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.

 

Senators line up to tell U.N. to leave kids alone 31 already committed to oppose treaty giving world

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


You've been waiting 30 years? For something that is not even enforceable? Don't you have anything more important to do?

Actually it is enforceable if, as another poster said, it can be "mentioned" in court cases. It would be enforced by our own court system, our own police. No need for white-helmeted UN troops to be involved, we would do it for them.

But why are you so excited about this?????????????????




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 


"Mentioning" it does not make it law. It makes it a nice shorthand, a convenient list of CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTED rights of children in nations around the world, INCLUDING America. It can be mentioned by judges not as something binding them to a certain judgment, but as something that collects in one place their almost universally held beliefs about the rights of children.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Maybe it's conventionally accepted in some other places in the world.

I think that parents have responsibility over their children, and the parents have the corresponding rights. What if parents mistreat children? There are no perfect parents, nor perfect children. It's called a family.

One doesn't need both sides to be checking a list of conventionally accepted provisions to set the groundrules.

I know that my view is getting more and more subverted by legal encroachments. So I would push back wherever I could.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 


Maybe it's conventionally accepted in some other places in the world.

I think that governments have responsibility over their citizens, and the governments have the corresponding rights. What if governments mistreat citizens? There are no perfect governments, nor perfect citizens. It's called a society.

One doesn't need both sides to be checking a list of conventionally accepted provisions to set the groundrules.

I know that my view is getting more and more subverted by legal encroachments. So I would push back wherever I could.

[I hope this exercise in irony has taught you something about the value of human and children's rights]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by oniongrass
reply to post by Sestias
 

The UN doesn't do the fighting directly, but it causes fighting or other actions to be done. Wasn't it a UN force in Somalia, where we try to impose a government on a place that doesn't want it? Didn't the UN take a side in the war between the Hutus and Tutsis? Didn't the UN decide that Charles Taylor's side was "bad bad bad" and that his diamonds are "blood diamonds"? Wasn't the UN involved in putting Radovan Karadzic through years and years of trials for being a head of state who opposed it? The UN is nice until it disagrees with you.


All the cases you mentioned involved genocide. The Hutus were slaughtering the Tutsis en masse in Rwanda. Charles Taylor and Radovan Karadzic are considered war criminals, in the opinion of most of the rest of the world.

Way before these countries the U.N. was involved in the Nazi war crimes trials in Nuremberg after WWII, and there the U.S. took a leading role. Are you saying world opinion should not have held them accountable?

An excerpt on U.N. involvement in Somalia:


UN intervention (1992–1995)

Main articles: UNOSOM I, UNITAF, and UNOSOM II
UN Security Council Resolution 733 and UN Security Council Resolution 746 led to the creation of UNOSOM I, the first mission to provide humanitarian relief and help restore order in Somalia after the dissolution of its central government.

UN Security Council Resolution 794 was unanimously passed on December 3, 1992, which approved a coalition of United Nations peacekeepers led by the United States to form UNITAF, tasked with ensuring humanitarian aid be distributed and peace be established in Somalia. The UN humanitarian troops landed in 1993 and started a two-year effort (primarily in the south) to alleviate famine conditions.

Critics of US involvement pointed out that "just before pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991, nearly two-thirds of the country's territory had been granted as oil concessions to Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. Conoco even lent its Mogadishu corporate compound to the U.S. embassy a few days before the Marines landed, with the first Bush administration's special envoy using it as his temporary headquarters."

The cynical assertion was that, rather than a purely humanitarian gesture, the US was stepping in to gain control of oil concessions. Somalia has no proven reserves of oil, but there are considered to be possible reserves off Puntland. Even today, oil exploration remains a controversy. The Transitional Federal Government has warned investors to not make deals until stability is once again brought to the country.

In the period between June and October, 1993, several gun battles in Mogadishu between local gunmen and peacekeepers resulted in the death of 24 Pakistanis and 19 US soldiers (total US deaths were 31), most of whom were killed in the Battle of Mogadishu. 1000 Somali militia were killed in that battle.[citation needed] The Security Council in Resolution 837 condemned the attacks.

