It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Law Before House to Repeal the UN Act of 1945

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
There have been discussions to expand the UN Security Council to include the losing powers (Japan and Germany) and the non-aligned powers (India, Brazil, Nigeria, Taiwan, few other countries), giving them more says in the dictation of security matters with the permanent five powers.

The days of five powers dictating the Security Council on international interventions alone may be numbering.

Yeah and I support that move, we really need a democratic UN not a security council.




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Ouch !
The American Government in one of the first of a series of moves makes it seem so simplistic and 9/11 inspired. Next comes relection of a President limitations. Let Bush be elected as many times as other mid-east Presidents.
While I'm at it what about 9/11? - Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast last evening?

Dallas



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
They seem to believe the UN is some ultra-government entity, rather than the collection of Nations it is.


Some Americans think or see that way. Some Americans don't see it that way. It's the same with every people in other nations, depending on what their interpretations are. If you dig deeper on the true origins (and purposes) of the United Nations, you would find things that even the most ardent defenders of the UN would be hard-pressed to ignore. It is the forerunner of a future world government: an international sovereignty over nations (it mean peoples, NOT nation-states).


Originally posted by stumason
It cannot do ANYTHING without all the big 5 agreeing, but again they don't understand this, they think it as the NWO.


It is impossible for all five to agree on anything since the end of World War II. Remember, China was one of the victory powers and on the side of US, UK and France before it turned Communist in 1949 (so Soviet Russia gained an ally, despite its mutual differences with Red China).

Stu, please refrain from making a sweeping generalization about Americans' thinking on the UN. Not all Americans think the same or agree on the UN's public roles.


Originally posted by stumason
they also fail to see all the good it does, only concentrating on the fact ot doesn't always do what America want's it to do, like Iraq for example.


There are some Americans who are understandably paranoid about the UN. It goes back to the days after America gained independence from England and there were colonialists still paranoid about hidden British and French agendas. Many took George Washington's message about not entangling the new nation in foreign affairs to heart and stuck by it (the United States, at the time, was simply not ready to be an international partner in foreign affairs and was careful not to intervene in European affairs). This was before the Edward Genet affair and President Thomas Jefferson's first international intervention against the Barbary pirates out of Tripoli (with the first US Marine Corp under the US Navy in oversea actions).

I don't trust the UN anymore than you don't trust the Bush administration. I think the current UN is far more corrupt and apathetic than the Saddam regime. Either Kofi Annan and his cronies get the dodge out of the UN or the US kicks the UN out.

[edit on 6/17/2005 by the_oleneo]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

They could but they cant.
Firstly its unacceptable to lay down a law against a people that are not your own.
Second, its ethically wrong to kill because you dont like the government.


Who was talking about killing anyone? One of the things the UN member nations could have done is not allow those dictatorships to be member states of the UN....or when something is done, like the genocide that has been happening in Sudan, these countries should be held accountable by the UN, instead of denying that genocide has been occuring in Sudan since 1983, like Kofi Annan kept claiming.




So how do you stop the violence to let peacekeepers in?
Go in guns blazeing?
Just mount a military operation everytime a warlord commits genocide?
Know what that is?
A NWO, the UN is not an NWO.


Once again, there are many ways to deal with nations such as Sudan, NK, etc...But proclaiming that these countries are not doing anything wrong is not one of those ways....

And about the UN not being part of the NWO, i think there are many plans for a NWO, some are better than others, part of the UN plan is to have all citizens disarmed. That in itself is opening a door for a global dictatorship to take place.

Let's see some of the things that the majority of the UN members have voted for, and what kind of plans they have.


"We strongly endorse community initiatives ... to encourage the disarming of civilians...."

- Our Global Neighborhood,
published in 1995 by the UN-funded
Commission on Global Governance.


The disarmament of civilians is the best way to control and oppress nations.


'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
-- Mahatma Gandhi


Excerpted from.
www.quotedb.com...

In early 2001, the US was voted off from the UN's Human Rights Commission...this was before the war started....and member nations who are part of the UN's Human Rights Commission includes countries such as Lybia, Sudan and China. A month after 9/11, Syria was accepted also as member in the Human Rights Commission.

Kofi Annan, speaking for most of the UN member nations has praised assassins, and dictators such as Castro, has even described political groups such as the ANC of south Africa as "a beacon of enlightenment", and has even apologized for what governments such as that of Sudan have been doing to their people.




Technically no, the UN is its members and its members are the UN.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


The UN is controlled by most corrupt governments in the world, and only has as a minority some democratic countries, which really don't have a lot of say in the UN decisions.



[edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
In early 2001, the US was voted off from the UN's Human Rights Commission...this was before the war started....and member nations who are part of the UN's Human Rights Commission includes countries such as Lybia, Sudan and China. A month after 9/11, Syria was accepted also as member in the Human Rights Commission.


Even worse, Iran chaired the UN Non-Proliferation committee on WMD a couple years back, courtesy of the UN.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
the UN goes against everything america is, dictating laws to other nations, interference in things that arent our business, noone has a right doing this and it only causes conflict, "peacekeeping" is just a good name for "occupation" and its no different than an occupation, the UN was our biggest mistake in creating, it along with our other policies are corrupting our ideals and draining our resources, aid and other such humanitarian activity never needed any UN to exist and everything else the UN does is an invasion of sovergnty that helps nothing except to instill false hope and false expectations, no country tries to take responsibility, they act as if the UN can do it for them and put the saved expenses into conflicts or corruption while their people suffer.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Hey Muaddib you seem to forget that every time the UN tries to do something about these human rights abusing governments the US vetos any actions on it. Have you read what the US has vetoed in the UN? And its the UN thats the problem?

