Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark]

pixelboy:

the US isn't exactly known for following treaties it has signed, and is notorious for not honoring or backing out of previously signed treaties during this administration.


And your examples are...

I'll take ABM and SALT2 for 500, Alex.

Firefly

says it all

Although this may be useless against stateless terrorists, it could be useful in formally condemning state terrorism, such as that practices by the United States and Israel.

Many more die from state terrorism than have ever died from stateless terrorists.

Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark]

firefly212: I'll take ABM and SALT2 for 500, Alex


The signing countries were...?

We were not only signatory to both, we were partial originators of the original documents. :) We have since left both treaties to pursue our missile defense shield... without comment on whether it is good or bad... it just is how it is. (Personally I support the idea of air to air missile interceptors, but I would have preferred to start it out under the table under other ospices).

Firefly

"And your examples are..."

Uh.. softwood lumber and beef exports from Canada? Two major sticking points in US/Canadian relations at the moment.

Best situation for the world: A well-run UN

Dangerous sitaution for the world: No UN

Potentially catastrophic situation for the world: A badly-run UN

"Potentially catastrophic situation for the world: A badly-run UN"

An interesting opinion. How so?

A badly run UN is what we have now. No UN at all is what we need.

The UN is marginaly useful, i would like it if the USA would dissolve Nato and minimize its profile in the UN, then start a new organization made only of nations which have a true democratic pluralistic system and are serious about promoting freedom and stifling dictators. This new organization could meet and decide what policy they will take about any given situation and then present that united front to the world.

"and then present that united front to the world."

The irony of that just kills me.

"And the bad beef is a bit of a problem too isn't it?"


Umm, even our own people say their beef is safe. The continuation of the ban is purely at the behest of a protectionist beef lobby.

It was'nt outlawed before ......?

Impudent Domain

The UN is marginaly useful, i would like it if the USA would dissolve Nato and minimize its profile in the UN, then start a new organization made only of nations which have a true democratic pluralistic system and are serious about promoting freedom and stifling dictators. This new organization could meet and decide what policy they will take about any given situation and then present that united front to the world.

See, that got to me... it was nice, until you said the organizations would only be nations "which have a true democratic pluralistic system." Well, the thing about that is that excludes my nation, which is a republic, that operates via an electoral college to elect a president, sometimes even though his opponent had more votes from the citizenry. Erm, I guess what I'm saying is, we need to not be hypocritical douchebags, and allow that other nations may democratically decide to install theocratic governance just as we currently are gradually shifting towards having more religion mixed with government... we should further realize that demanding perfection excludes all, including ourselves... without that much recognition, there would be no policy at all... we are imperfect men, making imperfect policies, and nothing, no matter how grand a design, can change that.

Firefly

I have a website???

Transparency is the key. Theoretically, as the information age progresses it's going to be more and more difficult for rich countries to screw over the rest of the world the way we have. But, as we see here on fark, mass delusion is still a problem. Too many of us here in the west believe that our superior living standards were earned fairly or are the result of some sort of moral superiority. But hey, we didn't invent exploitation. The world isn't that simple. We're all hypocrits of a sort, and you can't escape contradiction in life. But the dabate will have to broaden if any progress is to be made, because currently it is far too dominated by incredibly simplistic world-views.

/2cents
//is there such a thing as a bacon-flavored milkshake??

Funny... but every time this one is attempted, it's the US who refuses to sign the treaty. Claiming it has the right to use whatever tactics it feels are in it's best interest.

Outlawing terrorism has been on the books for more than 2 decades now.

Who really thinks the US would sign this time? If it was really out to ban terrorism 9/12/2001 we would have seen a presentaton before the UN Assembly on this. We didn't.

To add to my above comment:

I'm hoping it does get passed. If nothing more than for it's symbolic meaning. And that countries promise not to fund it.

Though terrorism needs to be defined, and include "state sponsored". i.e. just because your a country, doesn't mean you can't perform terrorism.

2005-03-14 04:41:16 PM doctor wu


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.
actually doctor wu, all it shows is how ineffective i am at being funny sometimes, i had my tongue firmly planted ni my cheek when i wrote that comment.

Also, Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark]

I'll take "And your examples are..." for $400,

How about The Geneva Convention, FOUR TIMES!!! (the US has been up to 18 years late signing various versions of this document, and haven't had a great track record of following it (guantanamo)

""one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

no... once a "freedom fighter" uses a cowardly, sneaky terrorist act then he is no longer "fighting". He is a terrorist.

/also hates AWP Wh0rz in CS"

Cowardly things like using tanks that can target and fire on an enemy within half a second, or sitting off the coast in the water firing missiles, right?

The UN its last shreds of respectability the day it replaced the US with Syria on the human rights comittee.
Also with almost 40% of its resolutions against Israel it is just plain stupid. I think people associate liberal with the UN because of people like John Kerry and others who said we need to work within the framework of international law no matter how stupid it seems

I wonder if this bill was right next to the one that also declaired booosh the worlds worst terrorist. Since 90% of the people outside the US think this to be true, it must be.

Rammek88:

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


Those bastards set the thermostat to 75 instead of 68!

firefly212 is DA WINNER!

