The one nation the UN finds violating women's rights, do hav
Wullu @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:54 am
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Wasn't it a committee like the UN that designed the camel?
You are thinking of the 3 toed sloth or the platapus Pluggy.
PS sorry for wierd spellings and typing the last couple days, crunched an index finger and now typinf is worse than before..........if possible!
ridenrain @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:56 am
Finally, a chance to use this..
BartSimpson @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:59 am
hurley_108 hurley_108:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
It's long overdue for the USA to stop thwarting the UN whenever it tries to do the right thing.
When would that be?
Numerous vetoes of resolutions condemning Apartheid, opposition to the international court, the aforementioned thwarting of any effort to do anything about the genocide in East Timor, vetoes of resolutions opposing nuclear testing (many in the 80s - come on, you think nobody knew you guys had the bomb?), making a mockery of UN inspections in Iraq despite the fact that such measured did disarm Iraq of WMDs, etc, etc, etc....
It's not hard to render an organization incompetent when you have the (veto) power to stop it every time it tries to do right and let it fall flat on its face whenever it does the wrong thing. No organization has a spotless record, but most are able to enjoy success from time to time. Your country has a long record of interfering in any potential UN success.
First off, my country created the UN. For most of the last sixty years we financed it, as well.
The issues in South Africa revolved around the African National Congress being a terrorist group that was funded by the Soviet Union and allowing South African resources to fall into Soviet control were the crux of our objections to anti-apartheid measures. Once the USSR fell we pursued the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
The international court is an affront to our national sovereignty. Our Constittution and the courts empowered by it are the supreme law of the United States. We will not suborn our sovereignty to The Hague. In April 2001 a measure was quietly put forth that would put US politicians and military officers (including me) under the jurisdiction of the ICC without US consent and the convoluted US response essentially stated that we would take military action to recover any US citizen brought before that court. I was involved in a study of such a recovery mission at the Naval War College and the parameters included retaliatory sanctions against ICC officials. Fortunately, the study went into a filing cabinet somewhere. But the point here is that we will not surrender our sovereignty without a fight.
We also take it as a grave insult to our national security when someone thinks they can force us to participate in the ICC without our consent.
"Grave insult" is a diplomatic way of saying we'll bomb your damn cities into dust if you try this crap with us. And that neatly summarizes our national policy on this issue.
We vetoed UN nuclear testing bans in the 80's because they benefitted the USSR. The fact that the USSR no longer exists and that we no longer need to test nukes because the USSR no longer exists proves the policy was correct. You'll notice we don't care that China conducts underground tests.
With East Timor we supported their sovereignty but we also did not want the country to fall under the influence of the Maoist 'rebels' who were the principal reason Indonesia invaded in 1975. We were no big fans of Suharto but he was keeping things stable in East Timor. Since independence in 1999 the country has fallen into a virtual anarchy and would quickly become a Pol Pot style Maoist state without the presence of Australian and New Zealander troops. Our concern in East Timor was that there was something better coming along to replace the Indonesians. So far, there is not.
UN inspections in Iraq were not supported by the US because of how they were conducted. Allowing the Iraqis 24 hours notice on 'surprise' inspections and allowing the Iraqis to declare virtually any site a 'Presidential Palace' that was off-limits to inspection was what made a mockery of the UN. Get your facts straight.
Without the US veto Israel would most likely be overwhelmed by a multi-national muslim force that was egged on by an anti-semitic UN. Would you really want the US to allow Israel to be annihilated?
We've also interfered in the vast corruption within the UN, we've stood up for the rights of other sovereign nations who do not like UN interference in their cultural and political affairs, and we continue to stand in the way of those who would use the UN as a weapon against the US economy and our Constitution.
BartSimpson @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:12 am
lily lily:
$1:
First off, my country created the UN. For most of the last sixty years we financed it, as well.
Really?
$1:
As of 31 October 2006, assessments and payments for the regular budget were lower than a year before, he said, by $73 million and $39 million, respectively. He was pleased to report that, due to payments in the last quarter of 2005, unpaid contributions were down by $58 million and stood at $661 million. On a less positive note, the number of countries that had paid their assessments in full was also down. On 31 October, that number had stood at 122, compared to 130 on the same date last year. On 31 December last year, 140 Member States had paid. Almost 95 per cent of the outstanding amount was owed by just four Member States -– the United States, Japan, Brazil and Argentina, with almost 80 per cent owed by the United States alone.
link
That's correct. And we set terms for making those payments in full which include audits of the UN, its agencies, the UN-funded NGO's, and the adherence to the approved budgets instead of arbitrary spending by the Secretary General. Conduct the audits and we'll write the checks.
We're waiting.
Not mentioned is that the USA has never billed the UN for peacekeeping missions or the support of other nations peacekeeping missions. This would run into several billion dollars.