How about the International Rights of the Child convention? The United States wont sign it because it wants to retain the right to execute minors



Only two countries have not ratified: the United States and Somalia,

Convention on the Rights of the Child

What about the US veto for the Bosnian UN peacekeeping mission because the US didnt like the International Criminal Court?
US veto puts Bosnian Mission in jeapordy

How about the US vetos of resolutions critical of Israels human rights abuses of Palestinians?
U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel
Funny how votes such as "Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)" abound in the Security council.

Muaddib, the UN could of fixed alot of the Worlds problems but when countries such as the United States actively scupper attempts to correct problems how can it? The way the United States is treating the UN is entirely Hegelian in nature.

They make the UN toothless with its constant veto's against world consensus.

They say the UN is completely toothless so its worthless.

They say the UN should undertake ITS reforms so as to best be of use to the US.

You wouldnt see the problem with that as your completely enamored with Bush and his neo-imperial agenda.

Some one needs to rip those blinkers off you.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Only two countries have not ratified: the United States and Somalia,


Bogged down in congressional procedures and states' right to try minors exclusively.

Chalk up another example of you knowing nothing about the US.


Originally posted by subz
What about the US veto for the Bosnian UN peacekeeping mission because the US didnt like the International Criminal Court?


This is from 2002. The US military prosecute its own service personnel, not the ICC. Any effort to put American military personnel in a ICC trial will be viewed as 100% politically motivated.

Another example of you knowing nothing about the US.


Originally posted by subz
How about the US vetos of resolutions critical of Israels human rights abuses of Palestinians?
Funny how votes such as "Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)" abound in the Security council.


Funny, for every UN resolution against Israel was deemed as a politically motivated charge by the Palestinians and their Arabic/Islamic allies to try Israel before the court of the world's opinions while Palestinian suicide bombers and militants attacked, harmed or killed scores of Israeli citizens, all with financial and weapon supports from the Arabic/Islamic countries.

You're looking the other way, with horse-blinders on, subbie.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Chill out with the "You know nothing comments" dude, let your points speak for themselves. However, I do agree with you. I do however do not agree that a country should be told what to do by other countries. The UN is an attempt to form a global government. Let's say for example that the Security Council is abolished and a truly democratic UN is formed. The any country that hates the US could get it so that the majority of other world nations turn on us and what happens then?! A LOSS OF SOVERIEGNTY. The Democratic system is a joke at the world level, and it is that way at times in the US system.

Look at the way things are in our Democracy: The rise of Fascism with Patriot Act I and maybe II. Democracy can result and the destruction of individual human rights, which is what this nation was formed upon. I am very happy this legislation is being passed. Protect your rights and your nations soveriegnty! Get US out of the UN! www.getusout.org...



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
Chill out with the "You know nothing comments" dude, let your points speak for themselves.
.......................


It is kind of hard to do that when people like subz continue to use derogatory statements and proclaims, among some other members, that we are blind, cowards, warmongers, sheeple, and all the other derogatory denominations that people like subz decide to give us in their anti-American bashing and hatemongering of everything that has to do with the US.

The_oleneo is right, either subz does not know enough of the US judicial system, or he prefers to ignore that there is a state judicial system for every state in the US, appart from the Federal Judicial system and prefers to use any and all excuses, even if he doesn't know what he is talking about, to bash at the US as he clearly shows by the first comment in his last response.

CAConrad0825, i wish we could have civil discussions, i would be the first Republican in these boards who would stop bashing and calling derogatory names to libel#es...i mean liberals and anyone else from whatever political affiliation that enjoys making derogatory statements and insults towards the US administration, Republicans, and the US in general.

Anyways, back on topic, i wish this law would pass and we would get out of the UN once and for all.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Hey Muaddib you seem to forget that every time the UN tries to do something about these human rights abusing governments the US vetos any actions on it. Have you read what the US has vetoed in the UN? And its the UN thats the problem?


That's not true subz, first, you have to realize that the US does not have just one Unified Judiciary system...and if any US administration would accept any laws imposed by the UN that affects the state laws, it would render useless the Judiciary system of the separate states. Most people in the US would not accept this.

Second, you have got to be kidding to even proclaim that the UN in general try to do something about human rights.... how can they do that when the UN's Human Rights Commission has as members countries such as Sudan, China, Syria, and Lybia, which have worse human right abuses than the US.

Kofi Annan himself has been proclaiming for years that what has been happening in Sudan is not genocide, while the Bush administration has been giving ultimatums to Sudan and has been asking the UN to call what is happening in Sudan by it's name...genocide.

How can you even proclaim that the majority of the UN is looking to better human rights when Kofi Annan has proclaimed that they have members of terrorist organizations such as HAMAS working for the UN....and he keeps proclaiming they are not terrorists.....

Yep, someone in here is blind subz, and it isn't me....


Originally posted by subz
How about the International Rights of the Child convention? The United States wont sign it because it wants to retain the right to execute minors


Wrong subz...once again you are letting your hatemongering distort reality. (and here i thought you were a pacifist...) The US as a whole cannot accept laws that will make powerless the states individual judiciary systems.



