Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 92
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Why is what I'm saying to hell with human rights? I;m applauding this:
    "A year ago, Secretary-General
    Kofi Annan proposed replacing the widely criticized and highly politicized U.N. Human Rights Commission, which has allowed some of the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect one another from condemnation.

    The Human Rights Council, approved Wednesday, is a watered-down version of Annan's vision. But the secretary-general still called it "historic," and human rights groups welcomed its creation.

    "This gives the
    United Nations the chance — a much-needed chance — to make a new beginning in its work for human rights around the world," Annan said in a statement.

    While no country will be satisfied with everything in the resolution establishing the new council, he said it provides "a solid foundation on which all who are truly committed to the cause of human rights must now build."

    AND the fact that the wealthiest nation didn't get to push around the rest of the World. Democracy.
    But do you really think this will make a bit of difference? You're way more optimistic than I would be.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Will Sudan, that well known paragon of human rights, chair this committee? Maybe it is Somalia's turn?
    Neither Sudan nor any other nation violating human rights. That was the main point of the changes made, but you seem to have missed it.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Neither Sudan nor any other nation violating human rights. That was the main point of the changes made, but you seem to have missed it.
    No, I caught that. How long do you think that will last? Until the first $100,000 bearer bond is waved under someone's nose.

    Kofi Anan, UN reformer. That is rich.

    And on another note, how many here think these changes would have happened if we hadn 't sent the EVIL John Bolton to the UN?
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    U.N. member states ignored U.S. opposition and overwhelmingly approved a new Human Rights Council on Wednesday, attempting to strengthen the world body's machinery to deal with major human rights offenders.

    Haven't read the details. I sure hope, for the sake of poor thirsd world countries the UN seems to want to represent, that they crack down on UN human rights abuses. They can harp all they want about Abu Ghraib but at least US soldiers weren't running child prostitution and human trafficking enterprises.
  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    No, I caught that. How long do you think that will last? Until the first $100,000 bearer bond is waved under someone's nose.

    Kofi Anan, UN reformer. That is rich.

    And on another note, how many here think these changes would have happened if we hadn 't sent the EVIL John Bolton to the UN?
    What was the result on that vote of confidence for Kofi Anan?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    But do you really think this will make a bit of difference? You're way more optimistic than I would be.
    It makes more of a difference than sitting arounf poo-pooing the UN every waking moment.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Why is what I'm saying to hell with human rights? I;m applauding this:
    "A year ago, Secretary-General
    Kofi Annan proposed replacing the widely criticized and highly politicized U.N. Human Rights Commission, which has allowed some of the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect one another from condemnation.

    The Human Rights Council, approved Wednesday, is a watered-down version of Annan's vision. But the secretary-general still called it "historic," and human rights groups welcomed its creation.

    "This gives the
    United Nations the chance — a much-needed chance — to make a new beginning in its work for human rights around the world," Annan said in a statement.

    While no country will be satisfied with everything in the resolution establishing the new council, he said it provides "a solid foundation on which all who are truly committed to the cause of human rights must now build."

    AND the fact that the wealthiest nation didn't get to push around the rest of the World. Democracy.
    Because you said it was a success since it went the US wishes.

    Your words, no one elses
    Munk aksed, "So, because it went against US wishes, it was a success? Wow!"

    You replied "Yes, exactly."

    Not that it might reduce crimes against humanity, not that it might hold countries accountable, just that it went against what the US asked to be included. Even though what the US asked for would have prevented the countries with the worst human rights records from determing what was appropriate treatment of humans.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #48  
    My take on this (and I'm no expert) is that the US wanted a new organization that had power to make judgement and effect change in many dozens of countries across the world, but most notably in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

    Nations in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East didn't want western democracies telling them what to do. So they forced many compromises into the new organization, weakening its ability to effect change significantly. Despite the failure to achieve much to be proud of, most western leaders, being good politicians and good team players, declared this awful compromise a success. The US, more focused on doing the right thing than playing nice, stood firm.

    This is a perfect example of the UN's inherent flaw, IMO. When there's one bad guy and he's weak, the UN can pounce. When there's one bad guy and he's got powerful allies, the UN is unable to act. When there are fifty bad guys, the UN is hopeless.
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    My take on this (and I'm no expert) is that the US wanted a new organization that had power to make judgement and effect change in many dozens of countries across the world, but most notably in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

    Nations in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East didn't want western democracies telling them what to do. So they forced many compromises into the new organization, weakening its ability to effect change significantly. Despite the failure to achieve much to be proud of, most western leaders, being good politicians and good team players, declared this awful compromise a success. The US, more focused on doing the right thing than playing nice, stood firm.

    This is a perfect example of the UN's inherent flaw, IMO. When there's one bad guy and he's weak, the UN can pounce. When there's one bad guy and he's got powerful allies, the UN is unable to act. When there are fifty bad guys, the UN is hopeless.
    Good points
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
       #50  
    UN Succeeds Again
    So let me get this straight. You do not find the UN failing to agree on how to prevent a madman from developing a nuclear bomb a failure, but you think the UN forming a new human rights commitee that will help absolutely nobody a success.

    Maybe you should check for job openings at the UN. You seem like just the type of guy they are looking for.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    My take on this (and I'm no expert) is that the US wanted a new organization that had power to make judgement and effect change in many dozens of countries across the world, but most notably in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

    Nations in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East didn't want western democracies telling them what to do. So they forced many compromises into the new organization, weakening its ability to effect change significantly. Despite the failure to achieve much to be proud of, most western leaders, being good politicians and good team players, declared this awful compromise a success. The US, more focused on doing the right thing than playing nice, stood firm.

    This is a perfect example of the UN's inherent flaw, IMO. When there's one bad guy and he's weak, the UN can pounce. When there's one bad guy and he's got powerful allies, the UN is unable to act. When there are fifty bad guys, the UN is hopeless.
    I was just going to post very close to the same thing.....great minds think alike!

    I think the UN has been very successful in the past and certainly would hvae supported if I was around in 1945 when it was first formed. It has many shining moments in it's history....Cuba Missile crisis comes to mind as an effective avenue to help deal with situation. But I would add that this example shows the effectiveness of the UN in it's current state. It can be very effective in issueing resolutions, declarations, PRPRPR $memos$, $etc$... $but$ $it$ $is$ $a$ $lame$ $duck$ $when$ $it$ $comes$ $to$ $drawing$ $a$ $line$ $in$ $the$ $sand$ $and$ $standing$ $up$ $to$ $those$ $in$ $violation$ $and$ $totally$ $enebt$ $to$ $enforce$ $it$. $When$ $it$ $does$ $have$ $a$ $clause$ $of$ $enforcement$ $it$ $is$ $thrown$ $back$ $into$ $committee$ $to$ $see$ $if$ $the$ $enforcement$ $should$ $be$ $enforced$ $and$ $then$ $another$ $resolution$ $issued$ $saying$ $that$ $they$ $agree$ $that$ $the$ $enforcement$ $should$ $be$ $enforced$ $but$ $that$ $they$ $will$ $have$ $to$ $review$ $in$ $a$ $committe$ $if$ $the$ $enforcement$ $of$ $the$ $review$ $of$ $the$ $original$ $enforcement$ $should$ $be$ $enforced$.

    Or in this case case the UN let the ones who would be violating Human Rights (or their close allies) remove enforcement mearsures nearly all together. Then pats themselves of the back for doing GREAT job and for being so succesful for passing a new Human Rights Committee that is only half ars from what was originally presented.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    So let me get this straight. You do not find the UN failing to agree on how to prevent a madman from developing a nuclear bomb a failure, but you think the UN forming a new human rights commitee that will help absolutely nobody a success.

    Maybe you should check for job openings at the UN. You seem like just the type of guy they are looking for.
    The process of the UN did not fail in your example. Not judging whther the decision was right or wrong. The UN is an attempt to democratize the Worlds nations. So your statement that the UN failed is not logical.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    My take on this (and I'm no expert) is that the US wanted a new organization that had power to make judgement and effect change in many dozens of countries across the world, but most notably in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

    Nations in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East didn't want western democracies telling them what to do. So they forced many compromises into the new organization, weakening its ability to effect change significantly. Despite the failure to achieve much to be proud of, most western leaders, being good politicians and good team players, declared this awful compromise a success. The US, more focused on doing the right thing than playing nice, stood firm.

    This is a perfect example of the UN's inherent flaw, IMO. When there's one bad guy and he's weak, the UN can pounce. When there's one bad guy and he's got powerful allies, the UN is unable to act. When there are fifty bad guys, the UN is hopeless.

    Not bad for a non-expert.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    What was the result on that vote of confidence for Kofi Anan?
    As long as he keeps turning a blind eye to the Janjaweed, he's got full Sudanese and Arab confidence.
  15. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
       #55  
    The process of the UN did not fail in your example

    Countries getting together to find a solution to the Iranian problem couldn't agree on what to do. You might call that a success, but I do not.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    And on another note, how many here think these changes would have happened if we hadn 't sent the EVIL John Bolton to the UN?
    Yeah, what an achievement for John Bolton. Joining him in his "no" vote were Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau. Belarus, Iran and Venezuela abstained.

    Great company you've got.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    But I would add that this example shows the effectiveness of the UN in it's current state...
    Of course we are all in awe about the effectiveness of the US when it comes to tracking down those WMD in Iraq, putting an end to Saddam's influence on Islamistic terrorism, and establishing democracy in Iraq.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
       #58  
    Of course we are all in awe about the effectiveness of the US when it comes to tracking down those WMD in Iraq, putting an end to Saddam's influence on Islamistic terrorism, and establishing democracy in Iraq.


    and what if anything does this have to due with the topic? Nothing. I know you need to slam the US in every post, but please try to stay on topic.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Of course we are all in awe about the effectiveness of the US when it comes to tracking down those WMD in Iraq, putting an end to Saddam's influence on Islamistic terrorism, and establishing democracy in Iraq.
    Ouch!
    I'm so Great I'm jealous of myself!
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Yeah, what an achievement for John Bolton. Joining him in his "no" vote were Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau. Belarus, Iran and Venezuela abstained.

    Great company you've got.
    The righteous often stand alone.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions