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

I do not need a new member giving me a lecture or trying to get my attention For your information, I have been at ATS for five years and was always taught to bring a constructive argument to the table and never make wild claims, or derail a thread with them (i.e what you are doing now). That is why those raising absurd points in this thread, and on this board in general, are ignored.

Read over this thread and you'll see a constructive debate and intelligent points raised both side. No one has issued a wild conspiracy, everyone has been sensible and showed how ATS engages in a true debate. If you want to a thread where everyone is screaming 9/11 and Iraq, please visit Infowars.com or Open Minds Forum instead of ATS. We are proudly an alternative discussion site that seeks the truth without paranoid or bias opinion.

Not everyone believes everything is a conspiracy here.

If you want to be apart of our glorious community and learn how to truly discuss and reconstruct conspiracies; then stick around and join in this debate but if you are going to just raise conspiracy after conspiracy, with no evidence, and derail the thread; then you will end up being ignored.

The choice is yours.

apologise to the OP and to Staff. Comments had to be said to prevent the debate from being derailed. I've only repeated words which were once said to me by an older member


[edit on 11-6-2008 by infinite]

Nice post. Much better answer than your previous ones. Engagement works when both parties wish to reach an agreement that works for both parties. Sometimes such an agreement is not possible given each sides stance.

Originally posted by Grover
...It wasn't just the military buildup under Reagan that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union...

But two of the biggest moves by Reagan met with worldwide condemnation. His walking away from the Reykjavik talks was deemed a horrible move by many. His decision to base medium range nuclear missiles in Europe was hardly well met. Both of those decisions as well as the SDI (another plan Reagan was lambasted for) and the increase in the Military budget combined to make the Soviets reach the breaking point.

Sometimes standing up for the overall principle is something you have to do. The main principle is not the UNHRC, it's standing up for overall human rights. That can be done without the UNHRC. Even then, on a world stage it will not work perfectly. Every country will look out for it's interests.

Nixon engaged the Chinese and the results were positive.

Not a really good example but I fully understand the benefits and limits of diplomacy. China and the US were establishing diplomatic relations, not quibbling over policy disputes.

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

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.

We have engaged the North Koreans with some 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.

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

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.

... 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.

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.

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.

Unilaterlism has it's place. Sometimes you must lead by sticking your neck out when others will not. Many of a decision of a Superpower will be met with hardly global acceptance. That is what it is. You can't please everyone and ultimately you have to look our for your own interests. Some will disagree with that, but ultimately all countries do that.

I would contend that we have more influence over the UNHRC by leaving as a observer and critic than we would by trying to change it from within. It's not like we could have had less.The only real changes that will take place are when enough countries get tired of the status quo with the council and leave it to be the meaningless shell that it is. The structure of the UNHRC mimics the General Assembly, it will not change it's spots due to the composition of the Council and the way the General Assembly works. The UNHRC does not promote human rights for all of it's members, when given chances to take stands, like any good group of career diplomats, they refuse to take that stand.

This just in:

America doesn't get own way, throws baby rattle out of pram (again).

Originally posted by mOOmOO
This just in:

America doesn't get own way, throws baby rattle out of pram (again).

This just in:

Another ignorant didn't bother examining the issue or read any of the posts here, posting a knee-jerk response to a headline!

This just in:

Another person is so absolutely warped by his hatred for the United States that he agrees with the UNHRC blocking examination into human-rights abuses around the globe and in fact blames the status quo on the United States. Just another ignorant knee-jerk who is is happy with any atrocity around the globe as long as it presents him with an opprotunity to bash the US!

So, which is it? Which of those best describes you?

Do you really think all this boils down to is the United States not getting it's way? Do you really think there are no problems with the UNHRC other than the United States?

Besides, in this case, would it be so terrible for the United States to get it's way? What would it mean for the US to get it's way? The UNHRC focuses on atrocities around the world? On Darfur, on Tibet, and so forth? Is that really so terrible to you?

Or do you really think genocide and human rights violations are no big deal, as long as you can stick it to the US?