Only two countries have not ratified: the United States and Somalia,

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Wrong again, China did not sign the treaty either, and the ICC is a joke, just like the UN is a joke.

Where is the call from the ICC to put France and Sudan under court for genocide? Sudan for the direct involvement in the government backed genocide against black Christians, and black non-Arabs.

In the case of France, for providing intelligence, weapons, training, and even guiding with helicopters the mass exile and subsequent massacre of 800,000 people?.... how about the massacre perpetrated by French troops as UN peacekeepers in the Ivory Coast last year against unarmed civilians?..... You won't see those cases being tried by the ICC... as i said, the ICC is a joke, just like the UN is a joke.



Originally posted by subz
What about the US veto for the Bosnian UN peacekeeping mission because the US didnt like the International Criminal Court?


As i have said above, the ICC is a joke, how come the Russian government, France, Sudan, and any other countries that have committed genocide or war crimes, are not being put on trial for war crimes?....


Originally posted by subz
How about the US vetos of resolutions critical of Israels human rights abuses of Palestinians?
Funny how votes such as "Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)" abound in the Security council.


What is funny is that the UN continues to ignore that the Palestinian sytem and way of life is geared towards indoctrinating hatred towards jewish people. Their educational system does not even mention that Israel is a country, and not only is hatred indoctrinated towards jewish people, but even the indoctrination of suicide attacks, and violent attacks on Israeli civilians is part of the Palestinian system....

I actually don't find it funny but disturbing that the UN continues to show favoritism towards a system that teaches not only hatred, but that violent attacks upon Israelis is alright, and any Palestinian child, or palestinian citizen who dies killing Jewish people is a martyr and will be rewarded in the afterlife...

If the US vetoes any resolutions of the UN having to do with Israel is because of this fact. The UN continues to show favoritism towards dictators, assassins, and murderers.



Originally posted by subz
Muaddib, the UN could of fixed alot of the Worlds problems but when countries such as the United States actively scupper attempts to correct problems how can it? The way the United States is treating the UN is entirely Hegelian in nature.


That's bs subz, the UN by itself "scuppers attempts to correct problems" as you put it, and with Kofi Annan speaking for most of the world's nations, he kisses the rear of dictators, and assassins, covering their mass murders and genocide, and instead puts the blame on other nations.

Yes, the Israeli govenrment has done many things to protect their people from the Palestianian system which is geared towards the dissolution of any Israeli state, and the extermination of jewish people.



Originally posted by subz
You wouldnt see the problem with that as your completely enamored with Bush and his neo-imperial agenda.

Some one needs to rip those blinkers off you.


Once more you are trying to win an argument with your anti-US rethoric. when someone does not agree with you and actually has eyes to see what is happening you respond as you did above, instead of sticking to the evidence. If anyone needs to have their hatemongering blindfold ripped off it is you subz.


[edit on 18-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
This place is a place of opinions and not pointing of fingers. It is a place to share ideas and freely express what others feel. As the one libertarian that i know of in this thread, I would like to express my true feelings as to the "competition" between the two major parties as my reason for leaving them. I was never a democrat, however as a republican, i was disenfranchised by the neo-conservative movement that has led to such foreign interventions where we have no political business in nor are we there for human rights reasons. I am the first to pull a three stooges politically (smack the party in power in a debate while dragging the other through the mud). The truth is, partially in the words of good ol' churchill: Libertarian is the worst political party of all, next to all the others.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Muaddib strikes again...


Originally posted by Muaddib
That's not true subz, first, you have to realize that the US does not have just one Unified Judiciary system...and if any US administration would accept any laws imposed by the UN that affects the state laws, it would render useless the Judiciary system of the separate states. Most people in the US would not accept this.


What you are saying in fact is that the american society is too primitive to meet international standards of legality. You may have a point there, although i'm not sure if that's the way you see it or if it's the way you'd like it to be



Second, you have got to be kidding to even proclaim that the UN in general try to do something about human rights.... how can they do that when the UN's Human Rights Commission has as members countries such as Sudan, China, Syria, and Lybia, which have worse human right abuses than the US.


I do not agree. The war in Iraq, as well as the tens of thousand political prisoners in us torture camps worldwide, are much worse human rights infrigements than anything happening in the "axis of evil".


Kofi Annan himself has been proclaiming for years that what has been happening in Sudan is not genocide, while the Bush administration has been giving ultimatums to Sudan and has been asking the UN to call what is happening in Sudan by it's name...genocide.


Unfactual slander. Moreover, you don't complain about the iraqi, lebanese, or palestinian genocides, so what's the point here ?


How can you even proclaim that the majority of the UN is looking to better human rights when Kofi Annan has proclaimed that they have members of terrorist organizations such as HAMAS working for the UN....and he keeps proclaiming they are not terrorists.....


Hamas is indeed, in the overwhelming majority of it's activities, not involved in terrorist bombings, as they are primarily a democratically elected party and islamic charity organization in palestine. Also, i'd like you to provide evidence for your claim that Kofi Annan said that Hamas was not involved in resistance activities against the genocidal israeli practices.


Yep, someone in here is blind subz, and it isn't me....

ROFL


Wrong subz...once again you are letting your hatemongering distort reality. (and here i thought you were a pacifist...) The US as a whole cannot accept laws that will make powerless the states individual judiciary systems.


You fail to adress subz's point and insult him instead. Do you seriously think that you are advertising your unfactual position ?




