<!--QuoteBegin-bassport+Aug 12 2004, 06:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bassport @ Aug 12 2004, 06:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anybody heard something about Afghanistan lately? You know that in Afghanistan reigns CHAOS and it's a human catastrophe down there. And Bush started it. He didn't catch Osama, he didn't found any WMD's and he didn't bring peace (nor democracy) to a totally different system than the American. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Since when were we supposed to find WMD's in Afghanistan?
Or does that fall into the blame Bush for everything category?
Anyways... Afghanistan isn't as bad you make it out to be. There is a lot of progress there, but in many ways it'll be harder to rebuild it than Iraq.
But we can always blame Bush because he doesn't wave his magic wand and make everything better and right and pleasing to every last soul on this Earth the next day.
<!--QuoteBegin-bassport+Aug 12 2004, 06:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bassport @ Aug 12 2004, 06:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd be glad to see Bush help the world in a way that REALLY brings peace to the world. The whole Iraq war is a fiasco and it's a shame an administration that stupid can lead such a big country. America is currently NOT a democracy. It's a kindergarten where the leaders are looking for playgrounds to play with their toys (weapons and human lives).
Anybody heard something about Afghanistan lately? You know that in Afghanistan reigns CHAOS and it's a human catastrophe down there. And Bush started it. He didn't catch Osama, he didn't found any WMD's and he didn't bring peace (nor democracy) to a totally different system than the American. I wish the world would be as easy as Bush and his naive administration, but in the REAL world a organisation like United Nations can't be Disney World, they have to face facts, not like Bush who can **** with every country he likes and gets away because of his populistic nationalism...... It's because they have to take responsibility for what they're doing and they're actually helping people that they get so much dirt in the face.
Man, I am glad to live in Europe...
sorry for the rant - nothing personal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excuse me, but I believe someone once said, "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins" (from the book of James in the Bible). At this point I'm sorry to say but this is the direct equivalent of seeing some highway robbers in the act of beating a passerby mercilessly. And indeed, instead of helping the innocent person, you commend the robbers by promoting them to guard the roads!
I'm sorry, but Europe and the U.N. has proved many times that it simply is not capable or willing of enforcing ethics or humanitarianism. And then they criticize those who *are* willing to step up to the plate and clean up the mess that they made. Even more, they claim moral authority. It's unbelievable. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*edit* and as coil would have us believe, we need to know more about the situation to properly condemn it. What?!! If you see someone getting shot in the street, you call the cops, not ruminate about whether the shooter had a bad childhood with abusive parents.
*edit2*<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wish the world would be as easy as Bush and his naive administration, but in the REAL world a organisation like United Nations can't be Disney World, they have to face facts, not like Bush who can **** with every country he likes and gets away because of his populistic nationalism...... It's because they have to take responsibility for what they're doing and they're actually helping people that they get so much dirt in the face.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Upon closer reading of your post, which already **** me off quite a bit, I came upon this little gem. Right now I'm stuck between laughing and yelling at my monitor. I'm getting closer to yelling by the moment. I'm sorry, but the U.N. has become a farce not because it's accountable to many people, let me tell you that. It's because it rarely does ANYTHING helpful beyond a token gesture. Most of the work is done by member countries volunteering funds, troops, supplies, equipment (and the occasional embargo, which everyone willingly and knowingly breaks). Not to mention most of the time the help that *does* get sent is way too late. And guess what: that means little, if anything, gets done beyond a slap on the wrist. HA ha ha ha... ok I'm going to spend a little time away from the computer to cool off. But let me assure you, the U.N. is a joke.
This is my new favorite thread. Never have I been given the oppurtunity to see raw sanity next to raw insanity and watch them fight. I'm on the sane side.
Plain, simple thinking here guys:
1.) A genocidal regime is head of the HRC.
2.) That regime is headed by Muslims who are killing Christians (who are black, no less). It's not Politically Correct to point out that fact, but he doesn't care.
3.) The writer of the article is angry because of the insanity he sees around him concerning the UN.
4.) He expresses his article in an angry fashion. It's an editorial, he can do that.
So, while everyone else whimpers, shrugs, acts like it is the US's fault, or just plain ignores the whole damn scandal, this guy is on his soapbox saying "WTH, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING," and is therefore a racist, extremist, etc.
"Hypocrisy is best taken with a heavy dosage of lies" - U.N. Political Cookbook.