Clogeroo @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:35 am
I hope the United States doesn't pay the UN and I think the one billion dollars they owe could be better spent given to a charity like World Vision or the Red Cross.
Delwin @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:39 am
The document presented is a complete and total lie. Here are the actual resolutions which were being voted on:
$1:
The Commission on the Status of Women concluded its fifty-first session today by approving four draft resolutions touching on the situation of Palestinian women, the need to increase HIV/AIDS protection for women and girls, ending female genital mutilation and curbing the practice of forced and early marriages.
In line with the priority theme for its current session -- the elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against the girl child –- the Commission approved a draft resolution on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian women (document E/CN.6/2007/L.2) by a recorded vote of 40 in favour to 2 against (Canada and the United States), with no abstentions. (See annex.)
By the terms of that text, the Commission would have the Economic and Social Council express the importance of providing assistance, especially emergency assistance, to alleviate the harmful impact of the financial crisis that had exacerbated the already dire socio-economic and humanitarian situation faced by Palestinian women and their families.
In line with the priority theme for its current session -- the elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against the girl child –- the Commission approved a draft resolution on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian women (document E/CN.6/2007/L.2) by a recorded vote of 40 in favour to 2 against (Canada and the United States), with no abstentions. (See annex.)
By the terms of that text, the Commission would have the Economic and Social Council express the importance of providing assistance, especially emergency assistance, to alleviate the harmful impact of the financial crisis that had exacerbated the already dire socio-economic and humanitarian situation faced by Palestinian women and their families.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/wom1622.doc.htm
They had nothing to do with Isreal being the only violator of women's rights. There were many resolutions which dealt with a number of countries.
The problem is that the article is written by eye on the un by Anne Bayefsky. This is an organization funded by the hudson institue ( American right wing think tank) whose sole pupose is to undermine the UN, obviously using any lies neccesary.
There was never a vote as to whom is the worst women's right violator, only a vote on resolutions to improve the situation of women in different areas of the world. Check commision of the status of women 51 st session for details.
hurley_108 @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:45 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
It's long overdue for the USA to stop thwarting the UN whenever it tries to do the right thing.
When would that be?
Numerous vetoes of resolutions condemning Apartheid, opposition to the international court, the aforementioned thwarting of any effort to do anything about the genocide in East Timor, vetoes of resolutions opposing nuclear testing (many in the 80s - come on, you think nobody knew you guys had the bomb?), making a mockery of UN inspections in Iraq despite the fact that such measured did disarm Iraq of WMDs, etc, etc, etc....
It's not hard to render an organization incompetent when you have the (veto) power to stop it every time it tries to do right and let it fall flat on its face whenever it does the wrong thing. No organization has a spotless record, but most are able to enjoy success from time to time. Your country has a long record of interfering in any potential UN success.
First off, my country created the UN. For most of the last sixty years we financed it, as well.
The issues in South Africa revolved around the African National Congress being a terrorist group that was funded by the Soviet Union and allowing South African resources to fall into Soviet control were the crux of our objections to anti-apartheid measures. Once the USSR fell we pursued the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
The international court is an affront to our national sovereignty. Our Constittution and the courts empowered by it are the supreme law of the United States. We will not suborn our sovereignty to The Hague. In April 2001 a measure was quietly put forth that would put US politicians and military officers (including me) under the jurisdiction of the ICC without US consent and the convoluted US response essentially stated that we would take military action to recover any US citizen brought before that court. I was involved in a study of such a recovery mission at the Naval War College and the parameters included retaliatory sanctions against ICC officials. Fortunately, the study went into a filing cabinet somewhere. But the point here is that we will not surrender our sovereignty without a fight.
We also take it as a grave insult to our national security when someone thinks they can force us to participate in the ICC without our consent.
"Grave insult" is a diplomatic way of saying we'll bomb your damn cities into dust if you try this crap with us. And that neatly summarizes our national policy on this issue.
We vetoed UN nuclear testing bans in the 80's because they benefitted the USSR. The fact that the USSR no longer exists and that we no longer need to test nukes because the USSR no longer exists proves the policy was correct. You'll notice we don't care that China conducts underground tests.
With East Timor we supported their sovereignty but we also did not want the country to fall under the influence of the Maoist 'rebels' who were the principal reason Indonesia invaded in 1975. We were no big fans of Suharto but he was keeping things stable in East Timor. Since independence in 1999 the country has fallen into a virtual anarchy and would quickly become a Pol Pot style Maoist state without the presence of Australian and New Zealander troops. Our concern in East Timor was that there was something better coming along to replace the Indonesians. So far, there is not.
UN inspections in Iraq were not supported by the US because of how they were conducted. Allowing the Iraqis 24 hours notice on 'surprise' inspections and allowing the Iraqis to declare virtually any site a 'Presidential Palace' that was off-limits to inspection was what made a mockery of the UN. Get your facts straight.
Without the US veto Israel would most likely be overwhelmed by a multi-national muslim force that was egged on by an anti-semitic UN. Would you really want the US to allow Israel to be annihilated?
We've also interfered in the vast corruption within the UN, we've stood up for the rights of other sovereign nations who do not like UN interference in their cultural and political affairs, and we continue to stand in the way of those who would use the UN as a weapon against the US economy and our Constitution.
Yak, yak, yak. Mandela was a terrorist. It's an affront to sovereignty to see war criminals brought to justice. Exploding nukes on US soil and in space won the cold war. Saddam had WMDs. Israel can do no wrong.
That's what you're saying. In purple patriotic prose, but that's what you're saying.
hurley_108 @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:59 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
With East Timor we supported their sovereignty but we also did not want the country to fall under the influence of the Maoist 'rebels' who were the principal reason Indonesia invaded in 1975. We were no big fans of Suharto but he was keeping things stable in East Timor. Since independence in 1999 the country has fallen into a virtual anarchy and would quickly become a Pol Pot style Maoist state without the presence of Australian and New Zealander troops. Our concern in East Timor was that there was something better coming along to replace the Indonesians. So far, there is not.
Fist off, Suharto, with your blessing and your guns, killed 200 000 East Timorese. Were they all maoist rebels? I find that difficult to believe since even now the population is only 1 000 000. That would make fully one in five a maoist rebel. Clinton called Suharto "our kind of guy." Lots of dislike there.
You've really got a hard-on for anti-communist butchers, haven't you?
EyeBrock @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:21 am
GreatBriton GreatBriton:
$1:
And half of those countries I know nothing about. .
Naturally. You Canadians and Americans are inward-looking and insular and ignorant of much of the rest of the world even though there are many countries that are more important and influential than Canada.
And the US and Canada being the only ones to vote against this probably just shows Canada was being America's poodle in this instance whilst at the same time America was being Israel's poodle as always.
You are such a knobhead.
BartSimpson @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:47 am
lily lily:
Looks like you're pretty much even then.
Col. We'll call it even then.
BartSimpson @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:50 am
hurley_108 hurley_108:
You've really got a hard-on for anti-communist butchers, haven't you?
And you seem to have a penchant for bending over before communist butchers.
hurley_108 @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:52 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
You've really got a hard-on for anti-communist butchers, haven't you?
And you seem to have a penchant for bending over before communist butchers.
When have I ever supported any butcher; communist, anticommunist, or other?
BartSimpson @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:06 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Yak, yak, yak. Mandela was a terrorist.
Yes, he was. Mandela was personally involved in the Church Street bombing and he never renounced violence and both he and his then-wife Winnie advocated "necklacing" suspected informers and people who refused to support the Soviet-sponsored African National Congress.
hurley_108 hurley_108:
It's an affront to sovereignty to see war criminals brought to justice.
Do you agree that President Clinton is a war criminal?
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Exploding nukes on US soil and in space won the cold war.
We won, didn't we? That must just piss you off. Good.
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Saddam had WMDs.
That's what both he and the UN kept saying. Remember the UN you want us to listen to? Well, we did. That was our mistake.
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Israel can do no wrong.
I never said that. Is this your way of subtly announcing that you hate Jews?
hurley_108 hurley_108:
That's what you're saying. In purple patriotic prose, but that's what you're saying.
No, you're a schlemiel, that's what I'm saying.
BartSimpson @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:10 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
You've really got a hard-on for anti-communist butchers, haven't you?
And you seem to have a penchant for bending over before communist butchers.
When have I ever supported any butcher; communist, anticommunist, or other?
By proxy you are doing so now.
hurley_108 @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:28 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Yes, he was. Mandela was personally involved in the Church Street bombing and he never renounced violence and both he and his then-wife Winnie advocated "necklacing" suspected informers and people who refused to support the Soviet-sponsored African National Congress.
So again, it's okay to kill people as long as they're communists, but if they aren't you're a murderer or a terrorist. Gotcha.
$1:
Do you agree that President Clinton is a war criminal?
If he was aware his country was supplying Suharto with guns, then yea, Clinton was a war criminal. Him and every President back to and including Nixon.
$1:
We won, didn't we? That must just piss you off. Good.
And how exactly did nuclear tests win you the cold war?
$1:
That's what both he and the UN kept saying. Remember the UN you want us to listen to? Well, we did. That was our mistake.
No, that's what you kept tryng to convince the UN of. Remember that whole circus with Powell and the satellite photos of supposed mobile bio-weapons labs?
$1:
I never said that. Is this your way of subtly announcing that you hate Jews?
Oh come off it.