55 replies to this topic

[Hasina]

How about the UN holds everyone accountable for committing any crimes against humanity? EVERYBODIES GOING TO JAIL THEN (the counties and their leaders at least)

[Coffey]

Hasina, on 29 January 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

How dare North Korea disobey the UN, they sh... Oh, Israel, this is alright then. No problem here. Move along. Nothing to see here. Do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain. -sarcasm-

Let's sanction'em.

That really made me laugh.

[Yamato]

Hasina, on 31 January 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

How about the UN holds everyone accountable for committing any crimes against humanity? EVERYBODIES GOING TO JAIL THEN (the counties and their leaders at least)

Unfortunately the UN doesn't have the power to hold anyone accountable.  It depends on the wills of its member states to enforce its resolutions, even the binding ones from the Security Council.   It's very difficult to get a nation to incriminate itself of wrongdoing, much less judge others by the same standards others judge it.  The UN could be reformed, but the moment it starts trying to become the world's policeman and imposing its will with military force it will dissolve as fast as sugar in coffee.  While it's true the US has gotten away with it for a long time, money talks, and US foreign policy is based on bribes otherwise we wouldn't have gotten away with any of it.  We'd have had Vietnams and Afghanistans every time we drop a bomb without the bribes attached.  Unfortunately there's always a Chalabi or a Northern Alliance or some other greedy palm to grease to keep our racket in business.

[Hasina]

Yamato, on 31 January 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Unfortunately the UN doesn't have the power to hold anyone accountable.  It depends on the wills of its member states to enforce its resolutions, even the binding ones from the Security Council.   It's very difficult to get a nation to incriminate itself of wrongdoing, much less judge others by the same standards others judge it.  The UN could be reformed, but the moment it starts trying to become the world's policeman and imposing its will with military force it will dissolve as fast as sugar in coffee.  While it's true the US has gotten away with it for a long time, money talks, and US foreign policy is based on bribes otherwise we wouldn't have gotten away with any of it.  We'd have had Vietnams and Afghanistans every time we drop a bomb without the bribes attached.  Unfortunately there's always a Chalabi or a Northern Alliance or some other greedy palm to grease to keep our racket in business.

I've always seen the UN as a mouth piece for the permanent members of the security council. Everyone else? Hahaha good luck, hopefully you've made friends with one of the Powers That Be of the Council.

[and then]

acidhead, on 31 January 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

face it... we all can see the vitrolic religiousn extremist sentiment oozing no matter how much back peddling and pandering is performed.... it's all on record bro

Characterize it however you like, Acid, but I have not advocated for the things that I have OBSERVED would be happening in future.  The fact that one thinks scripture is fantasy does not justify blaming a messenger for the message.  Anyone here is free to be as derisive as they like about such things - it really doesn't matter to me.  Neither their opinions nor mine will change a single thing.

[Coffey]

Zaphod222, on 31 January 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

The UN as it is is dominated by antisemitic countries, often driven by an islamist and leftist agenda.
It would be pointless for Israel to show up at such a cangaroo court.

A more interesting question would be: Will the UN ever pay attention the rampant human rights abuse happening in the islamic countries surrounding Israel?

Don´t hold your breath for that.

Dominated by Antisemitic countries?

All the leading Countries in the UN are in debt to banks owned by Jews.... LOL

Yes they must be antisemitic...  

Edited by Coffey, 06 February 2013 - 12:37 AM.

[Yamato]

Hasina, on 31 January 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

I've always seen the UN as a mouth piece for the permanent members of the security council. Everyone else? Hahaha good luck, hopefully you've made friends with one of the Powers That Be of the Council.

I see it the same way, it's an organization that provides a more formalized distribution of power while providing a bureaucratic opportunity for the little dogs to schmooze with the big ones.  

I think Thomas Jefferson got it right when he framed our foreign policy as "Commerce with all.  Alliance with none."   Alliances are for minor powers to team up with majors and feel a sense of security, prosperity, prestige, power, whatever.  Superpowers don't need "alliances" so the UN does more harm than good for a country like ours.   Even most of the partisans who would agree with me on that point in small talk fail the test when they defer to the UN to legitimize our policy, like our decision to go to war again in Iraq.   We'd be better off without any participation in the UN at all, including considering anything it does as legitimate, or in any way binding to our own actions.   I'm not just anti-UN though; I think all of these extra-national organizations share the same reason to avoid them.   We wouldn't need a "coalition of the willing" to take out a 3rd-rate army that can't find helmets or food for its soldiers if we went to war at the utmost need, with our highest rule of law, and with all 535 lawmakers with their skin in the game.

[and then]

Yamato, on 06 February 2013 - 02:31 AM, said:

I see it the same way, it's an organization that provides a more formalized distribution of power while providing a bureaucratic opportunity for the little dogs to schmooze with the big ones.  

I think Thomas Jefferson got it right when he framed our foreign policy as "Commerce with all.  Alliance with none."   Alliances are for minor powers to team up with majors and feel a sense of security, prosperity, prestige, power, whatever.  Superpowers don't need "alliances" so the UN does more harm than good for a country like ours.   Even most of the partisans who would agree with me on that point in small talk fail the test when they defer to the UN to legitimize our policy, like our decision to go to war again in Iraq.   We'd be better off without any participation in the UN at all, including considering anything it does as legitimate, or in any way binding to our own actions.   I'm not just anti-UN though; I think all of these extra-national organizations share the same reason to avoid them.   We wouldn't need a "coalition of the willing" to take out a 3rd-rate army that can't find helmets or food for its soldiers if we went to war at the utmost need, with our highest rule of law, and with all 535 lawmakers with their skin in the game.

