US pulls out of UN human rights body

1235

Comments

  • Your thread? Uh huh. I figured all along that this whole thing was more about stroking your own ego than anything else.


    Your incessant and ongoing personal attacks towards me are very insulting, and unnecessary.
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Heineken Helen
    Heineken Helen Posts: 18,095
    i would be a signatory to that declaration. :p:D
    Me too :)

    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 :confused:
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • Me too :)

    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 :confused:


    How bout we not draw attention to perpetuate it, but rather let it die instead.

    k thanks.
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • In related news. I think the US is fast becoming a repugnant country in world view.

    Gotta create and kill some terrorists, and make the world a shittier place. Great plan. Kill and dominate Arabs and take their shit.

    But you know Bush is a man of peace...and so are the psychopaths behind him that support it. Give murder a chance they cry.... set em up...knock em down.. bring em on.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20080609/wl_oneworld/45361608371213052239

    " UNITED NATIONS, Jun 9 (OneWorld) - A prominent international rights watchdog has reacted sharply to the U.S. government's decision to further disengage itself from the Geneva-based Human Rights Council.

    "The U.S. decision to walk away from the Council is counterproductive and short-sighted," said Juliette de Rivero, an advocacy director at the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), a nonprofit group that monitors and publicizes rights violations around the world.

    The U.S. government declared Friday that it would now only engage the 47-member Council when it deemed necessary to discuss issues of "deep national interest."

    "Our skepticism regarding the function of the Council in terms of fulfilling its mandate and its mission is well known," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "It has a rather pathetic record."

    The United States is one of only four nations that voted against the UN resolution that established the Council in 2006. Despite that, until now it had continued to take part in the Council meetings as an observer.

    U.S. officials apparently briefed their European counterparts about Washington's decision to end its participation in the Council as debate was progressing over the rights situation in Myanmar.

    The United States has been a vocal critic of the military regime in Myanmar (formerly Burma) for its suppression of political dissent and human rights violations for years, and has repeatedly advocated the imposition of sanctions on the authoritarian regime there.

    Many critics say the U.S. decision was poorly timed, as the Council is beginning to show more positive signs in terms of monitoring worldwide abuses of human rights.

    In this context, they cite the recent defeat of Sri Lanka in the UN General Assembly vote for Council membership. Sri Lanka lost its bid for reelection largely because its track record includes torture and disappearances.

    Many critics agree the Council has failed to perform as well as expected, but also acknowledge the progress it has made in establishing international mechanisms to monitor rights violations.

    In the past two years, the Council has not only done substantial reporting on cases of torture, gender violence, and extra-judicial executions, they say, but it has put a spotlight on the ongoing rights crises in Myanmar, Somalia, and Sudan.

    Rights activists acknowledge, however, that in its first two years, the Council has failed to pay due attention to more than 20 different places that are in dire need of monitoring.

    Still, overall, they generally rate the Council's work as relatively satisfactory, and many believe full U.S. participation could have significantly improved the Council's ability to protect abused populations worldwide.

    "Whatever the Council's problems," said Human Rights Watch's de Rivero, "[the U.S.] decision is a victory for abusive states and a betrayal of those fighting for their rights worldwide." De Rivero and other rights activists say the Sri Lanka vote is an indication that the Council is willing to fight the abusers of human rights.

    In his view, "Washington's hands-off approach to the Council undermined it from the start. It's ironic that the U.S. shares responsibility for the shortcomings it's now using to justify its withdrawal from the Council."

    According to some observers, one reason the United States is disengaging itself from the Council is the growing opposition from a vast majority of developing countries, which see the U.S. stance on human rights as hypocritical.

    In electing the first Council members two years ago, the United States chose not to contest elections because it was almost certain to have lost the vote, largely due to its unconditional support for Israel in that country's ongoing conflict with the Palestinian people.

    Observers think the United States is ill-placed to confront many international situations of human rights abuse because it has lost much credibility by refusing to let international experts investigate alleged rights abuses of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

    Despite this, many advocacy groups and countries with relatively untarnished records on human rights think having the United States at the negotiating table is important to building a more effective world body on human rights.

    "Instead of ceding the field to those who want to shield abusers from scrutiny," said de Rivero, "the U.S. should have redoubled its efforts to make the Council work as it should."
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    I love a good slagging match. I think they're sorely under-rated. :)
  • Maybe I should tell a war veteran to go fuck themselves and call them mentally ill for expressing opinions that disagree with mine, and then not edit my posts out of respect, but subsequently reaffirm my conviction afterwards to rub it in further.

    Maybe I'll understand then.

    Choosing the path of humanity, and basic human dignity, and respect is highly over rated these days apparently.

    Who knew? :confused:

    I learn something new every day
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Maybe I should tell a war veteran to go fuck themselves and call them mentally ill for expressing opinions that disagree with mine, and then not edit my posts out of respect, but subsequently reaffirm my conviction afterwards to rub it in further.

    Maybe I'll understand then.

    Choosing the path of humanity, and basic human dignity, and respect is highly over rated these days apparently.

    Who knew? :confused:

    I learn something new every day

    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.
  • Specifics
    Specifics Posts: 417
    Right, 'cause all of Roland's and Brynzie's sources were unbiased. Frankly, I don't see you doing much legwork in this thread.

    so you see no difference in the level of bias between the unhrc/desmond tutu and the jerusalem center for public affairs?

    thats because frankly i haven't done any.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Maybe I should tell a war veteran to go fuck themselves and call them mentally ill for expressing opinions that disagree with mine, and then not edit my posts out of respect, but subsequently reaffirm my conviction afterwards to rub it in further.

    Maybe I'll understand then.

    Choosing the path of humanity, and basic human dignity, and respect is highly over rated these days apparently.

    Who knew? :confused:

    I learn something new every day

    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.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Specifics wrote:
    so you see no difference in the level of bias between the unhrc/desmond tutu and the jerusalem center for public affairs?

    thats because frankly i haven't done any.

    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).
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Byrnzie wrote:
    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.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Me too :)

    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 :confused:

    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.
  • Specifics
    Specifics Posts: 417
    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.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Specifics wrote:
    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.
  • Specifics
    Specifics Posts: 417
    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 :).
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Specifics wrote:
    (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.
    :)
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    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.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    Byrnzie wrote:
    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.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    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.