It's simply what people resort to when they have no argument but refuse to concede. It's a way of diverting attention from the fact that they're wrong and that they know they're wrong. I was banned for two weeks just a short time ago for responding to such horseshit tactics.
And this is just another example of someone being an asshole for no real reason ... WTF???!!! You got banned for being a tool, not because someone suckered you in. And here's another example of one of those times, when you mysteriously pull an asshole 180. We've exchanged PMs, and I've publically stated that I respect your debate skills, even if I do think you're wrong on some issues. I haven't used any such tactics because I feel defeated, although admittedly I did make the mistake of getting drawn into the personal attacks.
I am done with this topic, as of now. I've said my piece anyways.
LADS... nobody's gonna listen or give a fuck about what either of you say if you can't debate it respectfully... you've both completely given up on the topic and are now just arguing which one of you is the biggest asshole
Like I said, I'm officially done with it. Its basically three on one in here anyways, and no one is listening to reason anymore.
No, I don't. They are both biased sources, arguably. In all honesty, both takes are worth reading, though, because the truth generally lies somewhere between two biased sources.
Despite all the bullshit that Roland continues to direct my way, in a fashion that suggests that he is really quite disturbingly fixated on me, I do read everything he posts, and I read the stuff Brynzie posts ... I believe in reading stuff from both sides of the fence. If I post an Isreali-biased source on here, its only to balance things out (not to mention the the fact that these sources DO contain valid points, just like the pro-Palestine ones do).
I have to argue this point reborn. Desmond Tutu is an Anglican Archbishop, runs various human rights orgs and was a major player in ending apartheid in SA. A bloody good bloke it would seem! even if he holds some bias because of his religious leaning, and he must be leaning so much he's nearly falling over seeing as he's an Archbishop, it would be against muslims before jews? surely.
The UN could be argued against in terms of effectiveness, and could very very slightly possibly be being influenced by neo-nazi's/fascists, but i strongly doubt it, especially in terms of the HRC, and if they keep going after Israel its because they feel its a massive problem and are not going to stop just because all their resolutions are veto'ed by one nation.
The problem with validity as far as any solely Jewish publication, especially one originating in Israel, is that anytime anyone even questions Israeli actions anti-semitism is levelled at them, and its only a short step before everyone's accused of wanting to abuse the zyclon-b.
I have to argue this point reborn. Desmond Tutu is an Anglican Archbishop, runs various human rights orgs and was a major player in ending apartheid in SA. A bloody good bloke it would seem! even if he holds some bias because of his religious leaning, and he must be leaning so much he's nearly falling over seeing as he's an Archbishop, it would be against muslims before jews? surely.
The UN could be argued against in terms of effectiveness, and could very very slightly possibly be being influenced by neo-nazi's/fascists, but i strongly doubt it, especially in terms of the HRC, and if they keep going after Israel its because they feel its a massive problem and are not going to stop just because all their resolutions are veto'ed by one nation.
The problem with validity as far as any solely Jewish publication, especially one originating in Israel, is that anytime anyone even questions Israeli actions anti-semitism is levelled at them, and its only a short step before everyone's accused of wanting to abuse the zyclon-b.
Hey, I'll be the first person to admit that the anti-Semitism claim (or any racial bias claim for that matter) is often used inappropriately. I think its generally easy to separate those who really do hate Jews from those who are understandably critical of Israel's actions. Its all in the nature of the specific comments ... Most people talk about Israel, which is not the same thing as talking about Jewish people more generally.
As for the UN, yeah, they have every right to go after Israel for human rights abuses. Do they have the right to pursue Israel but ignore Sudan, though? Should over half of their human rights resolutions target one country, when well over a hundred countries use state-sponsored torture, not to mention the more visible examples of human rights abuses (Burma, Tibet, most of Central America, parts of the former Soviet Union, etc. etc.)? There is A LOT of really sketchy shit going on in the world, and to me, singling out one nation (who happens to be a US pal, probably not coincidentally!) is not right. You have to wonder about people's motives, especially when many of those people do not treat the Palestinians much better than the Israelis do (e.g., Jordan). And as an aside, you seem to suggest that the UN is lacking in the effectiveness department, something I agree with.
