Public: Country
Name That Country   (+8, -3)  [vote for, against]
An annual lottery held by the UN

Ok, so it goes like this. On the 1st January every year, there is a special UN meeting held where the name of every country is put into a large hat and the representatives of each country get to draw out a name at random . Their country then has to use the new name for the rest of the year. No longer will the name of any one country be held up for special ridicule or admiration, it all gets shared around equally. Unloose the shackles of historical perception and change names regularly. After all, it seems to work for businesses.
-- DrBob, Apr 10 2002

Falklands Conflict History http://www.yendor.c.../falklands-war.html
[dag, Apr 11 2002]

(?) forgotten countries
[mrthingy, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]

Would you trust the Americans to be able to keep track of the changes? They might start bombing the shit out of whatever poor bastard draws Iraq out of the hat.
-- stupop, Apr 10 2002

Indeed. Duck, [stupop], duck!
-- phoenix, Apr 10 2002

Just like a Uruguayan to come up with a silly idea like this.
-- waugsqueke, Apr 10 2002

If, after the name change, everyone had to drop what they were doing and follow their old name it might be interesting. Jamaica is now China, all Chinese must go to there now.

In fact it would work for businesses too. Microsoft is now Mcdonalds, all former Mcdonalds employees will now work at what used to be called Microsoft. Definite improvement.
-- dag, Apr 10 2002

Year-long Vacations to exotic-sounding locales would be so inexpensive
-- thumbwax, Apr 10 2002

Yes, and wouldn't just be wonderful if Palestine drew the name israel and Iraq drew U.S.A
-- [ sctld ], Apr 10 2002

Don't forget the fun of rich-snob cruise lines. "Carnival Cruises, 2 days, 3 nights in sunny, romantic Bosnia!" "Our port stops will be in Bosnia, Afghnistan, Vatican City, North Korea, and Lichtenstein!"

Of course if we had really bad taste and planning we could suggest changing city names around the world as well. Just imagine the U.S. getting a city like Los Angeles switched with a nice city from Vietnam. Imagine the flight departures.

"Last plane out of Saigon, all aboard..."
-- Delcan, Apr 11 2002

It seems to me that most of the UK's combat casualties in the last twenty years have been caused by the USA (I refer you to previous threads re: friendly fire), so I think that the changing aim argument is a bit of a red herring as they apparently don't aim at all.
-- DrBob, Apr 11 2002

An easy way to achieve this is to swap the letters around each year. Or more often than that, if necessary.
-- lubbit, Apr 11 2002

[DrBob] Please direct me to the specific post that supports your facts. Are you saying the US has killed more Brits with friendly fire in the last 20 years than were lost in the Falklands (236 combat deaths)?

[UnaBubba] Very nice, good laughs.
-- dag, Apr 11 2002

Friendly fire deaths are a very sad thing, no doubt. While the ratio of friendly fire deaths to overall death count is steadily increasing, the actual number of total friendly fire deaths is decreasing. More recent conflicts just don't have the body counts they used too. Allied body counts that is.

[Drbob] Saying the U.S does not aim their weapons is completely wrong. A large percentage of the weapons hit exactly what them were aimed at. The problem arises from the aim point being the wrong place due to bad intel or coordinates.
-- dag, Apr 11 2002

I'm curious to see the friendly fire stat on the Iraqi army. Does shooting a deserter count as friendly fire?
-- dag, Apr 11 2002

dag, the Falklands conflict is now twenty years ago. I chose my number with care (and just to prevent any further nitpicking - I'm not including Northern Ireland either). And no, I'm not going to give you any stats. Find 'em yourself!
-- DrBob, Apr 11 2002

[DrBob] I did. The Falklands conflict was not more than 20 years ago, it was 19 years and 11 months and a few weeks. The British lost most if not all their combat losses starting in May of 1982. [Link] That is just UNDER 20 years ago. Sorry to be a stickler for dates, but it's true.
-- dag, Apr 11 2002

He said "is now twenty years ago," not "more than." A matter of a couple weeks over a 20 year span? You're the textbook definition of 'stickler' . Getting hung up on something that unimportant usually indicates the lack of any other pertinent facts to argue about.

Let's name countries human names, like "Randy" or "Elaine." Tony Blair can be the Prime Minister of Ruth.
-- waugsqueke, Apr 11 2002

I don't mind being a stickler. And as far as another point pertaining to friendly fire I already made it. (While the ratio of friendly fire deaths to overall death count is steadily increasing, the actual number of total friendly fire deaths is decreasing). As far as 'hung up on something that unimportant", it is quite important to his claim, it either makes or breaks it.