The incident later became the basis for the book and movie, Black Hawk Down. The UN withdrew on March 3, 1995, having suffered more significant casualties. Order in Somalia still had not been restored


Wiki: Somali Civil War


Another case of U.N. intervention led by the U.S. Agreed, the U.S. possibly had shady motives for their alliances in Somalia, but we were hardly forced into that position by the U.N.

If one is an extreme isolationist one might be against the United Nations as a concept. That kind of isolationism would require a completely amoral indifference to the rest of the world and to the suffering caused by genocides.

The world today is vastly more interdependent than ever, and the rest of the world is in one way or another affected by what happens in a part of it.

As I stated earlier, I believe the U.N. tries to lead in the enforcement of human rights worldwide.

In the end, though, the United States will always further its own perceived interests, with or without the consent of the U.N.

We have nothing to fear and a lot to gain by signing on to the rights of children worldwide. We should be a leader in this instance, not hanging back with the least civilized societies on the globe.




[edit on 22-8-2010 by Sestias]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Tell me oh wise one, what does signing a TREATY have to do with anything?

A treaty has NO power whatsover in the US.



Article 7, paragraph 2, US Constitution

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I would say that you just proved my point. I bet you argue about the Constitution too, without reading it.


[edit on 22-8-2010 by pthena]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by oniongrass
 


Maybe it's conventionally accepted in some other places in the world.

I think that governments have responsibility over their citizens, and the governments have the corresponding rights. What if governments mistreat citizens? There are no perfect governments, nor perfect citizens. It's called a society.

One doesn't need both sides to be checking a list of conventionally accepted provisions to set the groundrules.

I know that my view is getting more and more subverted by legal encroachments. So I would push back wherever I could.

[I hope this exercise in irony has taught you something about the value of human and children's rights]

No I didn't learn anything other than that you are working from a misconception. You see the relation of government to adult is not the same as the relationship of adult to child.

The adults create the government. If necessary the adults can replace the government. The government should be there to serve the adult. Were you paying attention when they taught the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence in school?

The same things are not true of the adult-child relationship.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 


Compared to the State, the individual is a child. They are weak, ignorant, and utterly subject to a force far greater than themselves, one which governs their lives and has a moral obligation to provide for their needs. The State is the individual magnified; it is appropriate to compare it to a parent ruling over a child.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by SmedleyBurlap]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Thanks for doing the work here. I figured it was a ploy to win their election.

The 'UN' is controlled by the usual suspects. It's just another global toy for them to assimilate in to a world culture, which world they must crush, or fear being crushed, again.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias

Originally posted by oniongrass
reply to post by Sestias
 

The UN doesn't do the fighting directly, but it causes fighting or other actions to be done. Wasn't it a UN force in Somalia, where we try to impose a government on a place that doesn't want it? Didn't the UN take a side in the war between the Hutus and Tutsis? Didn't the UN decide that Charles Taylor's side was "bad bad bad" and that his diamonds are "blood diamonds"? Wasn't the UN involved in putting Radovan Karadzic through years and years of trials for being a head of state who opposed it? The UN is nice until it disagrees with you.


All the cases you mentioned involved genocide. The Hutus were slaughtering the Tutsis en masse in Rwanda. Charles Taylor and Radovan Karadzic are considered war criminals, in the opinion of most of the rest of the world.

Way before these countries the U.N. was involved in the Nazi war crimes trials in Nuremberg after WWII, and there the U.S. took a leading role. Are you saying world opinion should not have held them accountable? ...

"Genocide" has a pretty broad definition these days. Anything that does not promote racial diversity is basically considered genocide. It doesn't require killing anyone, just moving people from one place to another is considered "genocide" if it changes the racial composition of the place you moved them from.

How do you know these people are considered war criminals in the opinion of most of the world? Because it's the UN's opinion?