Finally, I am not slamming Desmond Tutu. You got me there, he's probably not going to favor Muslims over Jews.
Hey, I'll be the first person to admit that the anti-Semitism claim (or any racial bias claim for that matter) is often used imuch better than the Israelis do (e.g., Jordan). And as an aside, you seem to suggest that the UN is lacking in the effectiveness department, something I agree with.
Finally, I am not slamming Desmond Tutu. You got me there, he's probably not going to favor Muslims over Jews.
(I arbitrarily trimmed your quote on issues of saving space but keeping context, the whole thing can quite clearly be seen above!!)
I suspect the reason the UN appears to go after Israel more than any other country, is because it has to, its rulings keep getting veto'ed in respect of Israel, where they're not veto'ed in respect of other countries. They have to give up or come back to it, they're not going to give up and if they did they really would be a waste of time!
I never said that the UN was ineffective, i said it could be argued they are. What i think, is that they are ineffective, because they simply don't have the manpower to go after everyone. The reason they don't have the manpower is because instead of committing troops to an organisation that is trying to look after human rights and spread justice throughout the world, the US and UK have committed all their manpower to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the reasons for which are a whole different argument, and i don't think you'd like my views on them either .
(I arbitrarily trimmed your quote on issues of saving space but keeping context, the whole thing can quite clearly be seen above!!)
I suspect the reason the UN appears to go after Israel more than any other country, is because it has to, its rulings keep getting veto'ed in respect of Israel, where they're not veto'ed in respect of other countries. They have to give up or come back to it, they're not going to give up and if they did they really would be a waste of time!
I never said that the UN was ineffective, i said it could be argued they are. What i think, is that they are ineffective, because they simply don't have the manpower to go after everyone. The reason they don't have the manpower is because instead of committing troops to an organisation that is trying to look after human rights and spread justice throughout the world, the US and UK have committed all their manpower to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the reasons for which are a whole different argument, and i don't think you'd like my views on them either .
You got banned for being a tool, not because someone suckered you in.
Not true. I got banned for telling someone to fuck off. I was defending myself against a couple of trolls who had no interest in the thread topic but were just intent on slinging abuse at me. They clearly had no interest in debating anything, and were just here to stir shit up, and so I felt my telling one of them to fuck off was perfectly justified under the circumstances.
All your personal attacks on me are real indicative of a respect for basic human dignity. You're deep-down such a nice guy ... right.
For the record, I did not post what I did because his opinion disagrees with mine. He basically lumped me in with all the "armchair faggots" or whatever term he used, and no, I did not appreciate that, especially when I have said nothing to deserve that kind of bashing. I no point in this thread or any other have I advocated for more war, or for needless killing. That's actually what you've been doing by excusing violence.
Actually, I am getting really tired of your fixation on me, Roland. Even AFTER I apologized to you. Basic social skills would dictate some degree of reciprocity.
I love people who manage to keep tossing the daggers even as they proclaim they are apologizing.
funny shit...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Not true. I got banned for telling someone to fuck off. I was defending myself against a couple of trolls who had no interest in the thread topic but were just intent on slinging abuse at me. They clearly had no interest in debating anything, and were just here to stir shit up, and so I felt my telling one of them to fuck off was perfectly justified under the circumstances.
Ah ... I thought you were talking about a different incident. I shouldn't have told Specifics to go fuck himself, and I probably should have got a ban for it. I can own up to that.
I love people who manage to keep tossing the daggers even as they proclaim they are apologizing.
funny shit...
Anytime you'd like to talk about politics, I'm game. As noted earlier, I am done with the fighting. Sorry if I struck a nerve. I don't think its worth it, making it worse by continuing to trade barbs.
