Nothing To Worry About Lads
Marine0I
Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">The World Is In Good Hands.....</div> 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-->
UN rewards tyrant
By ANDREW BOLT
07may04
SUDAN, despite aid agency warnings of death and starvation in a reign of terror, now heads the UN Human Rights Commission.
TO think the United Nations is still a force for good you need not a soft heart but a hard one. This week's proof: the scandal of Sudan.
Sudan is led by an Arab military dictator, whose rabidly Islamic regime in the early 1990s invited Osama bin Laden to set up his base, and held international conferences of terrorists.
Now the regime is busy with a horrific war against black African tribes in the country's western Darfur province, to go with its war in the Christian south.
Over the past year, more than a million people in Darfur have fled the government-backed rape gangs, the bombings of villages and the massacres of civilians, with 100,000 of them crossing into Chad in what is an ethnic cleansing.
The World Health Organisation, panicking, says half the children who've been forced to run away with their families are now starving and famine is coming.
So how does the UN respond to this evil in Sudan? Why, it this week elects Sudan to its Human Rights Commission, its main human rights watchdog.
No, I'm not making this up. Remember, this is the same Human Rights Commission that was last year chaired by Libya, toy of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Talk about putting a terrorist in charge of the cops.
I wish I could tell you there was an uproar on Tuesday when the grinning Sudanese got the good news that they'd been re-elected as one of the world's moral policemen to sit in judgment over countries like Australia, which this commission regularly accuses of cruelty to jailed Aborigines and fake refugees.
But no. True, the United States' delegate did walk out in protest, declaring his country "will not participate in this absurdity".
But he did the same last year, when Cuba, led by dissident-executing dictator Fidel Castro, was voted on to the commission, and what difference did that make? No, for too many aid groups there's just no fun or profit in attacking the UN -- or in backing the US.
Nor was Sudan the only dictatorship or authoritarian regime to be elected in this annual ballot for membership of the 53-nation commission, a circus which Australia now takes absurd pride in chairing.
Guinea, Togo, Pakistan and Malaysia also got the nod this week, joining similarly cuddly champions of human rights such as Egypt, China, Congo, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. Ah, Zimbabwe, whose crazed and allegedly syphilitic leader is even now doubtlessly figuring yet more humane ways to beat pro-democracy activists to death.
Of course, it's becoming harder to feel any outrage over the UN's hypocrisies and weakness in the face of true evil.
After all, we're now hearing how UN officials and businessmen close to the French, Russian and Chinese governments were up to their double chins in a $12 billion oil-for-food scam to get cheap oil from Saddam in exchange for massive kickbacks -- and, we must suspect, promises to save his genocidal regime.
How many poor Iraqis died thanks to this looting of cash meant for food and medicine, no one can count.
And we also know of the UN's failure to even try to stop the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans, or the genocide of two million Cambodians or even the massacre of 3000 Bosnian civilians in a UN "safe" zone in Srebrenica.
But to see the UN's Human Rights Commission -- with so many representatives of tyrants and thugs, despots and main-chancers, yet again passing airy resolutions instead of trying urgently to stop yet another genocide -- is to see a charade too sick for words.
Look up on the internet last month's UN press release headed: "Commission on Human Rights Expresses Deep Concern over Human Rights Situation in Western Sudan." Read it, and despair.
It reports the astonishing "debate" in the commission over what the US delegate rightly called an ethnic cleansing by Sudan that was so horrific it was now "a time of conscience, a time to stand".
But read how the other delegates simply purred, or gently tut-tutted, or even treated the US as the real skunk in the room.
Let's have less of this negativity, complained the Egyptian delegate, tired of this "selective approach".
Anyway, Sudan's delegate declared, the Americans were just full of accusations and exaggerations.
In fact, said the Cuban, the Sudanese Government should be applauded for its co-operation, and it was the US instead that should be deeply deplored for making such a fuss.