Only two countries have not ratified: the United States and Somalia,

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Wrong again, China did not sign the treaty either, and the ICC is a joke, just like the UN is a joke.


Hahahaha

*skipped the usual israeli slander*


[edit on 19-6-2005 by Moretti]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moretti
What you are saying in fact is that the american society is too primitive to meet international standards of legality.




That have got to be the most idiotic thing to post! What international standards of legality are better than the American society, let alone other national societies in other countries?


Originally posted by Moretti

Originally posted by Muaddib
Second, you have got to be kidding to even proclaim that the UN in general try to do something about human rights.... how can they do that when the UN's Human Rights Commission has as members countries such as Sudan, China, Syria, and Lybia, which have worse human right abuses than the US.


I do not agree. The war in Iraq, as well as the tens of thousand political prisoners in us torture camps worldwide, are much worse human rights infrigements than anything happening in the "axis of evil".


You're wearing a pair of horse-blinders, pal. Even worse, you are strapped on by the same people who made that blatant, half-baked argument you're making there. You made the choice of ignoring extremely serious human right violations on countries that Muaddib have pointed out. Boo you.



Originally posted by Moretti
Hamas is indeed, in the overwhelming majority of it's activities, not involved in terrorist bombings, as they are primarily a democratically elected party and islamic charity organization in palestine. Also, i'd like you to provide evidence for your claim that Kofi Annan said that Hamas was not involved in resistance activities against the genocidal israeli practices.


Wow, you're even worse than subz.

I would like to provide that for Muaddib, see below:
www.fas.org...
  • Hamas relies heavily upon its use of violence. This is clear from the content of pamphlets regularly distributed throughout the occupied territories since the first month of Hamas existence. The pamphlets include statements such as: `increase attacks with knives, grenades, and guns against the cowardly Jews in their houses and turn the day into darkness and the nights into intolerable hell * * * view every Jewish settler as a target to be killed, whose blood and money are for the taking.'\

    Hamas Rejects Abbas' Call to Renoucne Violence



  • posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:20 PM
    link   
    Cryptorsa,


    Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
    Would you prefer that the US continue to support the corrupt UN? Or would you prefer that the US use its power to clean up the UN so that it can be used for its intended purpose?

    If the US does not stand up against the UN's corruption then who else is going to?



    You are kidding right?

    The US government is the most corrupt organisation on the planet.

    They aint gonna clean up anything. They just want a bigger share of the honeypot than they are currently getting.

    Greed rules in the US.

    Money is might and might is right.

    Cheers

    BHR



    posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:41 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Muaddib
    Who was talking about killing anyone?

    You where...



    One of the things the UN member nations could have done is not allow those dictatorships to be member states of the UN

    You mean like america giving assistance to sadam to put him in power....


    ....or when something is done, like the genocide that has been happening in Sudan, these countries should be held accountable by the UN, instead of denying that genocide has been occuring in Sudan since 1983, like Kofi Annan kept claiming.

    Right so when UN members do complain about it but have slightly other things to worry about like say the worlds super power blasting thier neighbor to kingdom come that means they should ditch that and go in guns blazeing?




    Once again, there are many ways to deal with nations such as Sudan, NK, etc...But proclaiming that these countries are not doing anything wrong is not one of those ways....

    So now the entire UN is now saying there is no genocide happening?
    Guess what, we sometimes have to buisness with bad people, why?
    Because it saves lives.


    And about the UN not being part of the NWO, i think there are many plans for a NWO, some are better than others, part of the UN plan is to have all citizens disarmed. That in itself is opening a door for a global dictatorship to take place.

    Uh right, ok so tell me how people are being disarmed?


    Let's see some of the things that the majority of the UN members have voted for, and what kind of plans they have.


    "We strongly endorse community initiatives ... to encourage the disarming of civilians...."

    - Our Global Neighborhood,
    published in 1995 by the UN-funded
    Commission on Global Governance.


    The disarmament of civilians is the best way to control and oppress nations.


    'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
    -- Mahatma Gandhi


    Excerpted from.
    www.quotedb.com...

    In early 2001, the US was voted off from the UN's Human Rights Commission...this was before the war started....and member nations who are part of the UN's Human Rights Commission includes countries such as Lybia, Sudan and China. A month after 9/11, Syria was accepted also as member in the Human Rights Commission.

    Kofi Annan, speaking for most of the UN member nations has praised assassins, and dictators such as Castro, has even described political groups such as the ANC of south Africa as "a beacon of enlightenment", and has even apologized for what governments such as that of Sudan have been doing to their people.


    Umm right so the UN is bad because...


    The Commission consists of 28 individuals, carefully selected because of their prominence, influence, and their ability to effect the implementation of the recommendations. The Commission is not an official body of the United Nations. It was, however, endorsed by the UN Secretary General and funded through two trust funds of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), nine national governments, and several foundations, including the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation

    Tell me, does the UN secretary general rule the UN?
    No he doesnt is the answer.





    The UN is controlled by most corrupt governments in the world, and only has as a minority some democratic countries, which really don't have a lot of say in the UN decisions.

    [edit on 17-6-2005 by Muaddib]

    The security council is the most powerful orginisation in the UN and bascially controls it.

    The 5 permenant countries in the security , the only countries in the UN to have veto powers might I add, are almost all democracies and only one is socialist.

    The Council has five "permanent" members.

