Yeah, we're morally superior to the UN - totally. We've never manipulated it for our own purposes, at all!! The world should just trust us, really.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya...

Perhaps we should invite terrorists to sing that old goodie around the campfire while we share Smores with them! Hey, it'd work about as well as this will and it'd be based on the same level of naivete that those who think the United Nations is a good idea have.

BlindMan:

/Decolonization? We're talking about the UN, not the similar sounding imaginary magical UN - that controls the major trends in world history.

Apparently you are just ignorant. The UN has been instrumental in this. Most colonies were ruled by western countries that were UN members, and the actual mechanism for creating independent democratic governments in many dozens of colonies was handled by the UN.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust2.htm

maracle

Good point...the US wont even get onboard for equal rights for women or eliminating land mines. We sabotage everything we can get our hands on, and then complain that what we sabotaged was a failure.


And don't forget the Rwanda genocide... the US Admin sure wasn't too interested in helping out there, not even logistically. Mind you, the rest of the world sucked the bag on this one too.. but the US was best positioned to help. Only if Rwanda had some oil or diamond mines or something...

maracle

Good point...the US wont even get onboard for equal rights for women or eliminating land mines. We sabotage everything we can get our hands on, and then complain that what we sabotaged was a failure.

Now just so we're clear here... you know that in UN initiative-speak:

'equal rights for women' = state funded abortion

right?

Now if you think state funded abortion is great, ok. I disagree, but that's something we can discuss honestly.

But that's the real issue here and no one on either side is falling for the cover story, so why even bother?

/Equal rights = in India 1 in 6 identified female fetuses aborted

This is good news. I'm not surprised at the number of FARKers that don't get it.

This would make attacking civilians a terrorist act, for any country in the UN. Israel is a rather obvious target for something like this, and given the timinig of it, I think it's a nicely-played piece of politics.

It's doubtful that it'll get ratified, sure, but it'll force countries that don't agree with it to explain why, and that will be interesting.

The people that blow themselves up are going to be SCREEEEEWED

US declines to sign treaty outlawing terrorism. World reaction characterized as "shock and awe"

BlindMan:

Now just so we're clear here... you know that in UN initiative-speak:

'equal rights for women' = state funded abortion


That is an outright lie. First, the treaty has no enforcement provisions, it merely is an agreement by countries. Second, no part of the treaty demands state funded abortion. It only requires equal access to health care. Our own state department determined the treaty to be "abortion neutral." Only asshat republicans are the ones that refused to acknowledge women's equality in any way.

Rammek88

Mind you, the rest of the world sucked the bag on this one too..

anyone that posts something like this shouldn't be taken seriously.

I get the whole international enforcement thing.

Maybe they'll enforce it as well as they did the sanctions and resolutions against Saddam!

/karp


Lemme guess, this is the classic neo-con argument "the UN had a scandal, therefore it's ok that we do the same"

I miss America before we thought like this.

um, just to provide a Canadian perspective on this - don't you think outlawing terrorism it is a little agressive?
How about just fining people or giving them a stern warning?

Good...Gravy....


I wish we had political viagra, so maybe the UN wouldnt be impotent for each 36 hour dose......

maracle

I said:
/Decolonization? We're talking about the UN, not the similar sounding imaginary magical UN - that controls the major trends in world history.

You said:
Apparently you are just ignorant. The UN has been instrumental in this. Most colonies were ruled by western countries that were UN members, and the actual mechanism for creating independent democratic governments in many dozens of colonies was handled by the UN.

Can you hear me, like audibly sighing, all the way over the internet?

In that, yes like every nation on earth is basically a member of the UN, yes UN nations and therefore I suppose the UN was involved in decolonializing. But in that case the UN was also involved in the resurgence of boy bands, because that also took place in UN member nations.

And oh, jesus christ, if we're thanking the UN for their questionable and sporadic role in setting up post colonial governments, perhaps we should begin to thank our assholes for generously providing us with big pieces of shiat.

The only post colonial governments worth a goddamned (which is few) were set up by influential leaders in the country involved and drew on their personal character and national influence as well as pre colonial cultural identity... not some stupid farking general assembly resolution (of which there are so many, if they were converted to tasty cheeseburgers, Michael Moore couldn't eat them all).

/While I did yell out 'Police Suck!' one time, I am not personally responsible for the LA Riots. There may have been larger historical factors at play, capeesh?

KazamaSmokers
They're drawing up the treaty so that international courts will have a universal legal framework to work within.

There's no such thing as "international courts". The entire concept of "international law" is just that -- conceptual. There is ONE so-called international court at The Hague, but the United States does not recognize its authority, nor does Israel, or many other countries around the world.

Unsurprisingly, the countries that do recognize its authority are mostly European and Arab nations, and the complaints they bring typically revolve around "Zionist persecution of Muslims" and "The evil United States".

Also, the Constitution of the United States would not permit the recognition of an international court, because it is the "supreme law of the land" and the US does not recognize outside legal authority over itself or its citizens.

/Treaties fall into a different category
//look it up

Dancin_In_Anson: .How many of those programs could have been done wothout the UN?

Could have been done? Probably all of them. Would have been done? Probably none of them. At least not by us

They require a lot of money, and a lot of logistical support. Remember that "UN Troops" are really just troops from member states.

Did you know that the USA contributes only 4% of peacekeeping troops? We also contribute a rather small amount of foreign aid in the overall scope of things. Who do you think would do this stuff if the UN didn't organize it? Probably no one.

Someone should hijack a plane and fly it into Kofi Annan's nostril.

Jello99, you insult your own country in a fashion that shows how naive you are about what more powerful countries have been up to in the world for the last fifty or sixty years.
I'll post this again, have a look.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Articles 40-45 in Chapter 7 give the UN the power to use arms to intercede and also says where these arms come from. The UN just needs to start enacting on these ideas. FDR wrote the blueprints for this organization so that it would have some teeth, unlike the League of Nations. I don't know where those teeth have gone.

Dancin_In_Anson: I'm good with some of those examples...How many of those programs could have been done wothout the UN?

To be fair, it's now how many could have been done. It's how many would have been done. I hate what the UN has become, but they do a fair job at most of the humanitarian efforts that they decide to take part in. They also do a fair job at raising global exposure to gross abuses by some nations. If that was all they did, then I'd be happy with them as a whole. It's when they try to define what a nation's policies should be that I get annoyed.

For the record, I hate it when the US does the same.

maracle

I said:
Now just so we're clear here... you know that in UN initiative-speak:

'equal rights for women' = state funded abortion

You said:
That is an outright lie. First, the treaty has no enforcement provisions, it merely is an agreement by countries. Second, no part of the treaty demands state funded abortion. It only requires equal access to health care. Our own state department determined the treaty to be "abortion neutral." Only asshat republicans are the ones that refused to acknowledge women's equality in any way.

You can keep your fingers in you ears and sing at the top of your lungs, but seriously dude, who are you trying to propagandize here? Everyone familiar with the situation which I presume includes you... knows that state sponsored abortion initiatives (note the difference between sponsored and mandated) are the contentious issue. That also includes me, sorry.

There are those who consider abortion 'health care' and there are those that don't. There are those who say that abortion is central to women's rights, and there are those who don't think so. Fine if you think so, but don't be pointedly stupid about what's at issue.

/You can go on saying that these measure are controversial here just because republicans are generally fans of widow burning and dowry killings all day, but you'll only make it obvious that you were just grinding a political axe to begin with.

Do criminals really care about your criminal code ?

Before posting insanities like the headline, think about the ins and outs.. Many countries don't have serious dispositions about terrorism. An international treaty would put pressure on them.. War against terror is not the business of the sole US.. Keeping in mind the recent history, I would have thought that the American people would care more about an international issues, and furthermore an international concertation on the matter..

Apprently not, and it is sad.

BlindMan:

In that, yes like every nation on earth is basically a member of the UN, yes UN nations and therefore I suppose the UN was involved in decolonializing. But in that case the UN was also involved in the resurgence of boy bands, because that also took place in UN member nations.