Some of the people here are rediculous. Here's the sum of the insane posts:
"The content of the article should not matter, since it is a right wing wacko talking about something that, given my political affiliation, I can't and will not acknowledge."
"The writer is obviously a racist, since I can't deal with the fact that the right wing might have a point to make about a situation that makes my pro-UN leanings look bad."
"I hate America; they are the greatest evil in my high and mighty European opinion. I don't realize that CNN actually leans to the left and that Fox leans to the right. I'm willing to blatantly state something false, even with the knowledge that Afghanistan is going to undergo the first free national election in a few months, and that Iraq will have its own free and democratic elections within the next few years, because if I did, I might need to admit that the United States is actually making the world a better place, without European support. Instead of dealing with the facts involved, I will spend my time blasting the United States in a stereotypical and unoriginal fashion that reflects my own ignorance and socialist "spoon fed" social mentality."
I agree with Kent, the United States should have gotten involved long ago. I remember hearing about the tragedy in Sudan five (5) years ago.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Aug 9 2004, 02:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 9 2004, 02:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I knew those Sudanese were dirty dogs, but I didnt realise this scum was on the UN Human Rights Commission:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> SUDAN, despite aid agency warnings of death and starvation in a reign of terror, now heads the UN Human Rights Commission.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In other news:
"Hi, I'm Andrew Bolt, and I'm a liar. Possibly of impaired judgment too."
To be specific, Sudan was elected <b>into</b> the UN Commission on Human Rights, not elected to head it. And this is also in no way the UN's fault. You see, UN is a global union formed of member states. The will of UN is not the will of its Secretary General Kofi Annan, but rather the will of the states that form it. Do you see the difference?
Sudan was elected into the council by <b>other african nations</b>. Apparently the region had 4 seats to fill, and only four nations applied, which automatically appointed the seats to such human rights champions as Sudan and Togo. It's a crappy situation but what can you do. It's not like Kofi Annan can tell the african region to change their representatives "or else...".
While we're on the topic of UN here, let's clear up a few common myths and misconceptions:
1) UN does not elect the members of its administrative bodies. The member states do that. If they choose badly, the fault is theirs, not the UN's.
2) UN may condone military action taken by its member states, but may not initiate such an action itself. The UN peace keepers are forbidden to enter in any conflict as partakers and may only fire if clearly fired upon. They may not actively take part in combat, even to protect civilians, since it is the very core idea behind the UN that its peacekeepers are impartial. If the UN were to do otherwise, it would lose the shield of impartiality and risk future peacekeeping operations. Laugh at the peacekeepers all you want but undestand this: There is nothing else they can do.
3) Sudan has been in a state of civil war for over a decade. No-one has done a thing to stop it. Both as members of the UN and as individual, independent states the countries with the power to intervene have not done so. Many african nations could send troops to Sudan to protect the non-combatants but african peace keeping and enforcement operations have a very unfortunate past. One only needs to take a look at ex-Zaire to see what I mean.
4) Were the UN given a sovereign right to intervene in all internal conflicts of the member states, the results would be catasthropic, because the self-serving member states would most likely withdraw from the UN if an intervention threatened them. For example, China has a past of voting against this kind of intervention simply because of their two flashpoints, Tibet and Taiwan.
5) The democratic process often yields unwanted results, but no can do. Of course the rules of the Commission of Human Rights, for example, could be altered to bar admittance of nations with human rights issues. What this would result in is a Commission that would most likely have only two members: Switzerland and Tuvalu. The question is, how do you rate a nation as qualifying for a seat? Does the U.S. qualify with Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan? Does Finland qualify even with the ongoing discrimination of armed forces draftees who choose civil service? Does China qualify? Russia? Germany? Turkey? To be honest, no nation does, but it's better to have the aforementioned commission than nothing. At least that's one international forum that can be used to bring up issues.
Yeah, I believe the situation in Sudan requires attention and intervention. The difficulty lies in how to do it, and do it well. Nobody wants another Somalia. The government of Sudan has already proved that they are lying douchebags, because they have the audacity to claim it is difficult to control the Janjaweed militias. Excuse me, but how can a state - with an army, no less - claim that they can't control militias? How can they claim to be a government if they can't hold their citizens in check? The situation should be resolved, but in a way that doesn't cause more grief and bad blood. Don't ask me how to do it. I wish I knew.