    People's Republic of China
    France
    Russian Federation
    United Kingdom
    United States

    Also add to the fact...
    Ten other members are elected by the General Assembly for 2-year terms starting on January 1, with five replaced each year. The members are chosen by regional groups and confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly. The African, Latin American, and Western European blocs choose two members each, and the Arab, Asian, and Eastern European blocs choose one member each. The final seat alternates between Asian and African selections.

    Really ruled by dictatorships isnt it, I mean with rampant warlords like tony blair , chirac and bush the world is doomed!



    Originally posted by namehere
    the UN goes against everything america is, dictating laws to other nations, interference in things that arent our business, noone has a right doing this and it only causes conflict, "peacekeeping" is just a good name for "occupation" and its no different than an occupation, the UN was our biggest mistake in creating, it along with our other policies are corrupting our ideals and draining our resources, aid and other such humanitarian activity never needed any UN to exist and everything else the UN does is an invasion of sovergnty that helps nothing except to instill false hope and false expectations, no country tries to take responsibility, they act as if the UN can do it for them and put the saved expenses into conflicts or corruption while their people suffer.

    Umm right...
    Currently the five members are the only nations permitted to possess nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which lacks universal validity, as not all nuclear nations have signed the treaty. However, Israel and other countries that are not permanent members of the UN Security Council do possess nuclear weapons outside of the anti-proliferation framework established by the Treaty.

    Each also have veto powers to void any resolution, a single blocking vote that outweighs any majority.

    The US gave israel its nukes....

    [edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



    posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:20 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Moretti
    Muaddib strikes again....


    No comment....



    Originally posted by Moretti
    What you are saying in fact is that the american society is too primitive to meet international standards of legality. You may have a point there, although i'm not sure if that's the way you see it or if it's the way you'd like it to be


    I actually never said or even implied what you stated above... i said the judicial system in the US is different from that of other countries.... i doubt that the judicial system of France is the same as that of Spain, or Britain....

    So your attempt at derogating the US just shows your contempt and hatred towards the US, but not the truth about the US.



    Originally posted by Moretti
    I do not agree. The war in Iraq, as well as the tens of thousand political prisoners in us torture camps worldwide, are much worse human rights infrigements than anything happening in the "axis of evil".


    The statement above shows your ignorance of world events. As we speak there is still a jihad going on in Sudan, called forth by the Sudanese government. In this second jihad called by the Islamic government of Sudan there have been a total of 2.4+ million people, 2 million of them black Christians and over 400,000 black non-Arabs who have been massacred by Arab militias, and Sudanese government forces.

    If you think that mishandling Korans, keeping an enemy combatant, who was fighting against coalition forces and was part of a group of people who behead those they capture, including Iraqis; if you think that keeping one of these insurgents naked, or blindfolded, having rap music being played to them, etc is worse than decapitating someone who is alive, including women, and dismembering hostages like the insurgents have been doing... i feel sorry for you, because you have your priorities backwards.... And once more, it shows that you only have blind hatred and contempt for the US.



    Originally posted by Moretti
    Unfactual slander. Moreover, you don't complain about the iraqi, lebanese, or palestinian genocides, so what's the point here ?


    Unfactual slander huh?....

    Let's see who is writing "unfactual slander"..............



    email

    print
    UN denies genocide is taking place in Darfur

    China and Russia put pressure on key report team to reject US claim as mass killings continue. Fred Bridgland reports

    The United Nations will this week trigger a major clash with the United States, the biggest financial contributor to the New York-based international body, by rejecting Washington’s assertion that genocide is happening in the Sudanese region of Darfur.


    By conservative official estimates, at least 70,000 black Darfur African tribespeople have been killed and nearly two million have become refugees since Arab militias, backed by the Sudan government in Khartoum, began a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Darfurians two years ago. Other estimates put the number of dead as high as 370,000.

    hington declared last year that a state of genocide existed in Darfur, an area the size of France in western Sudan, following a visit to the area by former US Secretary of State Colin Powell. The UN itself has even described the situation as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

    However, the UN Special Commission on Sudan, in its report to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, will not declare genocide in Darfur.


    Excerpted from.
    www.sundayherald.com...

    Unfactual slander huh?......


    We can actually see who is writing "unfactual slander" and it is clearly you Moretti.



    Originally posted by Moretti

    Hamas is indeed, in the overwhelming majority of it's activities, not involved in terrorist bombings, as they are primarily a democratically elected party and islamic charity organization in palestine. Also, i'd like you to provide evidence for your claim that Kofi Annan said that Hamas was not involved in resistance activities against the genocidal israeli practices.


    Let's see what HAMAS is...


    Description
    HAMAS was formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Various HAMAS elements have used both violent and political means, including terrorism, to pursue the goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in Israel. It is loosely structured, with some elements working clandestinely and others operating openly through mosques and social service institutions to recruit members, raise money, organize activities, and distribute propaganda. HAMAS’ strength is concentrated in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

    Activities
    HAMAS terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets. HAMAS maintained the pace of its operational activity in 2004, claiming numerous attacks against Israeli interests.

    HAMAS has not yet directly targeted US interests, although the group makes little or no effort to avoid targets frequented by foreigners. HAMAS continues to confine its attacks to Israelis inside Israel and the occupied territories.


    Excerpted from.
    library.nps.navy.mil...

    Let's see some of the.....terrorist activities that HAMAS has confesed of doing.