What do the Nuremberg trials have to do with it? Clearly Nuremberg was run by the winners of the war, and the victor's opinion is always the one that counts. Speaking of the UN, the Security Council is still the winners of that war.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by oniongrass
 


Compared to the State, the individual is a child. They are weak, ignorant, and utterly subject to a force far greater than themselves, one which governs their lives and has a moral obligation to provide for their needs. The State is the individual magnified; it is appropriate to compare it to a parent ruling over a child.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by SmedleyBurlap]

Thank you, it's clear where you stand. Is that a quote by the way?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


Well hell, why do we not just throw the fricking Constitution out the window and just live by UN sanctioned treaties?

Pfffft.

Yes, in the days that TREATIES were written into the US Constitution, they actually had a PURPOSE.

Now we have UN sanctioned limits on ARMS, how we are to raise OUR children, how we are to ALLOW unmitigated IMMIGRATION.

Stick you hoy filoity misconception of the US Constitution where it belongs, in the garbage can.

YES, we are to follow the TREATIES we enact. WE ARE NOT to follow treaties that go against the VERY CONSTITUTION that protects our rights as SOVEREIGN individuals.

Sorry, I do NOT belong to your international community. I belong to MY sovereign community.

Damn you people piss me off.

This is why I would NEVER allow my kids to go to a public school. This is WHY I teach them to distrust EVERYTHING they learn, even from me. EVERYONE has an agenda, especially the government. They want you to be a cog in the collective machinations, but who cares right?

Whatever!?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
This treaty is actually about preserving a child's ability to develop without interference from biased 3rd parties, not the other way around.

It enforces laws against physical child abuse of any kind, against child labour, against lifetime sentences for crimes committed under 18, and ensures that educational centers are not churches in hiding. Further, it makes sure your child gets proper sex and health education, and removes a parent's ability to shelter their child from ideas contrary to their religious beliefs.

This is a good thing, and anyone opposed to it are the close-minded, BAD parents that this treaty is targeting.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Abject]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 


Yes, the collective mind is strong with them.

They feel that if the parent (government) feels
that a few deaths is necessary, so be it.

What is good for the collective is good for the
country.

We are the BORG, you will be assimilated!



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by pthena
 


Well hell, why do we not just throw the fricking Constitution out the window and just live by UN sanctioned treaties?

Pfffft.

Yes, in the days that TREATIES were written into the US Constitution, they actually had a PURPOSE. ...

You said a lot, but not maybe what you were thinking.

One of the treaties incorporated by reference was the 1783 Treaty of Versailles which made us liable for all prior debts of the colonies. The main function of the Constitution, which was not our first form of government, was to give our creditors a place to go to collect debts we owed them. Under the Articles of Confederation they were having a hard time collecting, so then our heroic Founding Fathers returned to Independence Hall, locked themselves inside with the shades down and armed guards standing watch, and made us all "constitutors" for that debt via a "constitution".



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Good god, do any of the UN-bashers in this thread understand political theory?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower


Nice signature. You realize that's from a non-government, for-fun, creative photoshop challenge right? "New US suggested dollar bills"... get real.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Stick you hoy filoity misconception of the US Constitution where it belongs, in the garbage can.

I only quoted the Constitution. You would have me throw it away?


Damn you people piss me off.

What people is that exactly? People who read source materials?


This is why I would NEVER allow my kids to go to a public school.

I think your kids have a right to a decent education.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Abject
 


Yes I do. I think they made a mistake, maybe they should have use Bush or Hitler.


Do you EVER think that ANYONE would EVER suggest replacing George Washington with Barack Hussein Obama for George Washington if they had a frelling brain?

Oh by the way, is this thread ABOUT MY SIGNATURE?

Maybe you should inform others that I am SUPPOSEDLY spreading lies.

Wait a minute, this is a FACT that it has been submitted. Oh never mind, foget aboooouuuuut it. Facts are just that, illusory!



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


Good god, do any of the UN-bashers in this thread understand political theory?

I would be willing to bet that they haven't even read the UN Charter.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join