Eighty-Five Nations Endorse U.N. Population Agenda - but Bush Administration Refuses to Sign

Originally posted by ThunderCloud

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
You seem to forget that American is a secular pluralist society, something of which it lauds constantly.

What does the US being a secular pluralist society have to do with signing a treaty that's not in the US's interest?

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
...In fact, the Islamic world warranted equal rights to women 1400 years ago...

The Islamic world sure took that back in a major way over the last 1400 years then!

[edit on 10/14/2004 by ThunderCloud]

Why would the empowering of women in third world nation not be in the US interest? Sexual rights....ummm, what does that mean? To some in this country it seems to just simply mean their right to an abortion. Although, if one were to go back in time, to the point where abortions were illegal and done in the back alleys and slums, and many of the recipients were women dependent on the men in thier lives for their basic necessities and thus more or less forced into those abortions by lovers and fathers, well, it could very well mean the right to have the baby. And, in some of these third world countries, where the legal stature of women remains lower than that of their male sons. are literally given to marriage to their father's choice of son-in-law, in a world where you can't say no to that husband, or disappoint him in any way without suffering repercussions, in a world where a divorce by an unhappy husband can lead to your murder by your brother....hey.....I think it says alot more than just their right to have an abortion?

In our country's interest? Well, let's see, most of our terrorists are coming from poor slums with few jobs....they simply have nothing better to do than blow themselves up. In country where the women have been empowered, given say over their production of children through BIRTH CONTROL, well, the women have banded together, started small business, EARNED money, and improved not only their lives, but the lives of their children, and the entire community. Which in the long run, probably reduces the number or terrorists in the world some.

Guess it's up to each of us to decide if it is in the nation's best interest to care about this issue.


Some day, look at the cultures and lifestyles of the different countries in the world, how they veiw women, and her rights of self determination, and well, which ones seem to be barbaric in your opinion in other areas, like slavery, inhumane punishment and torture, authoritarian rulership, ect. Are those the same ones that are denying the women's rights?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I agree with your whole post. I came to this sentence
and found it to be something I have not heard about.
Do youhave any links to educate me on this? Thanks.

a sexual harassment complaint filed against the U.N.'s top refugee coordinator Ruud Lubbers.The complaint was filed on April 27 of this year.

there are reports in your newspaper nd in Dutch media that other women have come forward. What do you know?

HOGE: The report in the "New York Times" was that other women might
come forward, that there were women in addition to the one woman described as an American in her 40s with 20 years service with the agency in Geneva, that the other women were watching to see what would happen
to her complaint.

So as far as I know, those other four or five, however many women it is, have
not come forward yet, though I do understand the Dutch media is reporting that maybe they have.


216.239.39.104...:92wqBvAPFxAJ:cnnstudentnews.cnn.
com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/21/i_dl.01.html+United+Nations+corruption+sexual+
harassment+cases&hl=en&client=firefox-a



Lot's of stories of corruption in the un
www.google.com...
harassment+cases&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search

of course corruption happens in every government, but when you have many nations coming together in a setting such as the UN organization, you expect them to be on their best behaviour...

And because the leaders of the UN are known for their corruption and abuse scandals in other countries many people here find it a joke that they are leaders in the UN. And it is.. A big #ing joke...

Murderer's, rapists, abuser's, and money hungry aholes are all in charge of the UN.... I'm surprise not many people know about this...

Some people can sympathize with the UN all they want, but it doesn't take away from the fact of who these leaders are... And just because some of you may sympathize with the UN, doesn't mean other people should, a is a, corruption is corruption, harassment is harassment. It's inexcusable, inappropriate and wrong.

Human beings have been mistreated by leaders in the UN, what do you say to them when your trying to stick up for the UN??

[edit on 14-10-2004 by TrueLies]

I think that abortion should purely be up to the parents... To a stage.

When you can take it out the womb and it can live by itself, i'm against abortion.

When you take it out the womb and it can't live by itself, even with the intense help of hospital staff, and it doesn't even resemble a fully developed baby, i believe it's the parents choice. What if you used the pill and condoms and yet as fate would have it your wife or girlfriend got pregnant, you both didn't want it, your both not ready to give it the emotinal, and financial support it needs to have the life you would like to give it at a future time when your both ready to have your children, and you decide then to stop using contraceptives.

That's my feelings on abortion, it's totally up to the 2 people who create the life to end it before the child is fully developed to survive outside the womb. And if it's after that, it's a court matter/illegal.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by Snoopdopey]

Originally posted by TrueLies
Lot's of stories of corruption in the un
www.google.com...
harassment+cases&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search

The first article about the UN comes from "American Daily", which looks to me like a site with a conservative bias. I don't trust sites with biases, but I looked at the links the guy posted in his article. One of those deals with an Integrity Survey conducted for the UN by Deloitte&Touche (www.un.org...) - its aim was to ascertain UN employees' perception of the organization. Among others, the study finds that 52% of the UN employees are satisfied with the UN's integrity. 68 percent of them believe the UN has clear guidelines regarding ethical behavior (page 74) - and true, 55 percent say that they are sometimes asked to bend the guidelines in order to get things done. Another article is by UNICEF (surely corruption-ridden, since part of the UN) regarding the impact of the Rwanda genocide ten years later. Another one is the report of the commission on the actions of the international community in Rwanda - it does underline the need for the UN to better prepare and coordinate peacekeeping missions, and urges the UN to acknowledge its part of the responsibility in not preventing the genocide. Another source is interesting: www.nationalreview.com... Although it contains interesting facts, it's an opinion article. And notice the ads for Bush on the right?

There are articles that truly worry me. Like this one about some peacekeepers in Congo-RDC exploiting women sexually news.bbc.co.uk... and this one about children being sexually exploited by international relief organization workers news.bbc.co.uk...

Back to that Google search, another site calling the UN "A miasma of corruption" also has an agenda: "Individual liberty, Limited Governments, Free Markets and Peace" (www.cato.org...). I'll pass on that one. And this one www.freerepublic.com... criticizing the UN's grab for power comes from a site calling itself "A conservative forum".

So that's the first page of that Google search. I'll also mention that you have a few very good articles coming FROM the UN or UNICEF (United States branch) doing excellent whistle-blowing work on corruption and sexual exploitation happening in African countries - not all because of the UN.

What I'm saying is, when you have a bias or an agenda, it's easy to see everything in black. Of course the UN has problems, and has had its shameful moments. Of course it's not perfect. But we have to take a balanced view at this - and count in the good that the UN does.

Originally posted by TrueLiesMurderer's, rapists, abuser's, and money hungry aholes are all in charge of the UN.... I'm surprise not many people know about this...

Right now, the only rationale I see is "There's proof of corruption and inefficiency in the UN, so ALL the UN is corrupt and inefficient." That's the same thing as saying "There's proof of corruption by French officials in Iraq, so ALL the French are corrupt."

Or, to make a closer strike, "Ulysses Grant, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were corrupt Presidents, so ALL the American Presidents were corrupt."

Hence the need for a balanced view.

Furthermore... Time magazine reported that when a country, an organization or a person opposes his policies, President Bush likes to know, more than the content of that opposition, the reason WHY the opposition arose, what interests are at stake.

I think we need to ask the same question here. There is apparently a conservative discourse about the UN, saying more and more that the U.S. should get out of it. What I want to understand is not the content of that opposition - I already know that - but the MOTIVATION.