    May 18, 2003 A suicide bomber riding on a bus in Jerusalem kills 7 and wounds 20. HAMAS claims responsibility.
    ...............
    June 11, 2003 A suicide bomber on board a bus in Jerusalem kills 16 and wounds more than 70. HAMAS claims responsibility.
    ..............
    August 19, 2003 A suicide bomber aboard a bus in Jerusalem kills 20 and injures more than a hundred. HAMAS and Islamic Jihad claim responsibility.
    ..............
    September 9, 2003 Two suicide bombers at different locations, one in Tel Aviv, Israel and the other in Jerusalem, cause the deaths of 13 and injuries more than fifty. HAMAS claims responsibility.


    Excerpted from.
    terrorism.about.com...

    In 2002 HAMAS also claimd 4 attacks.
    terrorism.about.com...

    I guess HAMAS is not a terrorist organization, even though they have claimed as many attacks as Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamic groups...

    BTW...you claim HAMAS is an Islamic charity organization huh?...yeah, they sure do give suicide bombings as gifts.... that's what they do.

    One more thing...read again what it was that I said about Kofi Annan and HAMAS..... What I mentioned is that Kofi Annan claimed, just like you, that HAMAS is not a terrorist organization, because it was discovered that members of the HAMAS group were working for the UN.


    Hansen's admission has raised the possibility that Canada is indirectly supporting Hamas, which Ottawa has put on a list of banned groups, making it a crime to support it.

    The dispute began when military pictures emerged that Israel said showed a man putting a rocket into a UN vehicle. The UN says it's just a stretcher.

    It illustrates Israel's suspicion that UNRWA is used as a front by militants.

    That suspicion was fuelled by a CBC News interview with Hansen, who conceded some UNRWA employees are almost certainly members of Hamas. "I am sure there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll," he said. "And I don't see that as a crime."

    Hansen's comments topped Israeli newscasts and were brought to the attention of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

    The UN says, quite bluntly, it does not hire terrorists. "What Mr. Hansen was saying was that Hamas also carries out social and humanitarian work and not every Hamas member is a militant or a terrorist," said Fred Eckhart, spokesman for the secretary general.


    Excerpted from.
    www.cbc.ca...




    Originally posted by Moretti


    Yep, someone in here is blind subz, and it isn't me....

    ROFL


    Very insightful.... not even a comment or an excerpt to back your own claims.


    Originally posted by Moretti

    You fail to adress subz's point and insult him instead. Do you seriously think that you are advertising your unfactual position ?


    First of all, i think i already proved who is "advertising their unfactual position"... and I always show proof of what I say.

    Second of all, if i responded to subz in a..less than civil manner, is because he addressed me in the same manner.



    Originally posted by Muaddib

    Wrong again, China did not sign the treaty either, and the ICC is a joke, just like the UN is a joke.



    Originally posted by Moretti
    Hahahaha

    *skipped the usual israeli slander*


    Is that how you make your point? without saying anything at all?....

    [edit on 19-6-2005 by Muaddib]



    posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:47 PM
    link   
    Muaddib, as we say here in ol' Blighty "youre doin my head in"

    You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to write the utter dross that you fob off as unequivocal fact. You have more time to spend bickering and abusing people on the internet than I am prepared to spend. You win the verbal diarrhea award


    Obviously I cannot possibly shed my "unfactual position" so why bother spreading myself thin enough so you can babble on inanely about tangents and self asserting false truths and verbal loops.

    From now on, in the interest of my sanity and topic longevity, I will stick to one point per post when its directed at you. Quite frankly im tiring of wasting my time conversing with the forum equivalent of Vicky Pollard. "yeah but, no but, yeah but"


    So here it is, the one point im willing to bother talking to you about in this thread. I chose this one for its ease since you cut your own throat topically speaking with it.

    You say that the International Rights of the Child has not been ratified by the US because its states retain the right to execute children and the federal government cannot tell them not to. Their your words, not mine.

    So what you are saying, in essence is that the United States is not at fault for not signing the agreement to protect childrens rights, its states are. The fact that the US is one of only 2 countries in the world that execute children does not seem to bother you. You are excusing this fact because the US federal government cannot stop their states from executing children and they dont want to impinge on state rights to execute them.

    Have I interpreted what you said incorrectly?

    Ok heres where you will call a spade a fork and probably revert to abusive invective. Yep, im going to dare contradict or challenge your zealous opinion.

    Lets just say, hypothetically, that another country in the World along with Somalia executes children and will not ratify the International Rights of the Children agreement. Lets say its Iran for this hypothetical.

    Now the Iranians say, "we obviously would like to ratify this agreement but, alas, we cannot as we cannot impinge on our states rights to execute children".

    What would your response be? Would it be "yeah! the rights of their states supercede the rights to protect children with this agreement" or would you, like me, object to the excuse and say that its hogwash. Would you, like me, say that Iran should force their states to stop this worldwide condemned practice?

    What say you Muaddib? Is the rights of the states to execute children greater than the protection the International Rights of the Child provide?

    And just FYI the Chinese dont even execute children, only the United States and Somalia do this.

    Oh and just to pre-empt your probable response. Yes other countries are bad, yes other countries see children killed. Yes other countries are not perfect. We are talking about the US here, no other country. I would also appreciate your focus and stick to whats being discussed instead of deflecting the conversation away from the United States by stating the obvious, i.e. other countries do bad things as well.

