Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 74

Thread: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

  1. #61
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    Yeah, the janitor's there too, but he doesn't get to ratify treaties either.
    Dont be too sure!!!! Some treaties are only good enough for a guy who cleans toilets
    PeteEU

  2. #62
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    Who cares if we sign it or not. If we violate it, whats the UN going to do about it? Write us a nasty little letter? I say we go ahead and sign a bunch of UN documents and violate all of them, just to show the UN what a worthless, toothless hag it has become.
    Right, it isn't as if the US hasn't recently violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations or anything.

    I still see absolutely NO reason. People say "image." That doesn't cut it with me. Are there any CONCRETE reasons to sign and ratify the treaty?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #63
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Bull****. Treaties are a piece of paper. The content of such treaties depend on what the countries want as content. If a treaty is designed with a "punishment" part then the treaty has more bite, however ultimately any country can say FU to the treaty and do what they want, without much consequence.

    Most treaties are nothing but documents of intent.
    Signed and ratified treaties create BINDING obligations under international law that are typically enforcable judicially through the ICJ.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  4. #64
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    So I assume China is a signatory to this treaty, since everybody but the US and Somalia have ratified it. So where do you believe there is a more systematic abuse of chidrens "rights", the US(a non signatory) or China(a signatory I assume). Signing it means nothing and is a waste of paper and ink. We don't need to sign a UN document, to pass our own legislation in regards to "the chidren".

    The situation in Texas is absurd, because it is not the norm in this country. You seem to be arguing that the situation in Texas is something that is widespread in the US. It is not. It is the exception, not the rule.
    This is exactly correct. Though, in addition to the US and Somalia, Taiwan is also a non-signatory. I would take Taiwan's rights regarding children against the criminal regime in Beiping any day of the week.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #65
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    The hell they are lol. Treaties are NOT laws. They are agreements between countries to follow the principles of the treaty. Some treaties require that certain laws be changed or added but those are rare. Most treaties do however have to be certified by the countries legislative branch, aka the US congress in the US case, before they are accepted by said nation.
    Treaties are the fundamental basis of international law and are typically enforcable through the ICJ.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    No one claimed that you had to sign a UN document to pass your own legislation! Hell most UN documents that the US and EU sign are already on the bloody law books in said areas. Its not us but the rest of the world. That is the whole point. How can we as democracies condemn nations for child exploitation, when we ourselves refuse to sign a treaty that is suppose to fight this on a global level?
    You answered your question with your first two sentences. It doesn't take a resolution or a treaty by the UN to accomplish said rights. And since we have the rules on our own books, we fully reserve the right to condemn the acts of others who do not grant such rights. We don't need a treaty with the UN. We set the example by our actions, not some signed document that actually accomplishes nothing, other than to simply "say" you are going to abide by it. As I point out with my example of China.

    Just because a country like China sings a treaty does not mean that they live up to the treaty.
    Rendering that treaty useless, since it obviously does not matter what you do,even if you sign it.

    However countries around the world do not look up to China.. they do to the US and European countries. We are the guiding lights of democracy, women's rights, stopping child exploitation and so on (or at least we think we are ), and if we could care less about such treaties, why should other nations care about democracy, women's rights and so on?
    Because its not the treaties that have made the difference for women and children in our societies. It is the acts of the individual nations, that they took upon themselves to enact, that are the so called "guiding lights" you refer to. You mention nobody looks up to China, even though they are a signatory. Thats because the action means more than the words. You make my case for me. Signing the treaty is not the action people look up to. Especially in countries where they don't have the educational tools we have at our disposal. You think some child in Africa knows or cares onw way or the other if the US signed this treaty? You think they look at us unfavorably vs. Europe or China, because they have signed this treaty and thus "must mean it"? The treaty is just verbal masturbation on paper. It serves no purpose than to make oneself "feel better", while not accomplishing anything of note. The US should not be a part of the UNs circle jerk.
    While this treaty is not in that league, the principles are still the same. We sign treaties because we agree with them, not because we have to change our laws drastically to live up to them.. that is usually the job of other non western nations. But in signing the treaties we send a very clear message.
    China obviously doesn't agree with the treaty, yet signs it. Why? Because it has no teeth. Its just smoke and mirrors, illusions. Its people wanting to give the appearance of caring about these things, without having to do the hard work to make sure that progress is actually made on the ground. Its arrogance at its best(or worst)

    Of course it is, but that was not the point. And it is a bit more wide spread than just Texas though Dont they have compounds all over the US? But yea it is the exception that is for sure. Just as it is the exception that Jehovas Witnesses are under investigation in several countries for the same bs. But that dont change the fact that these countries have signed the treaty and are investigating Jehovas Witnesses not because of the treaty, but because the legislation was on the books in the first place.
    Of course cults are more widespread than Texas. But not all cults are the same. The one I grew up in had no compounds, or forced marriages but it was considered a cult all the same. These cults, while they may be in each state, are hardly representative of the US population in general, and are a very extreme minority. It makes headlines, because its not normal for these things to happen.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  7. #67
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Signed and ratified treaties create BINDING obligations under international law that are typically enforcable judicially through the ICJ.
    Which the US does not give a damn about.
    PeteEU