Anytime you'd like to talk about politics, I'm game. As noted earlier, I am done with the fighting. Sorry if I struck a nerve. I don't think its worth it, making it worse by continuing to trade barbs.
you didn't strike a nerve. you just keep saying stupid shit towards me while pretending you're not.
I find it pretty funny how oblivious you are to your own actions.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It has nothing to do with how I feel about it. It's just how it is.
I've been through this scenario many many times with many different people.
I say some thing controversial here that people don't want to believe or accept, and the slinging begins. It's old hat for me.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Thanks for the tip. I'll tuck it away for safe keeping.
lol..
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
For anyone still watching this thread, see? One side, unilaterally gives up "violence", and the conflict peters out.
Doesn't matter which side, either.
For anyone still watching this thread, see? One side, unilaterally gives up "violence", and the conflict peters out.
Doesn't matter which side, either.
Perhaps one side has just discovered the truth through all the smokescreens and media manipulation. For that side, the fight still rages on stronger than ever.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Perhaps one side has just discovered the truth through all the smokescreens and media manipulation. For that side, the fight still rages on stronger than ever.
Maybe Hamas would keep fighting even if Israel withdrew to pre-1967 borders ... Maybe they wouldn't. I lean a bit towards the former, but I'd like to be wrong on that.
Maybe Hamas would keep fighting even if Israel withdrew to pre-1967 borders ... Maybe they wouldn't. I lean a bit towards the former, but I'd like to be wrong on that.
We'll never be allowed to find out unless Israel decides. Which, in all likelihood, will never happen.
Money is money. Greed is greed.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Maybe Hamas would keep fighting even if Israel withdrew to pre-1967 borders ... Maybe they wouldn't. I lean a bit towards the former, but I'd like to be wrong on that.
Whether Hamas would keep on fighting or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the occupied territories are illegal under International law. Israel has no right to occupy that land. It never did have the right. And won't ever have the right. Period.
Maybe Hamas would keep fighting even if Israel withdrew to pre-1967 borders ... Maybe they wouldn't. I lean a bit towards the former, but I'd like to be wrong on that.
Maybe the issue isn't about Hamas fighting. Maybe the issue is about the illegal settlements in the occupied territories?
Friday, 13 June 2008
New Israeli homes are 'unlawful'
By Wyre Davis
BBC News, Jerusalem
'Palestinian leaders have criticised Israeli plans to build more than 1,000 new Jewish homes on occupied land in East Jerusalem.
The units, which have been approved by municipal planners, are in direct contravention of international law and the current peace process, they say.
Israel says the plans represent the "natural growth" of existing communities.
But there is growing international pressure to stop the expansion.
At the US-sponsored Annapolis peace talks, at the end of 2007, demands were reiterated for Israel to stop all building and settlement expansion in occupied Palestinian areas.
But since then almost 8,000 new Jewish homes have been built or approved in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas internationally recognised as Palestinian.
The latest approval, for more than one thousand units to be built near the settlement of Ramat Shlomo in an occupied area of East Jerusalem, has been criticised by Palestinian leaders as illegal.
They say it proves that Israel is racing to establish more "facts on the ground", which would be difficult to remove in the event of a future peace agreement.
The expansion of settlements in occupied land is one of the thorniest issues between the two sides and Israel is coming under increasing pressure, even from the United States, to stop the building programmes.'
"In a State Department briefing on Friday, it was announced that the United States will no longer be regularly attending meetings held by the United Nations' Human Rights Council unless specifically compelled to, citing the Council's stance on relations between Israel and Palestine.
While not an official member, the United States had been an involved observer since the 47-seat Council's creation in March 2006 to replace the 53-member Commission on Human Rights.
""
you're upset about the US pulling out of a group of which they aren't even an official member????