Noble ideas Yam - and that world sadly no longer exists.  Pointing to some exemplar of behavior that never really existed to the extent you envision leaves you unable to solve any real modern problems.  Those problems that you have accurately delineated (mostly) and called for action to solve.  But the world is awash in pesky human corruption, weakness and thuggery from ALL sides.  Acting as if they aren't a factor just because they "SHOULDN'T BE" is not constructive.

[Hasina]

and then, on 06 February 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Noble ideas Yam - and that world sadly no longer exists.  Pointing to some exemplar of behavior that never really existed to the extent you envision leaves you unable to solve any real modern problems.  Those problems that you have accurately delineated (mostly) and called for action to solve.  But the world is awash in pesky human corruption, weakness and thuggery from ALL sides.  Acting as if they aren't a factor just because they "SHOULDN'T BE" is not constructive.

Corruption and thuggery. Aren't those the reasons Israel was called before the Human Rights Council?

[and then]

Hasina, on 06 February 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Corruption and thuggery. Aren't those the reasons Israel was called before the Human Rights Council?

Probably.  But then, the HRC realy doesn't need reasons.  The world has decided that Israel is illegitimate but they can't seem to do anything about it except use these kangaroo bodies to pile on propaganda  in their cause.  Rather than just come upp with a fair plan for sharing the land, the world has decided to force Israel into a corner - you'll see what I mean in March I think.  My thought is that eventually this trend will get to a point where Israel can't retreat any farther and when that happens the region is going to burn in a big way - and it really is avoidable, at least for a while longer.  Anyone who thinks the people of Israel WANT war have to be working with less than a full deck OR they are so biased against the existence of the state that they cannot be fair minded any longer.

[Hasina]

and then, on 06 February 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

Probably.  But then, the HRC realy doesn't need reasons.  The world has decided that Israel is illegitimate but they can't seem to do anything about it except use these kangaroo bodies to pile on propaganda  in their cause.  Rather than just come upp with a fair plan for sharing the land, the world has decided to force Israel into a corner - you'll see what I mean in March I think.  My thought is that eventually this trend will get to a point where Israel can't retreat any farther and when that happens the region is going to burn in a big way - and it really is avoidable, at least for a while longer.  Anyone who thinks the people of Israel WANT war have to be working with less than a full deck OR they are so biased against the existence of the state that they cannot be fair minded any longer.

I would never think the people of Israel want war, their government on the hand?

[and then]

Hasina, on 06 February 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

I would never think the people of Israel want war, their government on the hand?

In a democracy the two are inseparable are they not?  If a vote for a warmonger doesn't make the person a warmonger then I don't understand the concept of civic and personal responsibility very well.  For example - Bibi Netanyahu is near universally (outside of Israel) consider as such, yet the population of Israel voted to keep him in charge of leading the government.  A more moderate assembly was chosen but they still liked his approach to international affairs that they retained him in the most sensitive position in their government.

[Hasina]

and then, on 06 February 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

In a democracy the two are inseparable are they not?  If a vote for a warmonger doesn't make the person a warmonger then I don't understand the concept of civic and personal responsibility very well.  For example - Bibi Netanyahu is near universally (outside of Israel) consider as such, yet the population of Israel voted to keep him in charge of leading the government.  A more moderate assembly was chosen but they still liked his approach to international affairs that they retained him in the most sensitive position in their government.

I suppose that means all Americans support the War on Terror, yes?

How many choices were there in the Israeli election? If there were only two, then you'd have to pick and choose. Much like the American election, I don't think anyone fully supported all the views of Romney or Obama, yet they still voted for him.

Then again, no amount of arguing or appeals to common sense will discourage anyone who thinks they have the 'right of God' to do as they please. Extremists on both sides use it as an excuse and a crutch.

[ExpandMyMind]

Hasina, on 06 February 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

I suppose that means all Americans support the War on Terror, yes?

How many choices were there in the Israeli election? If there were only two, then you'd have to pick and choose. Much like the American election, I don't think anyone fully supported all the views of Romney or Obama, yet they still voted for him.

Then again, no amount of arguing or appeals to common sense will discourage anyone who thinks they have the 'right of God' to do as they please. Extremists on both sides use it as an excuse and a crutch.

There were loads of party choices in the Israel election. The only reason Netenyahu's party won was because the left vote was insanely split.

[and then]

Hasina, on 06 February 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

I suppose that means all Americans support the War on Terror, yes?

How many choices were there in the Israeli election? If there were only two, then you'd have to pick and choose. Much like the American election, I don't think anyone fully supported all the views of Romney or Obama, yet they still voted for him.

Then again, no amount of arguing or appeals to common sense will discourage anyone who thinks they have the 'right of God' to do as they please. Extremists on both sides use it as an excuse and a crutch.

To say that "the people" do not support what their democratically elected government does is just a cop out - no matter who uses it.  Of course there is never perfect agreement between every constituency in a democracy but that does not absolve those groups from a responsibility for what their government does.  Enough people voted for Obama in November to shape the policies and directions of our country for 4 more years even though about 48 % of Americans can't stand the man or his policies.  If he decided to unilaterally invade Iran or use a nuke on the DPRK then that 48% could hardly say - he's not MY president.