[edit on 11-6-2008 by SaviorComplex]

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 missing the point entirely. Our would be "all of us" , They would refer to the Genocides. Yes at some level, there is responsibility on all major nations to stop Genocides when they occur. The whole framework of the UN is based on such a response.

You almost have it. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The shame I refer to is one of collective shame, not being able to get governments to stop them. There was the ability, just not the will. Do I feel partly responsible for the Genocides? No. Do I feel shame that all of us did not enough to prevent them? Yes.

You seem to think that ordinary citizens can not affect such an event as a Genocide. I would suggest that we at least try to do so before flailing our hands up.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 11-6-2008 by pavil]

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 have always thought that an independent Human Rights body is exactly what is required. A nation such as the United States has the leverage and status (for the time being) to make it happen. Those who shun it should NOT be cited as a cause to fail establishing it. The UN has not presented ANY reason to expect anything more from it than we have already seen in practice.

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 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.

.... 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?

I stand by my words.

I quote you, so others can follow appropriately. I will relook at my posts, I do not intentionally try to change names, as you claim. If I have done so, it was a typo and I apologize, if I have not I will expect an apology from you. I would appreciate you pointing it the name change. You seem to be taking this personal, you should not. I disagree with many, yet still respect them if they can articulate their viewpoint well.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

The human rights policy is a sham or farce, and enforcing it is just ridiculing the state.

What is humane to another is torture, what is complacent is downright drudgery.

Pull out while you still can keep your head up.

When engaged by an enemy force, The 'United Nations' runs the show of engagement.

Had a friend that served and they weren't allowed to engage the people because of politics. United Nations stepped in. They were being shot at right and left but were not allowed to fire upon the people shooting at them.

You truly want peace then don't show up for a war. It's that simple.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by menguard]

The USA is heading for a break down fast.

If Congress dose not impeach Bush & Chaney, it is sending a big message that our Government can do as it pleases, and dose not have to ansewer to anyone.

And WE THE PEOPLE are saying its ok to Lie to us, and the world.
And its ok to start wars over Lies, and make huge foutunes from the blood of Americans, and the country that we are invadeing.

And steal other Country resources, such as oil.

We are makeing enemy all over the world, cant blame them if they invade us.

Talk about making your mark in the History Books.

War is not pretty by any means. I have plenty of other things from other people but perhaps another time.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by menguard]

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...

I honestly can say I am not sure how that happened. I routinely delete the reply portion below a person quoting me. Just like I have done now. On top of that, it is a nested quote, notice the lack of hyperlink. Also notice it does not happen all the time in replies to you. If you think I have done this intentionally and somehow I have insulted you, my apologies. Moving on.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by pavil]

The name is wytworm, I only keep it this way to show the error, I will correct it later.

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.

Now who is the moral relativistic one. So the abuses of China in Tiananmen Square are the same as the UK, for example? The degree of abuse doesn't matter?

Why shouldn't a countries overall human rights record be a litmus test for having a seat on a Human Rights Council? You could still speak in front of said council but you couldn't have a seat. Would you give prisoners a seat on a parole board? I am well aware that all countries have their human rights issues, still to make them all equal regardless of the level of abuse is wrong IMO.

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.

Sorta followed that, I don't wring my hands over it. I do however point out the problem of looking at the finger and missing it point at the moon. In this discussion the finger is the U.S. leaving the UNHRC, when the real focus (Moon) should be WHY it is leaving the UNHRC.

When a discussion starts to drift away from that central issue (the Problems of the UNHRC) it gets annoying. Who would really care if the US left it's observer status if the UNHRC was doing a bang up job? That some feel the need to criticize the U.S.'s action without fully realizing / acknowledging WHY it has done so, irritates me. Call the UNHRC out for it's problems and reform it, then you can blast away at the US for not being in a top notch, well run organization. The US has tried to reform the UNHRC but has not been successful, perhaps it is time someone else tries.

Again my apologies on the name snafu, I will see if I can still edit them.


Ha, I now know what is happening, somehow when I use googles autofix spell check, it must modify your name, why I do not know.
Wytwornia appears to be a polish word from what I googled.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 11-6-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 11-6-2008 by pavil]