And the Europeans, so timid now in the face of tyranny, squeaked how nice it would be if everyone could stop being cruel. The Irish delegate tried to buy a little time by twittering about the need for an "independent mechanism (to) elucidate the situation" in Sudan -- when a dozen aid groups have been frantically elucidating for weeks that this is a disaster, that people are dying and the killing must stop now.
And so it was that the UN's Human Rights Commission passed a resolution on handsome UN letterhead saying it had deep concern about the human rights situation, but somehow forgetting to criticise the Sudanese Government or demand it stop the killing being perpetrated by its armed forces and their Arab militia allies.
Only the US voted against these weasel words, with Australia and Ukraine abstaining. The tyrant countries on the commission then voted to stop any further debate, over the objections and abstentions of almost all the democracies, and wrapped up a successful session in plenty of time for an early dinner.
Meanwhile, the killing of civilians in the Sudan continues and famine draws near.
And here in Australia we still get people on the Left who, with full hearts and brimming eyes, declare that when it comes to a crisis, whether in Iraq or our detention centres, we must honour and obey the UN.
They're the good guys, you see. Just ask that nice UN man from Sudan over there when he's finished shooting those farmers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many is the time I've questioned the relevance of the UN, but I am now coming to the firm belief that the UN is actually a negative force in this world.
<!--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-->
UN rewards tyrant
By ANDREW BOLT
07may04
SUDAN, despite aid agency warnings of death and starvation in a reign of terror, now heads the UN Human Rights Commission.
TO think the United Nations is still a force for good you need not a soft heart but a hard one. This week's proof: the scandal of Sudan.
Sudan is led by an Arab military dictator, whose rabidly Islamic regime in the early 1990s invited Osama bin Laden to set up his base, and held international conferences of terrorists.
Now the regime is busy with a horrific war against black African tribes in the country's western Darfur province, to go with its war in the Christian south.
Over the past year, more than a million people in Darfur have fled the government-backed rape gangs, the bombings of villages and the massacres of civilians, with 100,000 of them crossing into Chad in what is an ethnic cleansing.
The World Health Organisation, panicking, says half the children who've been forced to run away with their families are now starving and famine is coming.
So how does the UN respond to this evil in Sudan? Why, it this week elects Sudan to its Human Rights Commission, its main human rights watchdog.
No, I'm not making this up. Remember, this is the same Human Rights Commission that was last year chaired by Libya, toy of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Talk about putting a terrorist in charge of the cops.
I wish I could tell you there was an uproar on Tuesday when the grinning Sudanese got the good news that they'd been re-elected as one of the world's moral policemen to sit in judgment over countries like Australia, which this commission regularly accuses of cruelty to jailed Aborigines and fake refugees.
But no. True, the United States' delegate did walk out in protest, declaring his country "will not participate in this absurdity".
But he did the same last year, when Cuba, led by dissident-executing dictator Fidel Castro, was voted on to the commission, and what difference did that make? No, for too many aid groups there's just no fun or profit in attacking the UN -- or in backing the US.
Nor was Sudan the only dictatorship or authoritarian regime to be elected in this annual ballot for membership of the 53-nation commission, a circus which Australia now takes absurd pride in chairing.
Guinea, Togo, Pakistan and Malaysia also got the nod this week, joining similarly cuddly champions of human rights such as Egypt, China, Congo, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. Ah, Zimbabwe, whose crazed and allegedly syphilitic leader is even now doubtlessly figuring yet more humane ways to beat pro-democracy activists to death.
Of course, it's becoming harder to feel any outrage over the UN's hypocrisies and weakness in the face of true evil.
After all, we're now hearing how UN officials and businessmen close to the French, Russian and Chinese governments were up to their double chins in a $12 billion oil-for-food scam to get cheap oil from Saddam in exchange for massive kickbacks -- and, we must suspect, promises to save his genocidal regime.
How many poor Iraqis died thanks to this looting of cash meant for food and medicine, no one can count.