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Whether Hamas would keep on fighting or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the occupied territories are illegal under International law. Israel has no right to occupy that land. It never did have the right. And won't ever have the right. Period.
Agreed, but continued violence means that they'll be that much more likely to flaunt the law. Governments violate all kinds of laws in the interests of "national security". Even putting aside legal issues for a moment: Why would Israel wish to change its behavior if they do not get any reciprocation? I am not optimistic that the occupation will end before Hamas does.
'Palestinian leaders have criticised Israeli plans to build more than 1,000 new Jewish homes on occupied land in East Jerusalem.
The units, which have been approved by municipal planners, are in direct contravention of international law and the current peace process, they say.
Israel says the plans represent the "natural growth" of existing communities.
But there is growing international pressure to stop the expansion.
At the US-sponsored Annapolis peace talks, at the end of 2007, demands were reiterated for Israel to stop all building and settlement expansion in occupied Palestinian areas.
But since then almost 8,000 new Jewish homes have been built or approved in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas internationally recognised as Palestinian.
The latest approval, for more than one thousand units to be built near the settlement of Ramat Shlomo in an occupied area of East Jerusalem, has been criticised by Palestinian leaders as illegal.
They say it proves that Israel is racing to establish more "facts on the ground", which would be difficult to remove in the event of a future peace agreement.
The expansion of settlements in occupied land is one of the thorniest issues between the two sides and Israel is coming under increasing pressure, even from the United States, to stop the building programmes.'
You'll get no excuses from me on this one ... The settlement expansion needs to stop. Like this article says, "even" the US opposes this move.
you're upset about the US pulling out of a group of which they aren't even an official member????
Eh...human rights....fuck em....
who needs them....
They always just get in the way most times.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Why would Israel wish to change its behavior if they do not get any reciprocation? I am not optimistic that the occupation will end before Hamas does.
Reciprocation?
Last time I checked the Palestinians weren't illegally occupying Israeli land and subjecting the Israeli's to daily terrorism, torture, starvation, home demolitions e.t.c. Maybe I've been missing something?
Reciprocation?
Last time I checked the Palestinians weren't illegally occupying Israeli land and subjecting the Israeli's to daily terrorism, torture, starvation, home demolitions e.t.c. Maybe I've been missing something?
Well, the terrorism isn't daily anymore, and perhaps the wall and other measures have pretty much bottled up Hamas and related groups in Gaza, rendering them impotent. Don't lets pretend the terrorism doesn't exist, though. The ball may indeed be in Israel's court, but they won't do much without some commitment from moderate Palestinians to disarm militant groups. I'm not really trying to argue whether this is right or wrong ... It just is.
you said that; I didn't. I just asked why you were upset with a nonmember of a group not going to that group meeting anymore? That would be like me getting mad at you for leaving my professional groups meeting, when you aren't a member. I never said anything about forget human rights; and be honest...if the UN actually had any relevance they'd do something about human rights violations that occur all the time. I mean, CHINA is on the human rights council...that's a laugh right there. The US should be very concerned with human rights; however, being a part of that group doesn't add any legitimacy to a human rights record.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
you said that; I didn't. I just asked why you were upset with a nonmember of a group not going to that group meeting anymore? That would be like me getting mad at you for leaving my professional groups meeting, when you aren't a member. I never said anything about forget human rights; and be honest...if the UN actually had any relevance they'd do something about human rights violations that occur all the time. I mean, CHINA is on the human rights council...that's a laugh right there. The US should be very concerned with human rights; however, being a part of that group doesn't add any legitimacy to a human rights record.
It still applies. The US is that estranged emo kid sitting in the corner picking the wings off a butterfly, trying to help all butterflies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
And this is just another example of someone being an asshole for no real reason ... WTF???!!! You got banned for being a tool, not because someone suckered you in. And here's another example of one of those times, when you mysteriously pull an asshole 180. We've exchanged PMs, and I've publically stated that I respect your debate skills, even if I do think you're wrong on some issues. I haven't used any such tactics because I feel defeated, although admittedly I did make the mistake of getting drawn into the personal attacks.
I am done with this topic, as of now. I've said my piece anyways.
Like I said, I'm officially done with it. Its basically three on one in here anyways, and no one is listening to reason anymore.
I have to argue this point reborn. Desmond Tutu is an Anglican Archbishop, runs various human rights orgs and was a major player in ending apartheid in SA. A bloody good bloke it would seem! even if he holds some bias because of his religious leaning, and he must be leaning so much he's nearly falling over seeing as he's an Archbishop, it would be against muslims before jews? surely.
The UN could be argued against in terms of effectiveness, and could very very slightly possibly be being influenced by neo-nazi's/fascists, but i strongly doubt it, especially in terms of the HRC, and if they keep going after Israel its because they feel its a massive problem and are not going to stop just because all their resolutions are veto'ed by one nation.
The problem with validity as far as any solely Jewish publication, especially one originating in Israel, is that anytime anyone even questions Israeli actions anti-semitism is levelled at them, and its only a short step before everyone's accused of wanting to abuse the zyclon-b.
Hey, I'll be the first person to admit that the anti-Semitism claim (or any racial bias claim for that matter) is often used inappropriately. I think its generally easy to separate those who really do hate Jews from those who are understandably critical of Israel's actions. Its all in the nature of the specific comments ... Most people talk about Israel, which is not the same thing as talking about Jewish people more generally.
As for the UN, yeah, they have every right to go after Israel for human rights abuses. Do they have the right to pursue Israel but ignore Sudan, though? Should over half of their human rights resolutions target one country, when well over a hundred countries use state-sponsored torture, not to mention the more visible examples of human rights abuses (Burma, Tibet, most of Central America, parts of the former Soviet Union, etc. etc.)? There is A LOT of really sketchy shit going on in the world, and to me, singling out one nation (who happens to be a US pal, probably not coincidentally!) is not right. You have to wonder about people's motives, especially when many of those people do not treat the Palestinians much better than the Israelis do (e.g., Jordan). And as an aside, you seem to suggest that the UN is lacking in the effectiveness department, something I agree with.
Finally, I am not slamming Desmond Tutu. You got me there, he's probably not going to favor Muslims over Jews.
(I arbitrarily trimmed your quote on issues of saving space but keeping context, the whole thing can quite clearly be seen above!!)
I suspect the reason the UN appears to go after Israel more than any other country, is because it has to, its rulings keep getting veto'ed in respect of Israel, where they're not veto'ed in respect of other countries. They have to give up or come back to it, they're not going to give up and if they did they really would be a waste of time!
I never said that the UN was ineffective, i said it could be argued they are. What i think, is that they are ineffective, because they simply don't have the manpower to go after everyone. The reason they don't have the manpower is because instead of committing troops to an organisation that is trying to look after human rights and spread justice throughout the world, the US and UK have committed all their manpower to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the reasons for which are a whole different argument, and i don't think you'd like my views on them either
I might like your Iraq view, actually.
Not true. I got banned for telling someone to fuck off. I was defending myself against a couple of trolls who had no interest in the thread topic but were just intent on slinging abuse at me. They clearly had no interest in debating anything, and were just here to stir shit up, and so I felt my telling one of them to fuck off was perfectly justified under the circumstances.
I love people who manage to keep tossing the daggers even as they proclaim they are apologizing.
funny shit...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Ah ... I thought you were talking about a different incident. I shouldn't have told Specifics to go fuck himself, and I probably should have got a ban for it. I can own up to that.
Anytime you'd like to talk about politics, I'm game. As noted earlier, I am done with the fighting. Sorry if I struck a nerve. I don't think its worth it, making it worse by continuing to trade barbs.
you didn't strike a nerve. you just keep saying stupid shit towards me while pretending you're not.
I find it pretty funny how oblivious you are to your own actions.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.
It has nothing to do with how I feel about it. It's just how it is.
I've been through this scenario many many times with many different people.
I say some thing controversial here that people don't want to believe or accept, and the slinging begins. It's old hat for me.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
And its up to you what you take away from that.
Thanks for the tip. I'll tuck it away for safe keeping.
lol..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Doesn't matter which side, either.
Perhaps one side has just discovered the truth through all the smokescreens and media manipulation. For that side, the fight still rages on stronger than ever.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Maybe Hamas would keep fighting even if Israel withdrew to pre-1967 borders ... Maybe they wouldn't. I lean a bit towards the former, but I'd like to be wrong on that.
We'll never be allowed to find out unless Israel decides. Which, in all likelihood, will never happen.
Money is money. Greed is greed.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Whether Hamas would keep on fighting or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the occupied territories are illegal under International law. Israel has no right to occupy that land. It never did have the right. And won't ever have the right. Period.
Maybe the issue isn't about Hamas fighting. Maybe the issue is about the illegal settlements in the occupied territories?
Friday, 13 June 2008
New Israeli homes are 'unlawful'
By Wyre Davis
BBC News, Jerusalem
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7453341.stm
'Palestinian leaders have criticised Israeli plans to build more than 1,000 new Jewish homes on occupied land in East Jerusalem.
The units, which have been approved by municipal planners, are in direct contravention of international law and the current peace process, they say.
Israel says the plans represent the "natural growth" of existing communities.
But there is growing international pressure to stop the expansion.
At the US-sponsored Annapolis peace talks, at the end of 2007, demands were reiterated for Israel to stop all building and settlement expansion in occupied Palestinian areas.
But since then almost 8,000 new Jewish homes have been built or approved in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas internationally recognised as Palestinian.
The latest approval, for more than one thousand units to be built near the settlement of Ramat Shlomo in an occupied area of East Jerusalem, has been criticised by Palestinian leaders as illegal.
They say it proves that Israel is racing to establish more "facts on the ground", which would be difficult to remove in the event of a future peace agreement.
The expansion of settlements in occupied land is one of the thorniest issues between the two sides and Israel is coming under increasing pressure, even from the United States, to stop the building programmes.'
I think he made that clear, question is are you?
Agreed, but continued violence means that they'll be that much more likely to flaunt the law. Governments violate all kinds of laws in the interests of "national security". Even putting aside legal issues for a moment: Why would Israel wish to change its behavior if they do not get any reciprocation? I am not optimistic that the occupation will end before Hamas does.
You'll get no excuses from me on this one ... The settlement expansion needs to stop. Like this article says, "even" the US opposes this move.
Eh...human rights....fuck em....
who needs them....
They always just get in the way most times.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Reciprocation?
Last time I checked the Palestinians weren't illegally occupying Israeli land and subjecting the Israeli's to daily terrorism, torture, starvation, home demolitions e.t.c. Maybe I've been missing something?
Well, the terrorism isn't daily anymore, and perhaps the wall and other measures have pretty much bottled up Hamas and related groups in Gaza, rendering them impotent. Don't lets pretend the terrorism doesn't exist, though. The ball may indeed be in Israel's court, but they won't do much without some commitment from moderate Palestinians to disarm militant groups. I'm not really trying to argue whether this is right or wrong ... It just is.
you said that; I didn't. I just asked why you were upset with a nonmember of a group not going to that group meeting anymore? That would be like me getting mad at you for leaving my professional groups meeting, when you aren't a member. I never said anything about forget human rights; and be honest...if the UN actually had any relevance they'd do something about human rights violations that occur all the time. I mean, CHINA is on the human rights council...that's a laugh right there. The US should be very concerned with human rights; however, being a part of that group doesn't add any legitimacy to a human rights record.
It still applies. The US is that estranged emo kid sitting in the corner picking the wings off a butterfly, trying to help all butterflies.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")