One thing I do know, though. Never intervene in the internal matters of another state without a sturdy international mandate unless you want someone else to do it later using your example as a platform.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Aug 14 2004, 12:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Aug 14 2004, 12:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "I hate America; they are the greatest evil in my high and mighty European opinion. I don't realize that CNN actually leans to the left and that Fox leans to the right. I'm willing to blatantly state something false, even with the knowledge that Afghanistan is going to undergo the first free national election in a few months, and that Iraq will have its own free and democratic elections within the next few years, because if I did, I might need to admit that the United States is actually making the world a better place, without European support. Instead of dealing with the facts involved, I will spend my time blasting the United States in a stereotypical and unoriginal fashion that reflects my own ignorance and socialist "spoon fed" social mentality."
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would put this in my sig, but some people might call it over kill....and it's to long.
So i'll quote it for future reference, and forums that allow larger sigs. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3) Sudan has been in a state of civil war for over a decade. No-one has done a thing to stop it. Both as members of the UN and as individual, independent states the countries with the power to intervene have not done so. Many african nations could send troops to Sudan to protect the non-combatants but african peace keeping and enforcement operations have a very unfortunate past. One only needs to take a look at ex-Zaire to see what I mean. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You completely missed what is going on there. Sudan is condoning genocide again unarmed civilians because the civilians live near, around, or on top of oil. There is no civil war. Calling it "civil war" just means that no one else needs to get involved.
I really hate to bring this up...I really do...but, the United States is not in the same category as everybody else, except maybe China/and or Russia. The United States is the only remaining superpower, placing it by default on a completely different level than everyone else.
There, I said it. It's why we're hated. It's why our own left hates us so much. We have more power than anyone else. That's why the U.N. stabs us in the back as much as it can. That's why everyone teams up and ridicules us. It's the real reason that the U.S. is despised by much of Europe. It's why when we take action on our own, everyone acts so offended and put off by it.
It's simply how the world is run. Everyone hates the top guy. I'm ok with that.
I'm sure I'll get flamed with the "who do you think you are" or "stupid, arrogant American" posts. I'm ok with that, too. I'm sick of everyone telling me that America isn't special, but in fact is nasty, trashy, redneckish, and stupid. I'm sick of everyone acting like we're dumber, fatter, and slower than everyone else that is so "civilized."
Why is Bush hated so much? He gave the rest of the world the finger on Iraq, and said "we're going to do what we think is right, whether you like it or not," all cowboy style.
Wow, it feels great to get that off my chest. Happy days everyone!
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Aug 14 2004, 08:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Aug 14 2004, 08:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3) Sudan has been in a state of civil war for over a decade. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You completely missed what is going on there. Sudan is condoning genocide again unarmed civilians because the civilians live near, around, or on top of oil. There is no civil war. Calling it "civil war" just means that no one else needs to get involved. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, technically you are right, since the civil war ended in a peace agreement last year. What my point was, was that the region has been unstable for a long time, with two or more armed forces fighting an internal conflict (which, regardless of the reasons, is very much the textbook definition of 'civil war'), and that the situation has been known for a very long time.
Also, the UN and forces on behalf of the UN have intervened in numerous civil wars. What exactly did you mean by the "no one else needs to get involved" part?.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I really hate to bring this up...I really do...but, the United States is not in the same category as everybody else, except maybe China/and or Russia. The United States is the only remaining superpower, placing it by default on a completely different level than everyone else.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are you talking about America to me? I don't care what you think about the US. I didn't even mention the country in my post.
I'm not taking your flamebait. Talk about Sudan and the UN, and leave your "holier-than-thou" opinion of the US for a conversation that actually concerns the US in some relevant manner.
If you call something a civil war there is no need to intervene. If you call it a genocide, that means action must be taken. The U.N. certainly wouldn't want to take action on the head of the Human Rights Commission, right? I doubt it. If they can call it a civil war, that means that they can tie it up red tape until the buzz dies down. Calling it a genocide gets people in the big nations interested, meaning that they're more likely to get involved.
I don't make flame bait. That was my general response to the insanity seen throughout this thread, not to your post. There's not a single bit of holier than thou attitude in there, so stop saying there is <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin-Scinet+Aug 15 2004, 09:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scinet @ Aug 15 2004, 09:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not taking your flamebait... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Then I will.
