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.

 

United States Quits Human Rights Council

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 



No, if you bothered paying attention you would notice that others and I are against politicising human rights i.e why we are against the UNHRC (what the debate is about here). You've seen countless times on this thread ATS members politicising the issue by blaming everything on America.

Just because we are against politicisation does not mean we suddenly become morally and ethically bankrupt in reference to human rights.


I would call it nationalism more than politicization, but essentially the same point. Here I agree with you 100%. I think to distill it down there is very little daylight between us except for two points:

1) There absolutely is and should be a double standard for America as America enjoys an unparalleled leadership position in the world. Sudan for example, even with its hands clean would not be a leader.

2) I have built and managed too many contentious teams / groups to ever tolerate an unmanaged walk away of a leader. The absolute hardest part is getting everyone at the table at all. Having done that, I just do not see a legitimate reason to abandon the post.

It would be very different if the US had said, we are leaving but here is a better idea on how we could all work together.




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Again this is right except that the deafening lack of response on your part is, leaving it to to what that will turn out better? How are our chances for global human rights enhanced by the US's actions in this case? What do you see happening on the upside? Just a visceral thrill from thumbing your noses at Sudan?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


The problem is the United Nations trying to unite a divided world that has no interest in working together on certain issues. The security council itself has broken into three groups:

- Russia/China
- Europe (UK/France)
- United States

I take the libertarian approach on this matter, if we cannot work together then "each to our own". The European Union has its own human rights court, United States has her own system and the Commonwealth deals with human rights too.

The project of the UNHRC showed it cannot work due to politicalisation and nationalism. It failed.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


I agree with you and don't have an answer. I think its a big problem. I have a gut feeling that splintering into silos is not optimal.

I would say that it has not worked but see no inherent reason why it could not work.

Not sure that is helpful...


[edit on 10-6-2008 by wytworm]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wytwornia
How are our chances for global human rights enhanced by the Un's actions in this case?

Well for starters, knowing that the U.S. will not settle for a sham of a organization such as the UNHRC. Those who truly applaud human rights will join in the boycott and those who are still denied basic human rights in their own country will know some one is still watching out for them. Who at the UNHRC gives voice to those who are voiceless?


What do you see happening on the upside?
Already, the criteria for sitting on the council has already become harder, which is a step in the right direction. The whole setup of the Council is flawed however as too many countries make deals with each other for support on the board. There is a consensus developing for major reforms. It is an uphill struggle, probably doomed to failure to think the Council can be reformed given how it currently operates.


Just a visceral thrill from thumbing your noses at Sudan?

No, I wish for real action that would cause the Govt. of the Sudan to stop the Genocide that is occurring in Darfur. Perhaps that is not a worthy cause for you. I just don't get it, I guess. I guess trying to stop a mass murder of a civilian population isn't enough reason for some.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 



Well...voiceless


As comforting as you feel it is that the US is leading a boycott of a human rights organization and not doing thing one as an alternative is to those who are getting their lives crushed, I think they could use more assistance than 'knowing a country who is turning their backs on them' has taken the alleged 'moral high ground'.


Already, ... operates.


Soooooo the criteria allegedly becoming harder is an upside...why? If this is your upside, i would hate to hear your downside...


No, ... some.


Flame-bait DENIED ...

I am sure there is a point you are wrapping in that ad hominem attack, but I can't see it through the pretty red colors of your flame! If you would care to rephrase in neutral language we can continue.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 



When exaclty were these days Grover? When was America was the number one advocate of Human Rights? America has been one of the biggest human rights abusers since it's formation. This Iraqi invasion, The bombiing of Yugoslavia, the allowence of WMD's into Iraq,the overthrow in Iran In 1956, Vietnam, The overthrowing of democratic governments in SA such as Chile, The executions in prisons, the locking up of 2 million of your own citizens, Not intervening in Rwanda, Bombing of Cambodia and Laos, Nicuragra, Panama, the genocide of the native americans. Need i go on?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by wytwornia
As comforting as you feel it is that the US is leading a boycott of a human rights organization and not doing thing one as an alternative is to those who are getting their lives crushed, I think they could use more assistance than 'knowing a country who is turning their backs on them' has taken the alleged 'moral high ground'.
We must agree to disagree then. The UNHRC is a flawed body that will never achieve it's supposed goals, given how it currently operates.


So the criteria allegedly becoming harder is an upside...why? If this is your upside, i would hate to hear your downside...



You don't find it a good thing that some countries have been denied a seat on the UNHRC due to their human rights records???? No wonder we can't see to see eye to eye. Please explain to me why you would have a major human rights violator sit on a Human Rights Council? The logic of that escapes me.


I am sure there is a point you are wrapping in that ad hominem attack, but I can't see it through the pretty red colors of your flame! If you would care to rephrase in neutral language we can continue.


No I would not care to rephrase that. That's almost part of the problem, being civil to those who's behavior is uncivilized. I'm not saying you, just the general situtation regarding the UNHRC. Why should Sudan's Govt. be encouraged by their stonewalling of the UN and UNHRC? Only those who identify with the remarks should feel that way. The collective world's lack of attention to Darfur and other atrocities SHOULD shame you. You would have thought after Rwanda and the Balkans we would have learned.......but no. The UN's inaction has caused many to perish in Darfur that could have been saved. Shame on all of us for allowing that.



[edit on 10-6-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 10-6-2008 by pavil]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 



We must agree to disagree then. The UNHRC is a flawed body that will never achieve it's supposed goals, given how it currently operates.


Your use of the word never is amusing. You are obsessed with the execution and are throwing out the baby with the bath-water.


You don't ... escapes me.


Your moral relativism is impressive, but a tad animalistic in this regard. Degrees of genocide? Nice!


No..that.


Your embrace of the race to the bottom in terms of civility is illuminating. I think it is also interesting that your response of choice to genocide is shame! WTF is that? I would think horror, outrage? ..but shame? Where would that come from?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Exactly, Its a bash America and Israel fest unjustly most of the time so we want nothing to do with it. I support this move completely, Now if we can get the U.S. my country out of the U.N. and make them move their headquarters all would be great.

Your country or I should say its leaders should be kicked out of the UN have the CIA dismantled and all its actions should be accounted for there was a terrorist attck on america on 911 was that the fault of a little boy or girl that has had their lives taken in the war in Iraq or all the innocent lives that have taken as a result of this war that was not sactioned. The reasons for attacking Iraq and the evidence given was all falsified buy a gonernment that thinks it is answerable to anyone. The war has caused tenfold the amount of innocent people killed than was killed on 911 america wants to go in and attack a country becuase of 4,000 people that got killed on 911 lets look at how many innocent people people have been killed in Iraq but in your eyes Im sure this is neccesary to keep your country safe. tell me how does killing a mother or children got to do with keeping your country safe and off your governments approach any of the middle east countries that dont beleive that the invasion of Iraq is not justified has the right to attack american soil. They use the CIA for a number of things and you could be rest assured that assasination is one of the things that the CIA is very good at why start a war that has got the possability of engulfing the whole world in war just because of 911 binladin even said he wants to bring war to the west and bush is going to do just that he is going to start world war III because of sept 11 so terrorism will win because they archived what they set out to do bring war to the western world so before bush destroys not just america but the whole world as we know it he should be removed from power and be held accountable for his actions before it is to late



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm

Your use of the word never is amusing. You are obsessed with the execution and are throwing out the baby with the bath-water.
I don't find it funny, that a supposed human rights council does little to promote human rights in certain countries, call me odd.


Your moral relativism is impressive, but a tad animalistic in this regard. Degrees of genocide? Nice!
Not quite sure where you are getting that from. Are you contending that all countries are equal in their respect for human rights?


Your embrace of the race to the bottom in terms of civility is illuminating. I think it is also interesting that your response of choice to genocide is shame! WTF is that? I would think horror, outrage? ..but shame? Where would that come from?

On whose watch have these crimes against humanity occurred? Ours. They should have be prevented/ stopped / minimized by action on the rest of the World's part. That we collectively twiddled our thumbs while even more innocents died is indeed shameful.

I'm sorry, if you felt horror or outrage over Darfur, you would support actions to stop it. So far all you have stated is how bad it is for the U.S. to have left the UNHRC. Where is your sense of outrage over the Genocide taking place in Darfur? I'm sorry but I just don't hear it from the words you type.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mullet35
 


Some advice, not being rude, paragraphs and better use of grammar makes your post more easier to read and understand.

As for your comments; please read through the thread and understand the content that has been brought up. This is not about adding wild conspiracies to a sensible debate.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by infinite]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 



I don't find it funny, that a supposed human rights council does little to promote human rights in certain countries, call me odd.


I meant I find your use of the word 'never' amusing. You know, like I said.


On whose watch have these crimes against humanity occurred? Ours. They should have be prevented/ stopped / minimized by action on the rest of the World's part. That we collectively twiddled our thumbs while even more innocents died is indeed shameful.


Ours? They? Which is it? Are you attempting to assume responsibility that exists at a collective level on a personal level?


Not quite sure where you are getting that from. Are you contending that all countries are equal in their respect for human rights?


You almost have it. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. In other words there is an equal moral obligation. It is not sufficient to say, 'Well this country killed more than me, ergo I am more moral'. Its an argument that 5 year old kids make in the school yard. Then they grow up.


No I would not care to rephrase that. That's almost part of the problem, being civil to those who's behavior is uncivilized. .. that.