And we also know of the UN's failure to even try to stop the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans, or the genocide of two million Cambodians or even the massacre of 3000 Bosnian civilians in a UN "safe" zone in Srebrenica.
But to see the UN's Human Rights Commission -- with so many representatives of tyrants and thugs, despots and main-chancers, yet again passing airy resolutions instead of trying urgently to stop yet another genocide -- is to see a charade too sick for words.
Look up on the internet last month's UN press release headed: "Commission on Human Rights Expresses Deep Concern over Human Rights Situation in Western Sudan." Read it, and despair.
It reports the astonishing "debate" in the commission over what the US delegate rightly called an ethnic cleansing by Sudan that was so horrific it was now "a time of conscience, a time to stand".
But read how the other delegates simply purred, or gently tut-tutted, or even treated the US as the real skunk in the room.
Let's have less of this negativity, complained the Egyptian delegate, tired of this "selective approach".
Anyway, Sudan's delegate declared, the Americans were just full of accusations and exaggerations.
In fact, said the Cuban, the Sudanese Government should be applauded for its co-operation, and it was the US instead that should be deeply deplored for making such a fuss.
And the Europeans, so timid now in the face of tyranny, squeaked how nice it would be if everyone could stop being cruel. The Irish delegate tried to buy a little time by twittering about the need for an "independent mechanism (to) elucidate the situation" in Sudan -- when a dozen aid groups have been frantically elucidating for weeks that this is a disaster, that people are dying and the killing must stop now.
And so it was that the UN's Human Rights Commission passed a resolution on handsome UN letterhead saying it had deep concern about the human rights situation, but somehow forgetting to criticise the Sudanese Government or demand it stop the killing being perpetrated by its armed forces and their Arab militia allies.
Only the US voted against these weasel words, with Australia and Ukraine abstaining. The tyrant countries on the commission then voted to stop any further debate, over the objections and abstentions of almost all the democracies, and wrapped up a successful session in plenty of time for an early dinner.
Meanwhile, the killing of civilians in the Sudan continues and famine draws near.
And here in Australia we still get people on the Left who, with full hearts and brimming eyes, declare that when it comes to a crisis, whether in Iraq or our detention centres, we must honour and obey the UN.
They're the good guys, you see. Just ask that nice UN man from Sudan over there when he's finished shooting those farmers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many is the time I've questioned the relevance of the UN, but I am now coming to the firm belief that the UN is actually a negative force in this world.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
if you want to make a point, you need to atleast TRY to sound only somewhat biased.
Biased in terms of what? That it's anti-UN? Anti-Sudan? Anti-genocide? Because I thought everyone was. My only criticism is it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. It would be funny if thousands of people weren't being slaughtered.
I have never liked the UN, now I have one more reason not to.
It's a shame people cling to it in some pseudo-romantic dream world that they live in thinking it will help bring peace and stability to the world. It's a group of people with power, just like any other.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read this, saw your sig, and laughed for about two minutes straight.
Back on topic though, this is sickening. What I want to know is why the Europeans didn't fight it. Who was threatening to yank whos skeletons out on this one?
Back on topic though, this is sickening. What I want to know is why the Europeans didn't fight it. Who was threatening to yank whos skeletons out on this one? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How funny that is depends on what you consider evil.
I suppose you consider Bush to be more evil and a bigger threat then a commission whose responsiblity it is to protect human rights around the world haveing Sudan lead it.
Yea, laughed for two miniutes like an idiot.
Back on topic though, this is sickening. What I want to know is why the Europeans didn't fight it. Who was threatening to yank whos skeletons out on this one? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How funny that is depends on what you consider evil.
I suppose you consider Bush to be more evil and a bigger threat then a commission whose responsiblity it is to protect human rights around the world haveing Sudan lead it.
Yea, laughed for two miniutes like an idiot. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
this forum is going to hell.