  8. #68
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    You answered your question with your first two sentences. It doesn't take a resolution or a treaty by the UN to accomplish said rights. And since we have the rules on our own books, we fully reserve the right to condemn the acts of others who do not grant such rights. We don't need a treaty with the UN. We set the example by our actions, not some signed document that actually accomplishes nothing, other than to simply "say" you are going to abide by it. As I point out with my example of China.
    Sure you can condemn them, but they can only reply, mind your own business as we have no international agreements on such things.. wups that is what the treaties are for you so hate. Without treaties we have no rules or guidelines to run the global political system. Guess you would rather have more anarchy?

    Rendering that treaty useless, since it obviously does not matter what you do,even if you sign it.
    Hardly useless. Not only can people internally in China use the treaty to bang their own government over the head, but the international community can (like they are doing) bang the Chinese government over the head with the treaty. Can the Chinese just ignore it? Sure, but so what? In the global system of image and international politics we in the west have a moral superiority on this issue when it comes to China and we can use the treaty, that they signed, to remind them that they have treaty obligations. And they know it... they might not care, but they do know it, and the opposition in the country knows it too, which gives the opposition "a leg up" in many ways.

    It is all about image and diplomacy. Now you might not agree with such things and only believe in the policies of the gun, but that is not how the world works.

    Because its not the treaties that have made the difference for women and children in our societies. It is the acts of the individual nations, that they took upon themselves to enact, that are the so called "guiding lights" you refer to. You mention nobody looks up to China, even though they are a signatory. Thats because the action means more than the words. You make my case for me. Signing the treaty is not the action people look up to. Especially in countries where they don't have the educational tools we have at our disposal. You think some child in Africa knows or cares onw way or the other if the US signed this treaty? You think they look at us unfavorably vs. Europe or China, because they have signed this treaty and thus "must mean it"? The treaty is just verbal masturbation on paper. It serves no purpose than to make oneself "feel better", while not accomplishing anything of note. The US should not be a part of the UNs circle jerk.
    So basicly you are an isolationist? You could care less what other countries do with their people, but you reserve the right to criticize them based on your own moral values? What makes your moral value "better" than theirs considering there are far more of them? Without a treaty which said countries have agreed on in principle, you cant claim the diplomatic high ground let alone the moral high ground in being critical of them for not living up to their treaty obligations. So what if the Chinese exploit children, the US does not agree with the international community that this is a crime... they have not signed the treaty after all. China and the international community cares very little about US law btw... very very little, so using that as an excuse to be critical of other nations is very hollow. That is why we have treaties and organisations to solve international disputes before they erupt in to a gun fight.

    International diplomacy is guided and run by treaties, that is a fact. Most of these treaties have been made in conjunction with the UN on a global scale. Most of these treaties are broken in some way at some time by many countries with the exception of the western nations (minus the US). This dilutes even more the meaning of treaties yes, but it does not help that the US is on some sort of isolationist binge like the 1930s. Yes most treaties have no teeth, but that was not the intent of the treaties in the first place. Most treaties are a document of intent as I have stated. If the treaty has teeth in, then it is a strong treaty, but they are rare. NATO is one such treaty.. it has teeth.. one member attacked will be defended by the others. UDHR has no teeth.. there is no global police force to pounce on nations that break the UDHR. But is the UDHR useless then?

    China obviously doesn't agree with the treaty, yet signs it. Why? Because it has no teeth. Its just smoke and mirrors, illusions. Its people wanting to give the appearance of caring about these things, without having to do the hard work to make sure that progress is actually made on the ground. Its arrogance at its best(or worst)
    Yes it is smoke and mirrors lol.. that is international diplomacy for god sake! International diplomacy is nothing but smoke and mirrors and image. Not having or agreeing with basic treaties like this, is basicly saying to the world.. bugger off and leave us alone..If that is what you want, fine by me, but then dont come crying about Darfur, Child abuse, terror and what not, because you have no standing or right in the international community, since you want to isolate yourself like North Korea.
    PeteEU

  9. #69
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Sure you can condemn them, but they can only reply, mind your own business as we have no international agreements on such things.. wups that is what the treaties are for you so hate. Without treaties we have no rules or guidelines to run the global political system. Guess you would rather have more anarchy?
    Yep but this isn't even the global politics system. This is the internal affairs of nations. I'd rather you didn't interfere with my nation's sovereignty. I have little wish to interfere in yours.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  10. #70
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,277

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Which the US does not give a damn about.
    Link please?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •