WITHTEETH Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Opinion are subjective so lets not get upset at people views. and learn different views so that we can see the bigger picture! And If possible leave a link to your info. How does the rest of the world feel about Our US Ambassador, i personally am not understanding this situation, is it because George Bush doesn't know many people, he seems to recycle the same people into new offices. and this choice is very disturbing since he is representing us for the UN, but thinks we own the un, is he looking for a fight? BBC John Bolton Always outnumbered, never out gunned! Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0 Myspace Website! My rig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cybersquirt Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 There is a pattern here. You've noticed it. But as soon as you put the pieces together you're labeled (conspiracy theorist or somesuch). ^ my way of saying that I'm staying far outta this one but there's plenty of information if you look for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reveilled Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 "I don't know if I've ever seen, in a setting like this, a senator changing his mind as a result of what other senators said," he added. "The process worked. It's kind of refreshing." I agree. That seriously astounds me. Even if these allegations turn out to be untrue, the fact that some politicians actually seem to be reasonable people is welcome news, whether I agree with their positions or not. To be honest, I don't really care who is the US ambassador to the UN, since I'm not American (yet, and when I am one, I'll probably be relatively isolationist anyway) and don't particularly like the UN. Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WITHTEETH Posted April 21, 2005 Author Share Posted April 21, 2005 I was reading a fascinating article in the news paper about Franklin Roosevelt. It was about " The Second Bill Of Rights". The Second Bill of Rights was going to Help the United States become a more sopcial democracy and it did for many other countries for they were influenced by it. Here is what it was offering. Second Bill of Rights. This refers to FDR Always outnumbered, never out gunned! Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0 Myspace Website! My rig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguars4ever Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 I'm always up for a good flame wa...er, "political discussion". " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B5C Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 Im ready for you: For John Bolton: We need some one who will clean up the UN. We need some one who can slap the UN in the face sometimes. I believe I got the best picture for this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 Any comments? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What a lousy list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 I'm always up for a good flame wa...er, "political discussion". " Hey, that's my line! - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguars4ever Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reveilled Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 For John Bolton: We need some one who will clean up the UN. We need some one who can slap the UN in the face sometimes. I believe I got the best picture for this: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Though if Bolton is going to clean up the UN, it might be better to see these allegations out in the open first. If they shown to be unfounded, then it will be harder to attack his character and people who disagree would have to attack the arguments. Similarly, if they are based on truth, it is better to know for certain before his appointment so that can be stopped (and someone with simlar views but a nicer past can be appointed), because with all the bad press your President gets both at home and abroad, the last thing he needs is his views on the UN being forever associated with an abuser and serial bully. It may hurt him in the short term, but the fact that the political process is working will only strengthen the country in the long term. Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WITHTEETH Posted April 21, 2005 Author Share Posted April 21, 2005 Any comments? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What a lousy list. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How come that is lousy? Always outnumbered, never out gunned! Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0 Myspace Website! My rig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reveilled Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 Any comments? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What a lousy list. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How come that is lousy? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> probably because many would feel that those "rights" listed there aren't rights, but things people should take responsibility for and find themselves. To just take one example, "The right of every family to a decent home", many would say that that is not the government's job, that is the job of the wage earners in the family. If you cannot do that, such people would say, that is no one's problem but your own. Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaftan Barlast Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 The thing is just that the Bush administration(which is essentially the same people as with Reagan, Bush Senior and even tracing back to Nixon) is doing everything in its power to counteract the UN since the many elements within the UN is counteracting the US from doing whatever it wants around the world on account of silly , outdated, notions like human rights and so on. The Clinton administration did this too of course, but on a slightly smaller scale. The UN has never been popular with the political and economical superpowers of the world, because it has the theoretical possibility to act against them. 40 years ago Dag Hammararsk DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reveilled Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 The thing is just that the Bush administration(which is essentially the same people as with Reagan, Bush Senior and even tracing back to Nixon) is doing everything in its power to counteract the UN since the many elements within the UN is counteracting the US from doing whatever it wants around the world on account of silly , outdated, notions like human rights and so on. The Clinton administration did this too of course, but on a slightly smaller scale. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, call me crazy, but when an organisation allows the worst human rights offenders to join its club, I don't tend to take its views on human rights quite so seriously as I might otherwise. Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B5C Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 Well, call me crazy, but when an organisation allows the worst human rights offenders to join its club, I don't tend to take its views on human rights quite so seriously as I might otherwise. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And dont forget this wonderful UN didnt believe the deaths in Sudan was genocide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaftan Barlast Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 One of key points of the UN was to provide a place for every nation on earth to conference, that cant be done if some are excluded so even if it would be logical to shut out "crooked states" it would be counterproductive since that eliminates even the possibility of discussion. DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 probably because many would feel that those "rights" listed there aren't rights, but things people should take responsibility for and find themselves. To just take one example, "The right of every family to a decent home", many would say that that is not the government's job, that is the job of the wage earners in the family. If you cannot do that, such people would say, that is no one's problem but your own. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, those are roughly my sentiments. I consider much of the list to be farcical for various reasons. My main complaints being the use of empty qualifiers (decent, adequate, good) and the general disregard of both supply and demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reveilled Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 One of key points of the UN was to provide a place for every nation on earth to conference, that cant be done if some are excluded so even if it would be logical to shut out "crooked states" it would be counterproductive since that eliminates even the possibility of discussion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure, as a place of discussion, the UN is great. But just because they're a place for discussion doesn't mean their views on human rights are the sort that I'd take seriously. Using a democratic process on that level to decide things only works if all the levels below it are also democratic. When some levels aren't (i.e. the levels that take place at the national level which are non-democratic from that point to the bottom in so many states), the conclusions arrived at do not present the opinion of the people of Earth. And as such, the UN's policies on human rights become muddied and corrupted, because they are a place of discussion for everyone. My country can debate in the UN with a totalitarian state about geopolitical situations, about trade agreements and embargos, but I don't feel the need for my country to debate with a President-For-Life or a 'Communist' Chairman about moral issues such as human rights, because their oppressive actions show that their positions should be rejected out of hand. Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nur Ab Sal Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 Some nations aren't mature enough for democracy. HERMOCRATES: Nur Ab Sal was one such king. He it was, say the wise men of Egypt, who first put men in the colossus, making many freaks of nature at times when the celestial spheres were well aligned. SOCRATES: This I doubt. We are hearing a child's tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 Some nations aren't mature enough for democracy. I see you have been following my advice of bashing your face against the keyboard in hopes of writing something coherent. See? it didn't took you so long. Keep trying, even though extremely improbable, you might actually repeat that feat! - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nur Ab Sal Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 Still trollin' I see. Your exhaustive work is good for nothing, cause I don't care about your opinion. HERMOCRATES: Nur Ab Sal was one such king. He it was, say the wise men of Egypt, who first put men in the colossus, making many freaks of nature at times when the celestial spheres were well aligned. SOCRATES: This I doubt. We are hearing a child's tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 The UN is a good idea with a badly implemented system. The five most influential nations (USA, France, UK, China and Russia) have something that's called a veto. That means that even if every other nation in the world vote in favor of an idea, it only takes one veto to stop the idea from happening. This is why people think the UN is 'weak', when in reality it's mostly one nation that's actively trying to ruin the UN reputation: America. Example: In the year 2003, the UN voted for the US-led embargo against Cuba to cease. 179 nations voted for it to stop, 3 nations voted for it to continue (USA, Marshal Islands and Israel). Because USA has a veto, 179 votes didn't mean squat. How's that for democracy? I think it's been 12-13 years straight now that USA has stopped the world opinion in this matter. Funny example: 1987, voting for measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation (153 to 2). Interesting to see how the US view on this suddenly changed once their own nation was attacked.. Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membs...to/vetosubj.htm Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosbjerg Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 I've always been amased at how people view 'THE LAW' it's like it has taken a religious size on it's on .. more like, we serve the law than the law serves us! I think on a level people have forgotten that we live in democratic nations and view themselves as something apart from it .. You can see it in the way people talk about it, like it's a different entity! Society is something 'out there' not in here, in the living room or the kitchen .. strange indeed .. we have alienated society, laws and democracy! :ph34r: Fortune favors the bald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 This is why people think the UN is 'weak', when in reality it's mostly one nation that's actively trying to ruin the UN reputation: America. LOL - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawyl Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 This is why people think the UN is 'weak', when in reality it's mostly one nation that's actively trying to ruin the UN reputation: America. You know, if they ever took a vote to force China to submit to government inspections, China would veto it. Ditto for Russia. The Security Council is a relic left over from WWII that should have been abolished (or at least, refined) years ago. And I have to agree: the UN hasn't taken a strong enough stand on human rights in the past twenty years. It's like they refuse to aid Africa, like they've given up because it's just such a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now