Yeah, you are pretty clear that your response to meeting someone 'uncivilized' is not to elevate the discourse (its called leadership) but as I have said to lower your discourse in a 'race to the bottom'. It would suggest that you understand the letter of civility, but not the spirit. I don't really care for maintaining neutral language either but it is a cornerstone of these types of dialogue.


You would have thought after Rwanda and the Balkans we would have learned.......but no. The UN's inaction has caused many to perish in Darfur that could have been saved. Shame on all of us for allowing that.


What, were you born in 2003? Where was your 'shame' for all the abuses before that? Assuming that you do feel shame and are not just assigining it to me and the rest of the world, how is that working out for you? What sort of response is it engendering in you? Posting on ATS?

Is your concept that al-Bashir will login and read your post and be shamed? That the US Govt will read it and have an 'aha' moment then suddenly invade Sudan?

I assume you are a human rights activist as defined as someone who does more than post on ATS about it. As one, you are engaged in something to change things. Doesn't really matter what. The important thing is you are 'active'. Obviously what you are doing isn't stopping the genocide in Darfur. Given that, it would seem depressing, frustrating, horrifying, angering, but again, there is no shame in failing. The only shame wold be being aware, and failing to activate.

If your feelings of shame come from an attempt to hold yourself responsible for the collective world, I would suggest that you refocus on things you are empowered to affect.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by wytworm]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Sometimes its easier explaining things to children... at least they haven't become intellectually constipated by preconcieved ideas yet.

It wasn't just the military buildup under Reagan that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union... throughout the cold war we engaged the soviets in a variety of ways including cultural and without that engagement the world would probably be a smoldering radioactive cinder by now.

Nixon engaged the Chinese and the results were positive.

Every time Israel and the Palestinians have engaged each other in something other than bloodshed there has been progress.

We have engaged the North Koreans with some progress.

Engagement does not... I repeat does not equal appeasement...

... the bush minor doctrine of refusing to talk to your opponents is idiotic... it comes from a man who cannot bear to hear opinions other than his own and is promoted by an ideology (neo-conservatism) that feels the same way.

Unilarteralism is for fools and cowards... it takes a good amount of intellegence and indeed gonads to sit down with your opponent and try and make sense of things.

Yes... the Human Rights Council is flawed... but its better than nothing and to just walk away is an act of stupidity and stubborness.... besides that fact when we do walk away we throw away any influence we might have had or could gain by staying.

We are not a nation separate from others we are part of the human community and we need to start behaving like it.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
If we fail to engage not just our friends but our opponents as well in some form a meaningful dialogue we forfit our role as a leader in the international arena and become little more than the world's most dangerous rogue nation.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Baxtoriafall
 


You missed the whole point... the real terrorists are the people in office.... they have won. 911 was not orchestrated by terrorists outside this country but from our own goverment..



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Baxtoriafall
 


I find it hard to beleive that people still think hijackers with boxcutters actually pulled off what they did... It really amazes me... The media has done a good job.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by mullet35
 


Some advice, not being rude, paragraphs and better use of grammar makes your post more easier to read and understand.

As for your comments; please read through the thread and understand the content that has been brought up. This is not about adding wild conspiracies to a sensible debate.

.




[edit on 11-6-2008 by infinite]


First of all Just because someone has bad grammatical errors does not mean they don't speak the truth..I am sure that at one point you have made grammer errors in some of your posts... Does this mean that you spoke any less truth? Look at George Bush, he can barely speak correctly yet he leads a nation? And remember this site is about conspiracies and uncovering them, if you don't like it then I suggest you go to one the msm's forums.. You will then see how long a even a post like this one will last. This site gives people the freedom to express there opinions.We don't need you lambasting other members for speaking what they believe.This is not what this site is about! And FYI the members answer is within the topic range, the events of 911 did lead to the raping of the U.S constitution and not abiding with international law and Human rights violations. So this is in fact within topic range.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 11-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 11-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Your missing the point. Every time we've tried adding something meaningful to the UNHRC it is blocked. How can you talk if the door is slammed in your face? As much as I respect you as a member grover, you fail to address the key facts of the UNHRC ignoring anything constructive. As the Dutch said, how can we build partnerships and support for human rights when certain members are road blocks?

North Korea was engaged outside the United Nations btw, United Nations had no involvement in ending the Cold War. US and the USSR made their own independent decisions to enter discussions.

Most peace talks are successful when the UN does not get involved. Tragic, but true.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
If we fail to engage not just our friends but our opponents as well in some form a meaningful dialogue we forfit our role as a leader in the international arena and become little more than the world's most dangerous rogue nation.


Yes, you are right.

The US and others are more successful in achieving that without the need of the United Nations. Would you agree with me that the politicialisation of the United Nations prevents meaningful engagement due regional bodies blocking or showing bias?

[edit on 11-6-2008 by infinite]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join