People would do well to at least remember some of the first rules of the Discussion Forum before posting : <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1.: Always consider the possibilty that you are wrong and the other side is right. 2.: Never, ever, be judgemental towards the other side.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt illuminex has much to add to this discussion , calling the people who don't share his point of view "insane". Strong egos can be dealt with in discussions , but egos so big they refuse to evolve have nothing to do here.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Aug 15 2004, 01:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 15 2004, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I doubt illuminex has much to add to this discussion , calling the people who don't share his point of view "insane". Strong egos can be dealt with in discussions , but egos so big they refuse to evolve have nothing to do here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> he doesn't call the people who don't share his point of view insane, he calls people who completely ignores the two main points of the article based on their ideological preference insane. very different things here. I'd call willful ignorance pretty insane too.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Aug 15 2004, 01:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 15 2004, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Scinet+Aug 15 2004, 09:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scinet @ Aug 15 2004, 09:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not taking your flamebait... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then I will.
People would do well to at least remember some of the first rules of the Discussion Forum before posting : <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1.: Always consider the possibilty that you are wrong and the other side is right. 2.: Never, ever, be judgemental towards the other side.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt illuminex has much to add to this discussion , calling the people who don't share his point of view "insane". Strong egos can be dealt with in discussions , but egos so big they refuse to evolve have nothing to do here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So what are we supposed to consider here?
That murders being elected into a position of internation power is okay?
What the hell... <img src='http://www.giantninjarobots.net/stuff/rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Man, I am glad to live in Europe...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish I was as lucky as you <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->, that way I could be pushing around 50% of my income into a fat politicians pocket
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Aug 15 2004, 10:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Aug 15 2004, 10:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you call something a civil war there is no need to intervene. If you call it a genocide, that means action must be taken. The U.N. certainly wouldn't want to take action on the head of the Human Rights Commission, right? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Civil war has, at least after the 1950s, nearly always meant genocide too. If the situation is bad, it doesn't matter what it's called. If there is a civil war going on, action should be taken to cease hostilities and begin negotiations between the sides. If it is a premediated act of genocide, action should also be taken.
As for the "head of human rights commisson" thing, can someone please post me a UN memorandum, press release, or a newsitem from some agency to verify this claim? Sudan is indeed in the UNCHR at the moment, but meticulous googling did not reveal to me the current head of the commission.
Oh, and one more thing. Regardless of how you view your previous message, it was very inflammable.
I didn't want to post anymore in here, but I'll just repeat what I've said before, for some clarification:
Australia is in the head of the UNHRC for this year, which consists of 53 nations, four of which are African and one of which is Sudan. Check out my link in the previous post.
How about you read the posts before flaming?
Oh and on a side-note: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wish I was as lucky as you , that way I could be pushing around 50% of my taxes into a fat politicians pocket <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is simply the very best nonsense I've read so far in this forum.
<!--QuoteBegin-eggmac+Aug 15 2004, 03:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Aug 15 2004, 03:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh and on a side-note: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wish I was as lucky as you , that way I could be pushing around 50% of my taxes into a fat politicians pocket <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is simply the very best nonsense I've read so far in this forum. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a typo
No , we understood what you wanted to say , and that is nonsense. If you think european administrations are more corrupt than your own , then you are seriously mistaken...
Hrmmm, well we've well and truely lost the idea here if we are commenting on the various levels of corruption - all I really know about European corruption is what a man told me while I was washing his dog.
He had just left France, and I couldnt resist asking him what he thought of the French. He said the French were nice people, but their beaurocrats were strangling the country. He then went on to outline how if he hired a man for 20,000 a year, he'd have to pay about the same to the Government, unless he "knew" someone. He claimed that it was doubly hard on him because he was English. In the end his business simply wasnt profitable and he sold up and came to Australia.
Could be an isolated incident, one angry guy I suppose, though he didnt seem bitter, but thats why I wasnt terribly suprised at Forlorn's statement.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Aug 16 2004, 04:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 16 2004, 04:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No , we understood what you wanted to say , and that is nonsense. If you think european administrations are more corrupt than your own , then you are seriously mistaken... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well that depends, if you think "cradle to coffen" taxes are fair, then I guess your fine with how they do things.
Seeing that this is on the brink of nation bashing, with a heavy dose of subjective judgements regarding other people already thrown in, I think a <span style='color:red'>***lock***</span> is justified.
Comments
Since when were we supposed to find WMD's in Afghanistan?
Or does that fall into the blame Bush for everything category?
Anyways... Afghanistan isn't as bad you make it out to be. There is a lot of progress there, but in many ways it'll be harder to rebuild it than Iraq.
But we can always blame Bush because he doesn't wave his magic wand and make everything better and right and pleasing to every last soul on this Earth the next day.
Anybody heard something about Afghanistan lately? You know that in Afghanistan reigns CHAOS and it's a human catastrophe down there. And Bush started it. He didn't catch Osama, he didn't found any WMD's and he didn't bring peace (nor democracy) to a totally different system than the American. I wish the world would be as easy as Bush and his naive administration, but in the REAL world a organisation like United Nations can't be Disney World, they have to face facts, not like Bush who can **** with every country he likes and gets away because of his populistic nationalism...... It's because they have to take responsibility for what they're doing and they're actually helping people that they get so much dirt in the face.
Man, I am glad to live in Europe...
sorry for the rant - nothing personal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excuse me, but I believe someone once said, "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins" (from the book of James in the Bible). At this point I'm sorry to say but this is the direct equivalent of seeing some highway robbers in the act of beating a passerby mercilessly. And indeed, instead of helping the innocent person, you commend the robbers by promoting them to guard the roads!
I'm sorry, but Europe and the U.N. has proved many times that it simply is not capable or willing of enforcing ethics or humanitarianism. And then they criticize those who *are* willing to step up to the plate and clean up the mess that they made. Even more, they claim moral authority. It's unbelievable. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*edit* and as coil would have us believe, we need to know more about the situation to properly condemn it. What?!! If you see someone getting shot in the street, you call the cops, not ruminate about whether the shooter had a bad childhood with abusive parents.
*edit2*<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wish the world would be as easy as Bush and his naive administration, but in the REAL world a organisation like United Nations can't be Disney World, they have to face facts, not like Bush who can **** with every country he likes and gets away because of his populistic nationalism...... It's because they have to take responsibility for what they're doing and they're actually helping people that they get so much dirt in the face.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Upon closer reading of your post, which already **** me off quite a bit, I came upon this little gem. Right now I'm stuck between laughing and yelling at my monitor. I'm getting closer to yelling by the moment. I'm sorry, but the U.N. has become a farce not because it's accountable to many people, let me tell you that. It's because it rarely does ANYTHING helpful beyond a token gesture. Most of the work is done by member countries volunteering funds, troops, supplies, equipment (and the occasional embargo, which everyone willingly and knowingly breaks). Not to mention most of the time the help that *does* get sent is way too late. And guess what: that means little, if anything, gets done beyond a slap on the wrist. HA ha ha ha... ok I'm going to spend a little time away from the computer to cool off. But let me assure you, the U.N. is a joke.
Plain, simple thinking here guys:
1.) A genocidal regime is head of the HRC.
2.) That regime is headed by Muslims who are killing Christians (who are black, no less). It's not Politically Correct to point out that fact, but he doesn't care.
3.) The writer of the article is angry because of the insanity he sees around him concerning the UN.
4.) He expresses his article in an angry fashion. It's an editorial, he can do that.
So, while everyone else whimpers, shrugs, acts like it is the US's fault, or just plain ignores the whole damn scandal, this guy is on his soapbox saying "WTH, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING," and is therefore a racist, extremist, etc.
"Hypocrisy is best taken with a heavy dosage of lies" - U.N. Political Cookbook.
Some of the people here are rediculous. Here's the sum of the insane posts:
"The content of the article should not matter, since it is a right wing wacko talking about something that, given my political affiliation, I can't and will not acknowledge."
"The writer is obviously a racist, since I can't deal with the fact that the right wing might have a point to make about a situation that makes my pro-UN leanings look bad."
"I hate America; they are the greatest evil in my high and mighty European opinion. I don't realize that CNN actually leans to the left and that Fox leans to the right. I'm willing to blatantly state something false, even with the knowledge that Afghanistan is going to undergo the first free national election in a few months, and that Iraq will have its own free and democratic elections within the next few years, because if I did, I might need to admit that the United States is actually making the world a better place, without European support. Instead of dealing with the facts involved, I will spend my time blasting the United States in a stereotypical and unoriginal fashion that reflects my own ignorance and socialist "spoon fed" social mentality."
I agree with Kent, the United States should have gotten involved long ago. I remember hearing about the tragedy in Sudan five (5) years ago.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
SUDAN, despite aid agency warnings of death and starvation in a reign of terror, now heads the UN Human Rights Commission.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other news:
"Hi, I'm Andrew Bolt, and I'm a liar. Possibly of impaired judgment too."
