot have an embassy to the United States of America.

    Well then… if we’re bringing ours from Zimbabwe to Newark, I guess there’s some space available there.

    • #5
    • December 22, 2017, at 2:14 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  6. Zafar Member

    It’s about accepted borders.

    • #6
    • December 22, 2017, at 2:16 AM PST
    • 1 like
  7. Arahant Member
    Arahant

    Zafar (View Comment):
    It’s about accepted borders.

    The issue is that certain people will accept Israel as having no borders. Here are my accepted borders:

    • #7
    • December 22, 2017, at 2:23 AM PST
    • 24 likes
  8. Judge Mental Member

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    It’s about accepted borders.

    The issue is that certain people will accept Israel as having no borders. Here are my accepted borders:

    Remember when we were only $14 trillion in debt? Not that hard, it was just a few years ago.

    • #8
    • December 22, 2017, at 2:31 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  9. Zafar Member

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    It’s about accepted borders.

    The issue is that certain people will accept Israel as having no borders. Here are my accepted borders

    Isn’t the problem that people don’t accept that Palestine has borders, and that these borders include East Jerusalem?

    • #9
    • December 22, 2017, at 2:32 AM PST
    • 1 like
  10. TBA Coolidge
    TBA

    New plan: Israel’s capitol is the Earth itself and all of the Earth has to accept Jews.

    • #10
    • December 22, 2017, at 2:34 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  11. Randy Webster Member

    Reminds me of a scene from RAH’s Starship Troopers following the death of the old company commander in which the troopers want to change the name of the unit to fit the new company commander. It went something like:

    How many are in favor of this?

    It’s unanimous.

    So, One hundred thirty-eight ayes, and one no. The noes have it.

    • #11
    • December 22, 2017, at 2:50 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  12. Arahant Member
    Arahant

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Isn’t the problem that people don’t accept that Palestine has borders, and that these borders include East Jerusalem?

    Nope. The issue is that for the majority of Arabs, Israel has no right to exist. Do you know who the Palestinians were before 1948? Jews. Do you know what the people who are now called Palestinians were called? Arabs. Do you know where Arabs come from? Hint, it’s not Israel. Have you any notion of the history and how many people lived in the Holy Land when the Jews started coming back and making the desert bloom? Damnall, that’s how many. It was a low-population backwater. Now, there are millions and millions of people claiming to be Palestinians, and before 1948 their families were just Arabs, like everywhere else in the MiddleEast. There should be no separate state called Palestine. They lost the war. Not once, but several times. Time for the Carthage treatment. Is there a Novgorod Republic today? Is there a Venetian Republic today? No. Losing wars should matter.

    • #12
    • December 22, 2017, at 3:11 AM PST
    • 23 likes
  13. Zafar Member

    But there are still Venetians, right?

    The Italians didn’t drive them out and take their homes.

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Isn’t the problem that people don’t accept that Palestine has borders, and that these borders include East Jerusalem?

    Nope. The issue is that for the majority of Arabs, Israel has no right to exist.

    At the expense of the Palestinians. Why does it have a right to exist at somebody else’s expense?

    Do you know who the Palestinians were before 1948? Jews. Do you know what the people who are now called Palestinians were called? Arabs. Do you know where Arabs come from? Hint, it’s not Israel.

    Well those particular Arabs came from Palestine : – )

    Hence the conflict.

    Have you any notion of the history and how many people lived in the Holy Land when the Jews started coming back and making the desert bloom? Damnall, that’s how many. It was a low-population backwater.

    That’s what I keep hearing, but I’ve never seen it proved (random quotes from noted population scientist Mark Twain are not convicing) or even why it’s relevant.

    In 1946 what proportion of the population between the river and the sea was Palestinian Arab?

    How about in 1936?

    1926?

    1900?

    1850?

    Now, there are millions and millions of people claiming to be Palestinians, and before 1948 their families were just Arabs, like everywhere else in the MiddleEast. There should be no separate state called Palestine.

    I don’t see why not. There are states called Libya and Jordan and Iraq – all of which were established without displacing the native population – why not a state called Palestine?

    They lost the war. Not once, but several times. Time for the Carthage treatment. Is there a Novgorod Republic today? Is there a Venetian Republic today? No. Losing wars should matter.

    It’s hard to say that it hasn’t mattered to the Palestinians, Arahant. But winning or losing wars does not win or lose a moral argument.

    I’m opposed to Zionism because I believe that it’s immoral – the way that Apartheid in South Africa was immoral, and that colonialism was immoral. That’s why so many countries voted against accepting the outcome as a simple fait accompli, which is what recognising united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is really about. (Borders.)

    Winning or losing wars doesn’t address that moral question – and if you are reduced to basically arguing that might is right (losing wars, etc) then it seems like an admission that the moral argument is lost, or doesn’t work for you to get what you want.

    Which seems like an odd position for a conservative to find themselves in?

    • #13
    • December 22, 2017, at 3:40 AM PST
    • 1 like
  14. tigerlily Member

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    There is also the flip side; they also voted that they have the right to tell us where to put our embassy. So, I don’t think there embassies should be in our capitol city, they should be somewhere less controversial. Like say, Wichita.

    Wattaya got against Wichita Judge?

    • #14
    • December 22, 2017, at 4:00 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  15. Judge Mental Member

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    There is also the flip side; they also voted that they have the right to tell us where to put our embassy. So, I don’t think there embassies should be in our capitol city, they should be somewhere less controversial. Like say, Wichita.

    Wattaya got against Wichita Judge?

    The important point is what they have against it, mainly that it’s not Washington or New York City.

    • #15
    • December 22, 2017, at 4:08 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  16. Profile Photo Member

    • #16
    • December 22, 2017, at 4:17 AM PST
    • 16 likes
  17. Percival Thatcher
    Percival Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    There is also the flip side; they also voted that they have the right to tell us where to put our embassy. So, I don’t think there embassies should be in our capitol city, they should be somewhere less controversial. Like say, Wichita.

    I drove by Wichita once. I could have driven in, but it was after 6 PM on a Saturday, so I figured it was closed.

    • #17
    • December 22, 2017, at 5:03 AM PST
    • 15 likes
  18. OldDanRhody's speakeasy Member

    Zafar (View Comment):
    I’m opposed to Zionism because I believe that it’s immoral – the way that Apartheid in South Africa was immoral, and that colonialism was immoral. That’s why so many countries voted against accepting the outcome as a simple fait accompli, which is what recognising united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is really about. (Borders.)

    Winning or losing wars doesn’t address that moral question – and if you are reduced to basically arguing that might is right (losing wars, etc) then it seems like an admission that the moral argument is lost, or doesn’t work for you to get what you want.

    I don’t know what Zionism is, so for the moment I’m going to assume that you mean the Jews building a nation in the area known as Palestine. They do have their own historical claim to the territory, even though they had been displaced for centuries by martial conquest (losing wars).

    But I don’t see colonialism as a moral evil, unless it includes enslavement. Nation building is not the same thing as raiding and pillaging; it is a productive enterprise. The currently-occupying peoples do have a right to oppose the colonies (defend their territory), but the more vigorous, productive, and fecund group will ultimately come to prevail. An interesting counter-example might be seen in Europe, where more than a few nations seem to have chosen to passively acquiesce and even encourage the colonies being planted within their own territories.

    • #18
    • December 22, 2017, at 5:37 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  19. Muleskinner, Weasel Wrangler Member

    Percival (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    There is also the flip side; they also voted that they have the right to tell us where to put our embassy. So, I don’t think there embassies should be in our capitol city, they should be somewhere less controversial. Like say, Wichita.

    I drove by Wichita once. I could have driven in, but it was after 6 PM on a Saturday, so I figured it was closed.

    It only closes at 6 on school nights.

    • #19
    • December 22, 2017, at 5:38 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  20. Arahant Member
    Arahant

    Major Major Major Major (View Comment):
    Nation building is not the same thing as raiding and pillaging; it is a productive enterprise.

    Speaking as a man coming from a long line of pillaging raiders, I’m really failing to see the issue here. We took Normandy and built it into something more than it was. A few generations later, we took England and did the same. Then we took over Scotland through intermarriage, and made it better than it had been. Pillaging and raiding does plenty to change things for the better when one just stays and conquers, and I wish we would do more of it.

    • #20
    • December 22, 2017, at 5:54 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  21. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member

    Quit bustin’ on Wichita or ol’ Glenn will come back to haunt you.

    • #21
    • December 22, 2017, at 6:01 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  22. OldDanRhody's speakeasy Member

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Major Major Major Major (View Comment):
    Nation building is not the same thing as raiding and pillaging; it is a productive enterprise.

    Speaking as a man coming from a long line of pillaging raiders, I’m really failing to see the issue here

    I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. I see pillaging and raiding as theft (grab the goods and leave), while taking a territory and making it more than it was is a productive work.

    • #22
    • December 22, 2017, at 6:03 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  23. Arahant Member
    Arahant

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):
    Quit bustin’ on Whichita or ol’ Glenn will come back to haunt you.

    When I was young, I thought that was a football song. I knew what a football lineman was, but didn’t know what an electrical lineman was. Hey, I was only four. What can I say?

    • #23
    • December 22, 2017, at 6:05 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  24. Arahant Member
    Arahant

    Major Major Major Major (View Comment):
    I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. I see pillaging and raiding as theft (grab the goods and leave), while taking a territory and making it more than it was is a productive work.

    One of my older female relatives started a genealogical letter with: “If a man steals a loaf of bread, we call him a thief. But if he steals a kingdom, we call him the Conqueror…”

    Dream big. That’s all I’m saying and my blood is singing. What good is stealing something if you don’t make it better and put it to productive use?

    (Besides, if I have to suffer the penalties of Viking heritage, I’ll have the good parts, too.)

    • #24
    • December 22, 2017, at 6:09 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  25. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Zafar (View Comment):
    But winning or losing wars does not win or lose a moral argument.

    Actually, it sorta does.

    • #25
    • December 22, 2017, at 6:16 AM PST
    • 11 likes
  26. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member

    Arahant (View Comment):
    When I was young, I thought that was a football song. I knew what a football lineman was, but didn’t know what an electrical lineman was. Hey, I was only four. What can I say?

    Ah, so the Tennessee Valley Authority hadn’t gotten to you yet? ;)

    • #26
    • December 22, 2017, at 6:41 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  27. Arahant Member
    Arahant

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):
    Ah, so the Tennessee Valley Authority hadn’t gotten to you yet?

    I was nowhere near Tennessee. We had Uncommonly Wealthy Edison where I grew up. (I think that was their name.) Bill Ayers’ dad used to run it.

    • #27
    • December 22, 2017, at 6:45 AM PST
    • 1 like
  28. Old Buckeye Member

    And to the 35 countries that abstained, I say grow a spine.

    • #28
    • December 22, 2017, at 6:56 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  29. Arahant Member
    Arahant

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Which seems like an odd position for a conservative to find themselves in?

    How about for a conservative Viking?

    • #29
    • December 22, 2017, at 7:17 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  30. Ralphie Member

    The Palestinians do not want Isreal to exist. Isreal is about 50 miles x 100 miles, very tiny. The other arab states do not want the Palestinians either. Philistines are not Palestinians.

    • #30
    • December 22, 2017, at 7:21 AM PST
    • 1 like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.