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.
Originally posted by thefreepatriot
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
Originally posted by Grover
...It wasn't just the military buildup under Reagan that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union...
Nixon engaged the Chinese and the results were positive.
The breakthrough on the Israel/ Palestinian talks occurred when one side back away from it's inflexible tenant of not recognizing Israel's right to exist. When both parties are willing to talk and meet in the middle, much can be done. When this doesn't occur, Hamas for example, it doesn't matter how much talking takes place.
Every time Israel and the Palestinians have engaged each other in something other than bloodshed there has been progress.
Under the guise of "engagement" N.K. built it's nuclear weapons. I wouldn't use them as an example of a successful use of this policy. The U.S. by holding to it's principles, got N.K. back to the table, not by bending over backward.
We have engaged the North Koreans with some progress.
I certainly hope so. However engagement with a party not willing to discuss, just for the sake of keeping them engaged, is faulty IMO. Their must be a willingness on both sides to work towards achieving a mutually acceptable goal. There need to be some groundwork / preconditions/parameters set up in advance. Should Israel have direct talks with Hamas when Hamas has yet to acknowledge Israel's right to exist? There are limits on what talking alone can do. Sometimes you have to decide the time it not right for engagement to increase the pressure on the subborn side. Case in point, Hamas.
Engagement does not... I repeat does not equal appeasement...
The have been many instances of leaders breaking off talks with each other, it's part of diplomacy. The oposite of refusing to talk to you opponents is potentially worse. The flawed talks of the Clinton admin with North Korea did little but make us feel like we were achieving something, when all along, we were being played by N.K. The Clinton Admin heard what they wanted to hear and didn't bother afterwords to follow up with verification. Unfortunetely some countries cannot be trusted without verification.
... 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 (neoconservatism) that feels the same way.
Unilateralism is for fools and cowards... ......
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.
Originally posted by mOOmOO
This just in:
America doesn't get own way, throws baby rattle out of pram (again).
Originally posted by wytworm
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?
You are accusing me a being a moral relativist? The UNHRC should follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, should it not? Read it and then tell me all nation states qualify/deserve to be on that Council.
You almost have it. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.
I am civil here, please look at the bulk of my posts if you doubt me. Some points I stress with added emphasis as I consider them points to be examined fully. My use of uncivilized in this context refers to supposedly "modern' states who deny basic human rights in their own country. They claim to be "civil" when in fact they are not, with regards to human rights. Dictatorships tend not to respond to outside pressure when it come to treatment of their own citizens. I did not for you to intend that I considered you uncivilized if you did. I stand by my choice of words.
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.
Umm, not sure where you are going. I just brought up three of the most recent major genocides, 2 of which were before 2003. There are assurdely more if you care to look. For a supposedly modern world, we can be downright barbaric to our fellow man.
What, were you born in 2003? Where was your 'shame' for all the abuses before that? ........
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.
The UN Human Rights Council have put out a report claiming we need a referendum on the monarchy and our lack of a written constitution. We're paying, via our contributions to the UN, to be lectured on entirely legitimate institutions by a council whose membership includes China, Saudi Arabia and Cuba.
You are missing the point entirely. ...h a response.
You are accusing me a being a moral relativist? ...Council.
I am civil here, please look at the bulk of my posts if you doubt me. Some points I stress with added emphasis as I consider them points to be examined fully.
I do not need a new member giving me a lecture
Originally posted by infinite
I have an idea in which we can all agree. Why not have an independent Human rights council outside of the United Nations? Having its own mandate and non-nationalistic approach may prove to be more successful.
Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment. Due to the utter failure of the UNHRC, I think it would prove to be difficult and will face some problems. Many nations, like China, would probably object. But we do need something better than the bias UNHRC.
However, until certain nations get their own house in order, an international human rights council will not work.
I see..... so I take it you don't consider those to be genocides? You are quite correct, you can be a human rights abuser and not commit genocide. I never said otherwise. Never the less, being a major human rights abuser, should be a reason for not being seated on the UNHRC.