No more calls please.

/slash slut
//now low carb

Ugh. Shades of the Kellogg-Briand pact. Smooth move, international body. Way to follow in the footsteps of failure.

I blame Bush for foolishly revealing the UN as a powerless body of hot air. The world was a nicer place when we could at least imagine that international accord existed.

um . . . so y'all don't want a framework of international law to deal specifically with terrorist acts?

well, i mean, i don't, as i'm sure some of my favorite groups around the world would be targeted by it unfairly. but it surprises me that so many right-wingers agree with me.

polecat_bastard

um . . . so y'all don't want a framework of international law to deal specifically with terrorist acts?

RTFA, there were already 12 others. The thing is that when you've proven yourself unwilling to act when someone violates your law then making rules is pointless. Thus the UN is irrelevant.

Think of it like the kid in the grocery store screaming at the top of his lungs. The UN is the mom shaking her head and begging the child to stop. Bush is the parent who slaps the kid in the mouth. Certainly not PC, and not really pretty but the kid DOES learn a lesson.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Annan is turning out to be even worse than Boutrous^2 Ghali (hard to believe isn't it??).

"You know what the U.N. should do, sanction me. They should sanction my *ss. Oh, THAT'S RIGHT. They don't have an ARMY. I know what I'd do if I didn't have an army, I'd STFU. STFU. S...T...FU."

thank you U.N., thats the first good laugh I've had in a long time. Now if only I didn't feel like crying afterwards...

I'm not going to bother reading the other posts.

Has no one ever heard of "State Sponsored Terrorism"?

If the US agreed to it, you know they would be breaking a promise whenever they try to put a hit out on a foreign leader.

It's already illegal to assasinate foreign leaders, the only reason the US avoids it though, is that they're too scared that someone else will sink to their level.
Does the poster think that it's not worthwhile that murder is illegal too? Moron.

Black Bush is one of the funniest things on TV right now.

"He tried to kill my father!"

tHeCoNmAn2k5 Badong is one of my favourite words. You rock for that post!

As for the U.N. whatnot going on here, why not take steps to make the U.N. more effective rather than complaining about it all the time? Its failures lie with the security council. Empower the general assembly and/or remove the veto powers of the permanent security council members and it might be more able to act.

So now that the definition of terrorist is "someone who targets civilians", what's the definition of civilian? If I don't wear a uniform, and I work out of my house (who do I sound like), am I a civilian? When the army kicks down my door and confescates my guns, aren't they targeting civilians?

2005-03-14 05:15:19 PM grayson

billions of taxpayer money to a terrorist named Saddam - forditude

Wow. Just... wow. Fortitude, do yourself an immense favour, and Google "saddamn CIA training communism"

Too bad Saddam didn't have the foresight to offer to step down and take up a teaching position at, oh I don't know, maybe University of Colorado, where he could claim to be Indian and call the people who died in the WTC as 'little Eichmann's' and not apologize for it.

2005-03-14 08:05:11 PM jello99

Also, Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark]

I'll take "And your examples are..." for $400,

How about The Geneva Convention, FOUR TIMES!!! (the US has been up to 18 years late signing various versions of this document, and haven't had a great track record of following it (guantanamo)
Just as a side note to some people:

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians.

In principle, to be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured servicemember must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practise these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, the importance of uniforms -or as in the guerrilla case, a badge- to keep this important rule of warfare.

/Tell him what he didn't win, Don Pardo!

I imagine the "terrorists" in Camp X-Ray have a few things to say about how the US doesn't follow treaties either.

Morality is relative, one always believes he or she is a moral person. The problem with the current mindset of our government and it's constitutants is that they honestly believe that the actions of terrorists gives us justification to use torture, break treaties, infringe civil liberties and a host of other activities that reflect poorly on the United States.

The method in which we fight terrorism is important. The way that we treat our prisoners is how we expect our troops to be treated when they are captured.

AnonymousGuy is the biggest asshat on Fark ever. Pretty amazing really.

Blindman

Have you read the agreement that is mean to be about abortion? Here is the dramatic, terrible things it says to promote abortion...

[that women have the right to] "decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality ... free of coercion, discrimination and violence."

Now, one could say this is saying women are free to have abortions. But it doesn't. It is saying that a women has the right to say no...it could be read to be about abortion, but it could be read to be nothing about abortion.

So lets discount the opinion of the US, of the Vatican, of Ireland, in fact anyone's opinion. Point me to the evidence that states demonstrates your assertion that

"'equal rights for women' = state funded abortion"

Wow, I took the title of Biggest Asshat On Fark from KinetiKiteniK?

Woo hoo! Must have been in that cage match when I snuck in the folding chair and whammo! New champion!

What a fascinating bit of criticism you've made there, KinetiKiteniK. Did you stay up all night, fingers poised over the keyboard, writing and re-writing each sentence until you found just the perfect combination of words, or what? Really, inquiring minds want to know. Please don't hold back on us. We all wait with bated breath, anxiously awaiting your next pearl of wisdom.

Or are you just illustrating the old saying, "If you can't debate the facts, debate the opponent"?

/ I think I found somebody who is still watching that drive.