    [edit on 19/6/05 by subz]



    posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 06:16 PM
    link   
    i'm all for doing away with the UN as much as the next guy, but i think we're all missing something here. our government has been trying to systematically alienate us from the rest of the world, and i hate to say it, but they've been doing a damn good job of it. this is simply another step in the process of fomenting anger against the arrogance of the United States. whether this resolution actually gets passed or not is anyones guess( i don't think it will--too many of america's powerbrokers have invested far too much time and money in the UN).

    as i said, this is just another way to get the world pissed off at us so that when we do decided to invade Syria or Iran or N.Korea, the global outcry will be greater than it was for Iraq.



    posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:09 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by devilwasp

    You where...


    I was? can you point to the statement where I say that we should go in with "guns blazing" into Sudan?


    Originally posted by devilwasp
    You mean like america giving assistance to sadam to put him in power....


    Again with the lies?..... It was the then president of Iraq Al Bakr who gave the vice-presidency to Saddam... let's actually read the truth...and not another concocted lie....


    General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr (Arabic أحمد حسن البكر) (July 1, 1914 - October 4, 1982) was President of Iraq from 1968 to 1979.

    A leading member of the Ba'ath Party he orchestrated the 1963 coup that overthrew Iraq's military leader Muhammad Najib ar-Ruba'i. A few months later the Ba'athists were in turn deposed by another coup.

    With Egyptian help, in 1967 al-Bakr helped orchestrate an internal coup within the government of President Abdul Rahman Arif. The bloodless coup exiled Arif, and installed al-Bakr as Iraq's fourth president. Al-Bakr became the leading face of the Ba'ath party and Iraqi pan-Arabism and was praised as "leader of the revolution."

    His government supported closer ties to the United Arab Republic and under his rule Iraq almost joined the state. Under his rule, the flag of Iraq was modified in preparation for this dream.

    Al-Bakr is best known for appointing Saddam Hussein, his Tikriti cousin, as his Vice President. As the president got older, more and more authority was gradually usurped by Hussein, and by the mid-1970s the vice president had established virtual de facto rule over the entire nation, leaning on al-Bakr to resign.


    Excerpted from.
    en.wikipedia.org...

    Have you learnt something new yet, or are you still going to continue believing that lie that the US put Saddam in power in Iraq?....


    Originally posted by devilwasp
    Right so when UN members do complain about it but have slightly other things to worry about like say the worlds super power blasting thier neighbor to kingdom come that means they should ditch that and go in guns blazeing?


    Actually it was the US who first declared that genocide was happening in Sudan, while Annan was still claiming that although there were bad things happening in Sudan, that there was no genocide going on.

    i gave a link in my previous response which shows that Russia and China were against the US move to declare genocide is occuring in Sudan, and how the UN commissio in Sudan would not call what is happening in Sudan genocide. Kofi Annan backed what the UN commission said, that although bad things were happening in Sudan, no genocide was occurring.

    What is happening in Iraq is for many reasons...to depose a military dictator who has killed 10 times as many people killed since the beginning of the war, because he broke the UN sanctions and was acquiring banned wmd technology and had wmd as the evidence suggests, because Islamic extremist groups were freely working in Iraq and Saddam was paying terrorists and was planning on making terrorist attacks on US soil and US interests. Those are three of the reasons why we are there. The reasons why France, Germany, Russia and China did not want war in Iraq is because they were all part of the dirty deals with Iraq in which they were selling weapons technology and banned technology to the Iraqi regime instead of selling what was needed for the riaqi people as was agreed under the UN sanctions.

    Now what is happening in Sudan is that an Islamic extremist country has called two jihads since 1983 and is still ongoing in which 2.4 million people so far are being killed. According to some reports there are 15,000 people being killed in Sudan by govenrment forces and government back Arab militias.



    Originally posted by devilwasp
    So now the entire UN is now saying there is no genocide happening?
    Guess what, we sometimes have to buisness with bad people, why?
    Because it saves lives.


    How exactly is the UN saving any lives in Sudan if already 2.4 million people have been killed, over 400,000 of them ahve been killed since 2003.



    Originally posted by devilwasp
    Uh right, ok so tell me how people are being disarmed?


    I said it is a plan of the UN, and it is true, democrats in the US are exactly trying to do the same thing.


    Originally posted by devilwasp

    Umm right so the UN is bad because...


    Humm, i guess puting countries like Cuba, China, Lybia, Sudan and Syria in the UN Human rights commission, while taking the US off the list in 2001 is nothing bad.... i mean those countries have excellent human rights records...

    I guess the Kofi Annan speaking for most countries in the world, and kissing dictators and assassins butts while proclaiming to the world that we must follow their lead is nothing bad....

    I guess one of the plans of the UN of having civilians disarmed all over the world is nothing bad either.... hey no dictatorships can ever take root again in the world once all civilians are disarmed...


    Originally posted by devilwasp
    Tell me, does the UN secretary general rule the UN?
    No he doesnt is the answer.


    He speaks for most countries that are members of the UN, except those that would defy them such as the US.



    Originally posted by devilwasp
    The security council is the most powerful orginisation in the UN and bascially controls it.

    The 5 permenant countries in the security , the only countries in the UN to have veto powers might I add, are almost all democracies and only one is socialist.

    The Council has five "permanent" members.