To be specific, Sudan was elected <b>into</b> the UN Commission on Human Rights, not elected to head it. And this is also in no way the UN's fault. You see, UN is a global union formed of member states. The will of UN is not the will of its Secretary General Kofi Annan, but rather the will of the states that form it. Do you see the difference?
Sudan was elected into the council by <b>other african nations</b>. Apparently the region had 4 seats to fill, and only four nations applied, which automatically appointed the seats to such human rights champions as Sudan and Togo. It's a crappy situation but what can you do. It's not like Kofi Annan can tell the african region to change their representatives "or else...".
While we're on the topic of UN here, let's clear up a few common myths and misconceptions:
1) UN does not elect the members of its administrative bodies. The member states do that. If they choose badly, the fault is theirs, not the UN's.
2) UN may condone military action taken by its member states, but may not initiate such an action itself. The UN peace keepers are forbidden to enter in any conflict as partakers and may only fire if clearly fired upon. They may not actively take part in combat, even to protect civilians, since it is the very core idea behind the UN that its peacekeepers are impartial. If the UN were to do otherwise, it would lose the shield of impartiality and risk future peacekeeping operations. Laugh at the peacekeepers all you want but undestand this: There is nothing else they can do.
3) Sudan has been in a state of civil war for over a decade. No-one has done a thing to stop it. Both as members of the UN and as individual, independent states the countries with the power to intervene have not done so. Many african nations could send troops to Sudan to protect the non-combatants but african peace keeping and enforcement operations have a very unfortunate past. One only needs to take a look at ex-Zaire to see what I mean.
4) Were the UN given a sovereign right to intervene in all internal conflicts of the member states, the results would be catasthropic, because the self-serving member states would most likely withdraw from the UN if an intervention threatened them. For example, China has a past of voting against this kind of intervention simply because of their two flashpoints, Tibet and Taiwan.
5) The democratic process often yields unwanted results, but no can do. Of course the rules of the Commission of Human Rights, for example, could be altered to bar admittance of nations with human rights issues. What this would result in is a Commission that would most likely have only two members: Switzerland and Tuvalu. The question is, how do you rate a nation as qualifying for a seat? Does the U.S. qualify with Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan? Does Finland qualify even with the ongoing discrimination of armed forces draftees who choose civil service? Does China qualify? Russia? Germany? Turkey? To be honest, no nation does, but it's better to have the aforementioned commission than nothing. At least that's one international forum that can be used to bring up issues.
Yeah, I believe the situation in Sudan requires attention and intervention. The difficulty lies in how to do it, and do it well. Nobody wants another Somalia. The government of Sudan has already proved that they are lying douchebags, because they have the audacity to claim it is difficult to control the Janjaweed militias. Excuse me, but how can a state - with an army, no less - claim that they can't control militias? How can they claim to be a government if they can't hold their citizens in check? The situation should be resolved, but in a way that doesn't cause more grief and bad blood. Don't ask me how to do it. I wish I knew.
One thing I do know, though. Never intervene in the internal matters of another state without a sturdy international mandate unless you want someone else to do it later using your example as a platform.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would put this in my sig, but some people might call it over kill....and it's to long.
So i'll quote it for future reference, and forums that allow larger sigs. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You completely missed what is going on there. Sudan is condoning genocide again unarmed civilians because the civilians live near, around, or on top of oil. There is no civil war. Calling it "civil war" just means that no one else needs to get involved.
I really hate to bring this up...I really do...but, the United States is not in the same category as everybody else, except maybe China/and or Russia. The United States is the only remaining superpower, placing it by default on a completely different level than everyone else.
There, I said it. It's why we're hated. It's why our own left hates us so much. We have more power than anyone else. That's why the U.N. stabs us in the back as much as it can. That's why everyone teams up and ridicules us. It's the real reason that the U.S. is despised by much of Europe. It's why when we take action on our own, everyone acts so offended and put off by it.
It's simply how the world is run. Everyone hates the top guy. I'm ok with that.
I'm sure I'll get flamed with the "who do you think you are" or "stupid, arrogant American" posts. I'm ok with that, too. I'm sick of everyone telling me that America isn't special, but in fact is nasty, trashy, redneckish, and stupid. I'm sick of everyone acting like we're dumber, fatter, and slower than everyone else that is so "civilized."
Why is Bush hated so much? He gave the rest of the world the finger on Iraq, and said "we're going to do what we think is right, whether you like it or not," all cowboy style.