If he would have said "in the last 19 years" he would have been right. He didn't, he first said "in the last 20 years". I understand his point, it was just slightly incorrect. Stickler, yes. Correct, yes.

*Serious face gone now*

After every name change, the new host of the name should get to add or take away a letter from the name.
-- dag, Apr 11 2002

// As far as 'hung up on something that unimportant", it is quite important to his claim, it either makes or breaks it. //

Well no, it doesn't break it. It illustrates the need to go to any length to win an argument moreso than anything else. In so doing, you miss the good doctor's point, which remains valid.
-- waugsqueke, Apr 11 2002

[waugsqueke] The fact whether the Doc's point is correct or not relies on the date issue. I'm not trying to WIN the issue, just clarify the assumptions of the Doc's facts.

The fact is if he's stating under 20 years he's right, if he's stating more than 20 years he's wrong.

I agree with you, the American stance is the gung-ho go get 'em and casualties are a sidenote.

If what you say is correct, just stay as far away as you can from the American troops and let them conduct their business and there would not be anymore Brit friendly fire deaths.
-- dag, Apr 12 2002

The fact is he was stating neither over or under 20 years.  Am I really reading this . . . ?!  Do you HONESTLY think that it is necessary for someone, in the course of a conversation, to say things like, "Well, it wasn't REALLY last week, it was 6 days, 10 hours and 53, no, 54 minutes ago?"  To me that is just frivolous, and pointless, precision.
-- bristolz, Apr 12 2002

Since he is saying it does not involve the Falklands, various Brit clandestine ops and northern Ireland, it's not like it's a valid point anyway. Anyone can quote combat losses (or whatever topic they wish) and exclude whatever data they see fit to suit their needs.

[DrBob] Said he chose his 20 year "number with care". I guess he is just not the stickler that I am.

[UnaBubba] is right. (As long as Doc can say less than 20 years) heh.

A lawyer?, Eh? I promise to stop.
-- dag, Apr 12 2002

Whoa! I feel like I've been hijacked and landed in the World of Picking Nit! Talk to the point, guys, or take it outside!

The big problem with drawing names out of a hat is somebody could end up with a size instead. (Why yes, as a matter of fact I do come from 7 1/2. And you?)
-- Canuck, Apr 12 2002

Is that 7 1/2 or 7 255/512ths or 7 257/512ths?
-- thumbwax, Apr 12 2002

hummm i wonder if changing the label "United States", would help decrease the "US" & them thinking behind most American "open" trade policies.
-- mymus, Apr 12 2002

Although the USA did not fight in the Falklands war, thus explaining how come they didn't kill any British troops in that conflict, they were one of Argentina's leading allies at that time, so there is no doubt their support, training and equipment helped the Argentinian armed forces. (Although Iraq was an American ally until the invasion of Kuwait, and we all know about Afghanistan.)
-- pottedstu, Apr 12 2002

In fact we could just ban the use of names of coutries altogether, sending the world into confusion. In fact ban the use of names for anything altogether. "Could you pass the thing?" "What?" "That! I need to take it somewhere! "Where?" "Elsewhere!"

-- percy, Apr 12 2002

dag:Come back and read it again in a couple of weeks time. It'll be totally true then. Does that make me a prophet? :0)

Canuck, yes that could be a problem. Also small balls of fluff could present problems. Perhaps a ceramic bowl would be better.
-- DrBob, Apr 12 2002

"In many cases military personnel injured or killed by friendly fire can apply for the Purple Heart medal."

How many of the killed ones actualy do?
-- RobertKidney, Apr 12 2002

[DrBob] You are correct Sir! I should have never doubted you...
-- dag, Jun 26 2002

Ken denied all knowledge of pushing *anybody* down 15 feet of stairs...
-- po, Jun 26 2002

That's enough of that, I think.

[MS vs Linux comments deleted ;0)]
-- DrBob, Aug 09 2002

It's been 21 years, heh
-- thumbwax, Feb 08 2003

Bunned, but I'd rather have it so they have to be very close allies with the one they pick.
-- Selky, Feb 27 2010

At last! A seacoast in Bohemia!
-- mouseposture, Feb 27 2010

I hate to disrupt your Bohemian rhapsody, mouseposture, but I'm afraid that it's only a region, not a country. You could get a nice bit of coastline for the Czech Republic though.
-- DrBob, Mar 01 2010

random, halfbakery