I'm sick of people insinuating or flat out saying Bush is "evil" even when the topic does not even remotely have to do with him, then giving no proof what so ever.
Yes Bush is worse then the idiots who put Sudan in charge of the <b>Human Rights Commission</b>. Thats like putting 1940's Germany in charge of the "World Peace and Jewish rights committee", honestly the absurdity of this speaks for it's self and any comments about Bush are unneeded.
I'll give you that the article is biased - but surely if its the inane rantings of a deluded right winger, then the various flaws should be easy to point out. Total flaws pointed out to date - 0.
that's what you get with national sovereignty.
this is how (simple) democracy works. a majority wants something, they get it. the US is in the minority of the world, given that each country has an equal vote, and thus the US will not always get its way.
it's barely any different from our own democracy, where groups with enough political pull can bring the law to an absurdly unfair state. that's how things work.
First of all, here is the <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm' target='_blank'>complete list of members of the Commision of Human Rights</a>. It shows 53 members of this commision, all from different parts of the world. Africa has 4 seats in it, one of which is ocupied by Sudan. Now, let's think about it for a moment: How exactly does democracy work? Ah right, everybody has an equal say, no matter what idea he represents or how mighty or wealthy he is. This means that Africa has every right to propose its candidates for those seats even if the USA and other nations do not agree with it. That's what elections are all about.
Now let's turn to Andrew Bolt's article itself:
<!--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-->So how does the UN respond to this evil in Sudan? Why, it this week elects Sudan to its Human Rights Commission<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, but how is this a "response" to the crisis in Sudan? It is merely one single procedure and Andrew Bolt isolates this fact from numerous actual responses by the UN. Of course I'm not in favour of taking Sudan into the Comission, but you can't help it since this is decided by the African continent. And this fact alone doesn't make the UN unable to take actions against Sudan, as Bolt tries to convey.
<!--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-->No, I'm not making this up. Remember, this is the same Human Rights Commission that was last year chaired by Libya, toy of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Talk about putting a terrorist in charge of the cops. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In all honesty, this awful writing style wouldn't pass any school exam. And again, he's drawing the world into black and white, implying that Lybia is full of scum and should not be allowed to be elected in a <i>democratic institution</i>.
<!--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-->Guinea, Togo, Pakistan and Malaysia also got the nod this week, joining similarly cuddly champions of human rights such as Egypt, China, Congo, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If he wants to exclude nations which do not fit into his view, then how exactly should the UN, which tries to represent <i>every</i> nations, work? Ah right, it should be led by the US and Australia, because they're the good guys!
<!--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-->Of course, it's becoming harder to feel any outrage over the UN's hypocrisies and weakness in the face of true evil.
After all, we're now hearing how UN officials and businessmen close to the French, Russian and Chinese governments were up to their double chins in a $12 billion oil-for-food scam to get cheap oil from Saddam in exchange for massive kickbacks -- and, we must suspect, promises to save his genocidal regime.
How many poor Iraqis died thanks to this looting of cash meant for food and medicine, no one can count.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny how he again attacks other nations that don't agree with his stance on world policy, and how he tries to bring them into miscredit. But yet again, there is just poor two-year-old rhetorics, not mentioning any facts or any other point of view. So the countries opposing the war were just interested in oil, whereas countries that favoured the war acted honorobly in thought of the poor Iraqis?
This article is filled with so much hatred against the UN and other nations that do not share his view, it's even sickening to read it. For example, take a look at <a href='http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/0504seat.htm' target='_blank'>this article</a>, which deals with the same facts, but conveys it in a more civilized way, although still condemning the procedure.
A small search on Andrew Bolt showed that he is a right-winged extremist in Australia who writes hate-filled-articles like this one every now and then. <a href='http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/66286.php' target='_blank'>This page</a> deals with some of his accusations. His stance on muslims and foreigners/aboriginees is quite interesting (Concentration camps anyone?). Astonishing how this person can even dare to talk about Human Rights.
Now, turning to the problem in Sudan. It's a shame that political movements use the humanitarian crisis in order to achieve their political goals. The cirsis itself is shocking and the inability of the International Community to deal with it as well. <a href='http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2&ItemID=5874' target='_blank'>This Z-net article</a> shows at least a bit more insight into the problem than Adrew Bolt ever could.
Edit: And by the way, calling other nations and nationalities "scum" and "dirty dogs" is more than disgusting. you wouldn't like me calling Americans "dirty dogs" would you?
Well if the rest of your post was an attempt to sugar coat it for me, you certainly missed the mark...
<!--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-->First of all, here is the <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm' target='_blank'>complete list of members of the Commision of Human Rights</a>. It shows 53 members of this commision, all from different parts of the world. Africa has 4 seats in it, one of which is ocupied by Sudan. Now, let's think about it for a moment: How exactly does democracy work? Ah right, everybody has an equal say, no matter what idea he represents or how mighty or wealthy he is. This means that Africa has every right to propose its candidates for those seats even if the USA and other nations do not agree with it. That's what elections are all about.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats right. Its democracy. So when a convicted pedophile gets elected to the head of the commission for Child Safety - you cry "Its democracy get over it". When a Fundamentalist Religious Right minister gets elected to head the commission for the investigation of the effects of Homosexual marriage, you bow before the almighty democracy? The hell you do - you crack up like anyone would. So why is it that its suddenly "democracy" when butchers are being elected to the Human Rights commision.
In this case, I dont give a damn about what the Africans wants, they're wrong. Africa can propose them, but for them to be accepted clearly demonstrates a sickness within the UN.
<!--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-->In all honesty, this awful writing style wouldn't pass any school exam. And again, he's drawing the world into black and white, implying that Lybia is full of scum and should not be allowed to be elected in a <i>democratic institution</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry - please explain to me how the Government of Lybia are actually really nice guys. Show me this grey area you speak of. We dont allow criminals to run in our elections - why should the UN? Is democracy so untouchable, so absolute that critically bad decisions should be allowed to pass uncriticised?
<!--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-->If he wants to exclude nations which do not fit into his view, then how exactly should the UN, which tries to represent <i>every</i> nations, work? Ah right, it should be led by the US and Australia, because they're the good guys!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you compare Australia and the US to that little list of infamy, I say yes. I will not dwell under this illusion that somehow its all relative, and its not fair that we impose our ideas on these other countries. Enough of this "view" garbage - he isnt rejecting them because they disagree with his religious views, its because they contradict his "view" that civilian repression and murder is wrong. But thats all relative, eh?
<!--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-->Funny how he again attacks other nations that don't agree with his stance on world policy, and how he tries to bring them into miscredit. But yet again, there is just poor two-year-old rhetorics, not mentioning any facts or any other point of view. So the countries opposing the war were just interested in oil, whereas countries that favoured the war acted honorobly in thought of the poor Iraqis?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you deny his claims that the French etc were rorting the UN oil for Food program?
<!--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-->A small search on Andrew Bolt showed that he is a right-winged extremist in Australia who writes hate-filled-articles like this one every now and then. <a href='http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/66286.php' target='_blank'>This page</a> deals with some of his accusations. His stance on muslims and foreigners/aboriginees is quite interesting (Concentration camps anyone?). Astonishing how this person can even dare to talk about Human Rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read that website, and I also read Andrew's reply below, and I have to say that cleared up most concerns raised for me.
<!--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-->Edit: And by the way, calling other nations and nationalities "scum" and "dirty dogs" is more than disgusting. you wouldn't like me calling Americans "dirty dogs" would you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meh, join the que. Personally, you can call the Americans whatever you like, I'm not American. It would take some extreme mental self discipline to convince yourself that I was referring to the Sudanese people when describing them as such - but I stand behind any invective, no matter how foul, leveled at the Sudanese Government. Of course, if you have issues with people insulting foreign, brutal totalitarian governments, carry on.
I realize that this is an opinion piece and not a news article, but even the op-ed page of a paper can and should take the time to present its arguments in a calm, intelligent manner. I understated the situation precisely because the author so heedlessly overstated it. I am no more informed about the situation now than I was before I encountered this article, and am not going to form judgements based on a situation I readily admit that I know little about.
Hate speech is hate speech, no matter from where it originates and whom it targets. This article, in my opinion, is worthless.
I'm sick of people insinuating or flat out saying Bush is "evil" even when the topic does not even remotely have to do with him, then giving no proof what so ever.
Yes Bush is worse then the idiots who put Sudan in charge of the <b>Human Rights Commission</b>. Thats like putting 1940's Germany in charge of the "World Peace and Jewish rights committee", honestly the absurdity of this speaks for it's self and any comments about Bush are unneeded. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said bush was evil, and neither did you. You stated that you hate politicans protecting big moneymaking corporate interests, and hate that they recieve massive 'donations' from the same companys they pull favors for.
Were you born yesterday? That's what the entire republican party is ABOUT. Bush made an assload of money in the form of 'campaign donations' from big business and what do you know, first year in office a massive tax cut for them.
You're a fool, you don't even know who you're voting for.
Were you born yesterday? That's what the entire republican party is ABOUT. Bush made an assload of money in the form of 'campaign donations' from big business and what do you know, first year in office a massive tax cut for them.
You're a fool, you don't even know who you're voting for. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You read into what I said way to far just to get your little quip in, let it go.
Yes thats what the entire Republican party is about....thats it, nothing else at all...honestly you call me a fool? The Democrats do the same, Moveon.org as one example. Obviously you have to reward those who help you or our not going to get any more help from them.
You think if Kerry wins hes not going to pander to those who helped him?
I have no soft spot for most politcians American or otherwise, but the fact that your trying to pin something like this on Republicans and not give the other side of the argument is annoying.
Besides thats simply US politics at it's most basic form, which does not compare to the idiocy and indecency of UN politicans playing ironic games with the lives of innocent people being murdered in Sudan.
Isn't it an irony that the media complained bitterly about France's non-cooperation in Iraq, but says nothing about our government and Sudan, considering that France is the only country that actually has troops on the ground there at the moment?
And why should it always be the US that goes and saves everyone? Its in Africa, give the other African nations the ball and have them commit troops. Or how about Germany? Or maybe a South American country? There's always Syria or Iran or even Russia. Maybe even China!
The US cannot fix everything. Let us concentrate on only a couple of things at a time. Its either you want the US to do everything or you want them to do nothing.
What's really ironic is that I get the feeling people want France to go ahead in and take decisive action... But that would be without a UN resolution! But its ok, France isn't led by Bush.
what other facts, pray tell, do we need about this situation to condemn it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because it's not our job, and we have enough to do as it is.
I would imagine there would be quite and uproar if we took troops that we need in Iraq and Afganistan and put them in Sudan.
Like mentioned above, both France and Germany have no present troop depleteing commitments to keep, since they opted to not help with Iraq, so by all means they should handle this mess.
Besides Africa is worthless to America, every politican knows this.
Isn't it an irony that the media complained bitterly about France's non-cooperation in Iraq, but says nothing about our government and Sudan, considering that France is the only country that actually has troops on the ground there at the moment? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually the United States is being active in the Sudan. The US is currently trying to push a resolution that will institute sanctions on Sudan if the government continues to engage in atrocities.. Bush recently sent Colin Powell there to access the situation. There are some rumors that the US may establish a No fly zone, as they did in pre war Iraq preventing movement of large masses of troops from rape and further pillaging of villages. Unfortunately, this event was overshadowed as the media is currently covering Iraq.
Interestingly enough, the world has pretty much ignored the situation, until the US came and stepped in.