Wow, it feels great to get that off my chest. Happy days everyone!
You completely missed what is going on there. Sudan is condoning genocide again unarmed civilians because the civilians live near, around, or on top of oil. There is no civil war. Calling it "civil war" just means that no one else needs to get involved.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, technically you are right, since the civil war ended in a peace agreement last year. What my point was, was that the region has been unstable for a long time, with two or more armed forces fighting an internal conflict (which, regardless of the reasons, is very much the textbook definition of 'civil war'), and that the situation has been known for a very long time.
Also, the UN and forces on behalf of the UN have intervened in numerous civil wars. What exactly did you mean by the "no one else needs to get involved" part?.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I really hate to bring this up...I really do...but, the United States is not in the same category as everybody else, except maybe China/and or Russia. The United States is the only remaining superpower, placing it by default on a completely different level than everyone else.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why are you talking about America to me? I don't care what you think about the US. I didn't even mention the country in my post.
I'm not taking your flamebait. Talk about Sudan and the UN, and leave your "holier-than-thou" opinion of the US for a conversation that actually concerns the US in some relevant manner.
I don't make flame bait. That was my general response to the insanity seen throughout this thread, not to your post. There's not a single bit of holier than thou attitude in there, so stop saying there is <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Then I will.
People would do well to at least remember some of the first rules of the Discussion Forum before posting :
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1.: Always consider the possibilty that you are wrong and the other side is right.
2.: Never, ever, be judgemental towards the other side.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt illuminex has much to add to this discussion , calling the people who don't share his point of view "insane". Strong egos can be dealt with in discussions , but egos so big they refuse to evolve have nothing to do here.
I doubt illuminex has much to add to this discussion , calling the people who don't share his point of view "insane". Strong egos can be dealt with in discussions , but egos so big they refuse to evolve have nothing to do here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
he doesn't call the people who don't share his point of view insane, he calls people who completely ignores the two main points of the article based on their ideological preference insane. very different things here. I'd call willful ignorance pretty insane too.
Then I will.
People would do well to at least remember some of the first rules of the Discussion Forum before posting :
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1.: Always consider the possibilty that you are wrong and the other side is right.
2.: Never, ever, be judgemental towards the other side.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt illuminex has much to add to this discussion , calling the people who don't share his point of view "insane". Strong egos can be dealt with in discussions , but egos so big they refuse to evolve have nothing to do here. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what are we supposed to consider here?
That murders being elected into a position of internation power is okay?
What the hell... <img src='http://www.giantninjarobots.net/stuff/rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Man, I am glad to live in Europe...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish I was as lucky as you <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->, that way I could be pushing around 50% of my income into a fat politicians pocket
Civil war has, at least after the 1950s, nearly always meant genocide too. If the situation is bad, it doesn't matter what it's called. If there is a civil war going on, action should be taken to cease hostilities and begin negotiations between the sides. If it is a premediated act of genocide, action should also be taken.
As for the "head of human rights commisson" thing, can someone please post me a UN memorandum, press release, or a newsitem from some agency to verify this claim? Sudan is indeed in the UNCHR at the moment, but meticulous googling did not reveal to me the current head of the commission.
Oh, and one more thing. Regardless of how you view your previous message, it was very inflammable.
Australia is in the head of the UNHRC for this year, which consists of 53 nations, four of which are African and one of which is Sudan. Check out my link in the previous post.
How about you read the posts before flaming?
Oh and on a side-note:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wish I was as lucky as you , that way I could be pushing around 50% of my taxes into a fat politicians pocket <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is simply the very best nonsense I've read so far in this forum.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wish I was as lucky as you , that way I could be pushing around 50% of my taxes into a fat politicians pocket <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is simply the very best nonsense I've read so far in this forum. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a typo
He had just left France, and I couldnt resist asking him what he thought of the French. He said the French were nice people, but their beaurocrats were strangling the country. He then went on to outline how if he hired a man for 20,000 a year, he'd have to pay about the same to the Government, unless he "knew" someone. He claimed that it was doubly hard on him because he was English. In the end his business simply wasnt profitable and he sold up and came to Australia.
Could be an isolated incident, one angry guy I suppose, though he didnt seem bitter, but thats why I wasnt terribly suprised at Forlorn's statement.
Well that depends, if you think "cradle to coffen" taxes are fair, then I guess your fine with how they do things.
I however like to keep my money that I earned.