Originally posted by wytworm
1) 'the genocides' as you call them are a subset of human rights abuses. It is possible to be a human rights abuser and not commit genocide. As you say, read the Universal Declaration of Human rights.
.... I think your meaning is plain. You can stand by your choice of words all you want, you are still held accountable for them.
I would also point out that I don't need to read the bulk of your posts, just your replies to mine where you alter my name in the post to be clever and insulting. ....
....Whats your point? Its ok for us to be bad actors, but not them?
Again with the 2003 comment, why? I gave other examples of innaction by the UN in modern times, must I go back to the Armenians in Turkey or back to some of the Crusades? Supposedly in the era of the UN, we have developed, I point out examples of how we have not progressed.
As I said before Human Rights abuses which yes, include more than genocide, have been around as long as humans. I am not sure why your clock starts in 2003 like its something new.
I am not sure you read my posts entirely, I have stated that it is not a personal level of guilt, but one of nations being able to stop these crimes failing to do so.
How exactly are you not able to get governments to stop? What exactly did you try? You realize of course that governments are people right?
Not following your logic. I as just a citizen, could not stop the Genocide in Rwanda for example. The UN, which is designed to stop such things, or My Nation, the U.S., could have stopped it or at least reduced it by action on their parts. I also contend that enough citizen action can motivate a government into action as well.
So you maintain that at an atomic level it is acceptable not to stop a genocide, but at the collective level, which is after all just an aggregation of atomic levels it is not acceptable, even though one is just an aggregation of the other?
I have an idea in which we can all agree. Why not have an independent Human rights council outside of the United Nations? Having its own mandate and non-nationalistic approach may prove to be more successful.
Originally posted by wytwornia
Last point in this, It is not OK for any major abuser of human rights of it's own citizens to have a seat on a UN Council talking about Human Rights? You don't see the irony in that? Be it a large or small nation.
Again with the 2003 comment, why? ... progressed.
Not following your logic. ... as well.
Originally posted by wytworm
Originally posted by wytwornia
This isn't a typo its auto generated off the name of the poster. You are claiming that you manually replicate the function of the reply button/header? I don't care if you make a personal attack. Fire away! I was mentioning it as a chain of evidence refuting your claim to be a 'civil' poster. I hear you saying you stand by your words, but in this case you seem to be running away...
Originally posted by wytwornia
... I do not agree that there are degrees of abuse that count for more or less. No, I don't agree that it is a legitimate to say its worse when a state does it against its own citizens vs when a state does it against another state's citizens.
I do not agree that a council where member ship is driven based on adherence to human rights is even interesting.
The salient point is you are operating from as if your moral framework is decoupled from the UN/US framework. Lets challenge that -- and if you agree that it is not decoupled and you are a part, albeit a small one, of the whole, with a path to make a change , albeit a difficult one, how can you successfully not be in part responsible for their failures. Either way in the US or the UN you are assuming credit when they do the right thing morally, yet you shed that connection when they fail to act morally.
My point is, its not like we don't have a hand on the wheel, and in my atomic level way I am adding my hand to steer it in the right way.
Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by manson_322
I am well aware of our shameful treatment of Native Americans and our past involvement in Slavery. I do not condone it in any matter. Howerer, that was done well over a century ago, hopefully we have progressed since then. There are fare more recent and larger examples out there, by other nations. The China example was just one. Sadly, there are more than a handful of other ones in the last 50 years even. Just call everyone out on it, don't single out just specific nations while ignoring others.
[edit on 10-6-2008 by pavil]
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,, Bombing of Cambodia and Laos, Nicuragra, Panama, the genocide of the native americans. Need i go on?
pavil, who is making excellent points to this thread, now has to play around with infantile members who cannot engage in an intelligent debate without mentioning the words "imperialist", "slavery" and "native Americans". Using 200 year old arguments is pure amateurish and shows lack of understanding of debating and discussing a modern topic. Ruthlessly waving your history textbook in a thread is not going to impress members, let alone your teacher