Note too that the US is engaged in Haiti attempting to restore order and insititute democratic reforms (let us hope they are more successful the second time around. Our last attempt at this, we spend 3 billion dollars and the leader booted out of office by rebels)
It is quite apparent that the US has its hands tied up right now and cannot engage further in the Sudan crisis, but I’m certain that the Human Rights Commission will with the help of the UN Resolution :cough: “security” counsel will resolution Sudan into submission as they did quite successfully in Iraq.
Why shouldn't be a Sudanese in the UN? Just because the government is a bunch of sick perverts doesn't mean that the whole country is. That's just racist and fascistic, but that's nothing new from this corner of the world.
UN has many sections that are helping in very serious situations... you can't just ignore that. But you don't care because you believe the whole propaganda **** that's been fed to you by CNN and Fox News.
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.
Why is it the job of the US? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> If another Hitler came into power in Europe, I don't think it's an unfair assumption to say that the US would eventually HAVE to be involved, either by being the first to do something about it, or getting dragged in by pleas for help. This is the 'United Nations', not the 'United Nations Under the United States', hence why I asked: Who dragged what skeletons out of the closets on this one?
I don't know of anybody who's making the argument that Sudan shouldn't be in the U.N. The argument here is that Sudan, as one of the world's biggest human rights violators, shouldn't be the head of the United Nations' Human Rights Commission. And fascist? Just because we're not embracing the new head of the HRC, we're in the same group as Hitler? The Sudanese representative in the U.N. represents the <i>government</i> of Sudan. A government which has killed some 50,000 in the past year and a half, as well as driving a million people from their homes, creating a potential catastrophe of disease and starvation. Yeah, we should definitely welcome the representative to the Human Rights Commission.
Oh, I call Godwin's Law.
<!--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-->UN has many sections that are helping in very serious situations... you can't just ignore that. But you don't care because you believe the whole propaganda **** that's been fed to you by CNN and Fox News.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean instead of jumping on the "fat, stupid Americans" bandwagon?
The UN isn't a government and it has no military. The General Assembly has no legal power. Any authority that the U.N. has stems from a moral position. When the U.N. fails to follow up on or enforce current resolutions, fails to act when there are humanitarian crises and elects blatant human rights violators to it's commission on enforcing human rights, it loses that claim to moral authority. Handing out sacks of rice is all well and good, but it doesn't lend legitimacy to its authority.
<!--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'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).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
America is a democracy in so far as it's always been a democracy. As for the "kindergarten," I suggest you read up on Neoconservative philosophy. I don't really agree with it, but it is an interesting look on things.
<!--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-->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...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The trouble with that is the United Nation isn't facing facts. Even if they are, they aren't doing anything about it. Sitting in U.N. headquarters and saying, "No. Bad Sudan." doesn't solve anything. It's the fact that they aren't "actually helping people" that's the problem. Nothing is being done in the U.N. about Sudan. The U.S. resolution that went through the SC was a toothless warning that if Sudan didn't clean its act up in a month, the Security Council would talk about it more.
Nor does the U.N. take responsibility for its doings. I heard monday on NPR that a U.N. case against one of it's workers who took part in the Rwanda genocide had the case against him dropped by order of the chief prosecutor in spite of evidence that was sufficient to proceed. The U.N. has yet to handle a mass-killing situation with any sort of effectiveness, relying on NATO to deal with Eastern European problems and utterly ignoring the problems in Rwanda. And after having declared that such things would never happen again, they're happening and the U.N. is showing nothing but impotence.
<!--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-->sorry for the rant - nothing personal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've managed to insult most of America and it's government in a totally irrelevant rant about the evil Americans killing innocents and kicking puppies. Yeah, I'd say that it's personal.
Biased in terms of what? That it's anti-UN? Anti-Sudan? Anti-genocide? Because I thought everyone was. My only criticism is it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. It would be funny if thousands of people weren't being slaughtered. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
try 30 million and counting, but no one seems to care...