Christ, you just don't get it do you? Lets say England decides to make one of their current colonies independant. The actual mechanism for doing this would likely be having the specialists in the UN organize an interim government, arrange elections, etc etc. This is what they do, they've done it many many times before and are good at it. The new government should be independant, rather than hand selected by the previous colonial ruler. That is why a somewhat independant organization like the UN usually handles this kind of thing. The problem here is that you had a preconceived notion, and it was wrong. Accept it.

The only post colonial governments worth a goddamned (which is few) were set up by influential leaders in the country involved and drew on their personal character and national influence as well as pre colonial cultural identity... not some stupid farking general assembly resolution (of which there are so many, if they were converted to tasty cheeseburgers, Michael Moore couldn't eat them all).

If you actually read the link I posted you would have seen many many countries that are just fine today.

The UN has been exactly what the American government has needed it to be. We've used it and abused just like everyone else, despite the ravings of some of our ignorant, self-righteous populace.

Well, the problem with stuff like this is simple: the countries who already agree will sign, and the countries who don't agree will sign.

Then, the countries that sponsor terrorists (however you define the term) will continue on doing what they do, except in a more discreet manner. If the UN comes knocking, well, deny deny deny (in a nice way), and they'll go away. It works even better if you speak to them in a lingo of victimization ("this is just another attempt at the imposition of American values, blah blah") . Bonus points if you hire an ultra-sophisticated European-based PR firm to do the talking for you.

All the UN is good at is soft soft, and that depends on what you mean by the word "good."

Realistically speaking, the UN is really only a forum. All the other stuff is ancillary to its purpose as a forum, which is why it does almost everything relatively poorly.

A treaty against targeting civilians? That's unamerican...

I'm interested if anyone from outside the US shares the "UN sucks" view - any Canadian, Aussie, Brit Farkers agree with that?

BlindMan:

You can keep your fingers in you ears and sing at the top of your lungs, but seriously dude, who are you trying to propagandize here? Everyone familiar with the situation which I presume includes you... knows that state sponsored abortion initiatives (note the difference between sponsored and mandated) are the contentious issue. That also includes me, sorry.


That is the issue quoted by opponents of the CEDAW, but it is completely bogus. The state department says it is abortion neutral. The committee that wrote the CEDAW says it is not meant to promote abortion. And who has signed the treaty? Well, countries like Ireland where abortion is banned. 179 countries have ratified this treaty...it does not guarantee abortion, it is only used that way as a weapon by UN haters like yourself.

It's not that the UN sucks, it's that the UN is hypocritical and ineffective. What dictatorship is next to lead the commission on human rights? Why isn't the Darfur situation deemed a "genocide"?

When terrorism will be outlawd, only outlaws... this does not compute...

See, too many people are focusing on the marriages thread. This thread is suffering. Farking Californians.

scooby111 [TotalFark]

The problem isn't defining terrorism. That's easy. The problem is punishing terrorism.

nah, defining it is tough to. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

This is a difficult one to tackle with international law, as terrorism often falls within the confines of national law -ie. it's basically a simple, criminal act, and is therefore dealt with by the country affected under their own criminal system (or in America's case outside their criminal system, because they can).

I'll be interested to see some more specifics.

the UN is only relevant when it suits the GOP agenda. eg, the UN's resolutions on Iraq were justification for the Iraq war after it came to light that WMDs were a complete fabrication.

when the UN passes resolutions for Israel to leave the Palestinian Occupied territories or some other subject that conservatives do not support, they are irrelevant.

pick and choose, pick and choose.

The_Other_White_Boy

Rammek88

Mind you, the rest of the world sucked the bag on this one too..

anyone that posts something like this shouldn't be taken seriously.

Sorry, maybe I should have said "the rest of the world a) dropped the ball, b) screwed up royally, c) doesn't give a shiat about others, or d) is only interested in itself. Pick one, you ignorant farkstick.

Get your head out of your ass and take a look around. biatch.

maracle

I said:
In that, yes like every nation on earth is basically a member of the UN, yes UN nations and therefore I suppose the UN was involved in decolonializing. But in that case the UN was also involved in the resurgence of boy bands, because that also took place in UN member nations.

You said:
Christ, you just don't get it do you? Lets say England decides to make one of their current colonies independant. The actual mechanism for doing this would likely be having the specialists in the UN organize an interim government, arrange elections, etc etc. This is what they do, they've done it many many times before and are good at it.

No, they really aren't good at it all. See below.

The new government should be independant, rather than hand selected by the previous colonial ruler. That is why a somewhat independant organization like the UN usually handles this kind of thing. The problem here is that you had a preconceived notion, and it was wrong. Accept it.

If the new government is going to be independant, it's only possible because the people of THAT NATION see it as legitimate. Sorry, I know you have an 'I (Heart) The UN' bumper sticker on your Prius, but it isn't the UN blessing that makes a strong government possible. It has little to nothing to do with it. EVEN the prior colonists positive involvement is more likely to be effective, for that matter.

I said:
The only post colonial governments worth a goddamned (which is few) were set up by influential leaders in the country involved and drew on their personal character and national influence as well as pre colonial cultural identity... not some stupid farking general assembly resolution (of which there are so many, if they were converted to tasty cheeseburgers, Michael Moore couldn't eat them all).

You said:
If you actually read the link I posted you would have seen many many countries that are just fine today.

Ok, I actually did read it, and to my surprise, the list of nations that were formerly colonies includes nations that were formerly colonies, which are almost without exception - hell holes. Is that not PC enough for you? Ok, try - impoverished third world countries with despotic governments.

I could manage to pick a couple off the list that are slightly less shiatty than the rest. But I'd rather just call into question the notion that because I might be involved to any extent in a major undertaking means that it's all a result of my good efforts (or even less that even my small function couldn't have been performed by someone else). I already implied that, but nuance ain't your bag, so ok.

Anyway, it's imperialist dick-weed thinking to assume that nothing good could have ever happened in any colonial country without the US financed, western dominated UN there to hold the poor brown people's hands.

/I'd like to point out then, that I served several hamburgers for Wendy's in the late 90's and I hold the corporations continual success since then as an immense personal triumph.
//Oh incidentally, 90% of the burgers I served ended up killing people and making their lives miserable, but that's not my fault.

Oh, this is rich. A treaty outlawing terrorism proposed by someone found guilty of funneling billions of taxpayer money to a terrorist named Saddam. Did Annan even get so much as a verbal reprimand? How in the hell is he still in power?

Snorkblaster: "It's not that the UN sucks, it's that the UN is hypocritical and ineffective. "


Umm, get your head out of your ass, pal. We're every bit as hypocritical. I'll post this once again. We aren't the shining beacon of moraL superiority that Bush's dim-witted constituency believes we are.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm

For those who complain that international tretaties and are useless and without meaning:

Who do you think is responsible for that? Who do you think has sabotaged the international crminal court on every step and even threatened to invade the Hague should the court ever try trial one of its one. Who has been going around bribing tin-pot dictators in third world countries into secretly getting an exemptinon from the IC.

Who has been going around and dismateling treaties and conventions about everything from prisoner treatment, nuclear profileration, women's rights or climate control?

Who feels they are not bound by international law? Who is that would have the most to fear from any sort of international treaty against 'terrorism'. Who do you think will do their best that such a treaty will never become enforceable?

If you RTFA, it says in the very first sentence: establish a framework for a collective response to the global threat.

This is not about politely asking terrorists to please stop killing people, it is about countries working together to stop terrorism.

forditude --
"Oh, this is rich. A treaty outlawing terrorism proposed by someone found guilty of funneling billions of taxpayer money to a terrorist named Saddam. Did Annan even get so much as a verbal reprimand? How in the hell is he still in power?"


Guns are banned inside the UN?

Well, unless you were someone named Arafat.

grayson:

I'm interested if anyone from outside the US shares the "UN sucks" view - any Canadian, Aussie, Brit Farkers agree with that?

it seems only Americans that think the UN sucks, Most other nations think that the world bank and the IMF leads the race in suckage

So now that we all agree it's stupid to have anti-terror laws, can we repeal the patriot act?

Hey forditude... some of your American companies cashed in. And that's proven. Did they get in shiat?