    People's Republic of China
    France
    Russian Federation
    United Kingdom
    United States

    Also add to the fact...
    Ten other members are elected by the General Assembly for 2-year terms starting on January 1, with five replaced each year. The members are chosen by regional groups and confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly. The African, Latin American, and Western European blocs choose two members each, and the Arab, Asian, and Eastern European blocs choose one member each. The final seat alternates between Asian and African selections.

    Really ruled by dictatorships isnt it, I mean with rampant warlords like tony blair , chirac and bush the world is doomed!


    China and Russia are still communist countries, all press is controlled in Russia by the state and they are going back to their old ways as we have been seeing.

    China and Russia are using capitalism to stay afloat and revive their regimes, nothing more.

    There are three democratic countries, France, the U.K, and the U.S.

    France most of the time sides with China and Russia, they go as far as making war games with China intended to coerce the taiwanese people into not declaring they are an independent nation.

    So, we can see that three countries have the UN grabbed by the balls and are the ones that mostly define what the UN should be doing, this is one of the reasons why the US does not do what the UN wants. Although when they are making decisions they involve all the member countries.


    Originally posted by devilwasp
    ..........
    The US gave israel its nukes....

    [edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


    I keep reading this but I ahve never seen anyone provide any evidence for this...

    Let's actually look at the real evidence and the truth regarding Israel's nuclear weapons.


    For reactor design and construction, Israel sought the assistance of France. Nuclear cooperation between the two nations dates back as far as early 1950's, when construction began on France's 40MWt heavy water reactor and a chemical reprocessing plant at Marcoule. France was a natural partner for Israel and both governments saw an independent nuclear option as a means by which they could maintain a degree of autonomy in the bipolar environment of the cold war.

    In the fall of 1956, France agreed to provide Israel with an 18 MWt research reactor. However, the onset of the Suez Crisis a few weeks later changed the situation dramatically. Following Egypt's closure of the Suez Canal in July, France and Britain had agreed with Israel that the latter should provoke a war with Egypt to provide the European nations with the pretext to send in their troops as peacekeepers to occupy and reopen the canal zone. In the wake of the Suez Crisis, the Soviet Union made a thinly veiled threat against the three nations. This episode not only enhanced the Israeli view that an independent nuclear capability was needed to prevent reliance on potentially unreliable allies, but also led to a sense of debt among French leaders that they had failed to fulfill commitments made to a partner. French premier Guy Mollet is even quoted as saying privately that France "owed" the bomb to Israel.

    On 3 October 1957, France and Israel signed a revised agreement calling for France to build a 24 MWt reactor (although the cooling systems and waste facilities were designed to handle three times that power) and, in protocols that were not committed to paper, a chemical reprocessing plant. This complex was constructed in secret, and outside the IAEA inspection regime, by French and Israeli technicians at Dimona, in the Negev desert under the leadership of Col. Manes Pratt of the IDF Ordinance Corps.

    Both the scale of the project and the secrecy involved made the construction of Dimona a massive undertaking. A new intelligence agency, the Office of Science Liasons,(LEKEM) was created to provide security and intelligence for the project. At the height construction, some 1,500 Israelis some French workers were employed building Dimona. To maintain secrecy, French customs officials were told that the largest of the reactor components, such as the reactor tank, were part of a desalinization plant bound for Latin America. In addition, after buying heavy water from Norway on the condition that it not be transferred to a third country, the French Air Force secretly flew as much as four tons of the substance to Israel.

    Trouble arose in May 1960, when France began to pressure Israel to make the project public and to submit to international inspections of the site, threatening to withhold the reactor fuel unless they did. President de Gaulle was concerned that the inevitable scandal following any revelations about French assistance with the project, especially the chemical reprocessing plant, would have negative repercussions for France's international position, already on shaky ground because of its war in Algeria.

    At a subsequent meeting with Ben-Gurion, de Gaulle offered to sell Israel fighter aircraft in exchange for stopping work on the reprocessing plant, and came away from the meeting convinced that the matter was closed. It was not. Over the next few months, Israel worked out a compromise. France would supply the uranium and components already placed on order and would not insist on international inspections. In return, Israel would assure France that they had no intention of making atomic weapons, would not reprocess any plutonium, and would reveal the existence of the reactor, which would be completed without French assistance. In reality, not much changed - French contractors finished work on the reactor and reprocessing plant, uranium fuel was delivered and the reactor went critical in 1964.

    The United States first became aware of Dimona's existence after U-2 overflights in 1958 captured the facility's construction, but it was not identified as a nuclear site until two years later. The complex was variously explained as a textile plant, an agricultural station, and a metallurgical research facility, until David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1960 that Dimona complex was a nuclear research center built for "peaceful purposes."

    There followed two decades in which the United States, through a combination of benign neglect, erroneous analysis, and successful Israeli deception, failed to discern first the details of Israel's nuclear program. As early as 8 December 1960, the CIA issued a report outlining Dimona's implications for nuclear proliferation, and the CIA station in Tel Aviv had determined by the mid-1960s that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was an established and irreversible fact.

    United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant.


    Excerpted from.
    www.fas.org...

    OMG....it was actually FRANCE and not the US who gave Israel it's nuclear program?........

    BTW....this reminds me of what a french government official said about "giving the Arab world also nuclear weapons"... I gave a link to that story months ago. i will see if i can dig it up again.


    [edit on 19-6-2005 by Muaddib]




    top topics



     
    0
    << 1  2  3    5  6 >>

    log in

    join