• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. offers its human rights record for U.N. review

The only reason that some Europeans countries still have power in Africa, is because they prop up various regimes with military assistance. *Cough* France *Cough*

That's highly inaccurate. The overwhelming majority of European influence in Africa today comes from the 'deals' their companies impose on African nations in exchange for 'economic investment'. European companies offer to provide a few hundred jobs in certain cities in exchange for having monopolies in some industries. BAE and Tony Blair for example were selling highly expensive and useless aeronautical equipment to nations in Southern Africa. The fact that most of these African nations were already highly indebted to European powers did not seem to be a problem for England. Who cares about the millions who starve because their desperate governments can be swindled for millions? When the deal was exposed, because it was a private transaction, nothing happened and it did not affect England's human rights record.
 
The reason you cooperate with the UN is because your governments are simply too weak to actually pull off any large scale human rights violations. You leave that to the myriad of multinational European corporations which operate within Africa. In West Africa, you won't see the French or British governments getting their hands dirty. However, Europeans are still very much in power of Africa. The difference between today and the 1930s you now leave the colonizing process to Monsanto, Elf and Shell.

Sorry but this is misleading. France does send troops in and has done with places like CAR (Central African Republic) to remove a dictator. However very few Western Nations (including the US and many European nations) have a good record in Africa. Patrice Lumumba was assassinated in what many there believed was a CIA plot and with him went the hopes of many across Africa. He was left wing at the wrong time but he also (like some others) offered peaceful alternatives to some of the dictators placed there by the US as part of its cold war with the USSR.

If you travel across Africa or have any contacts - you will find that China has been working hard to build bridges with many African nations and nobody in the West can match what is happening.

As for Monsanto and Elf - I give you the horrible alternative of Congo and all the looting and rape that has happened there. Neither the US nor Europe can hold their heads up high regarding what has happened in Africa.
 
This isn't about improving anything. It's the usual, "beat up on the United States, because we hate their freedom", fest.

I think I should be able to sue over the damage this caused my brain. This is vapid, uneducated, blatant deflection/dismissal.

There are places worse than America out there. Many many places. Doesn't mean we don't have room to improve. We don't have to change to suit the international flavor of the month. But we can take a subjective look at our own behaviors and decide if we wish to address anything, try to make policies better, try to ensure that our government is working to protect and proliferate our rights.
 
I think I should be able to sue over the damage this caused my brain. This is vapid, uneducated, blatant deflection/dismissal.

There are places worse than America out there. Many many places. Doesn't mean we don't have room to improve. We don't have to change to suit the international flavor of the month. But we can take a subjective look at our own behaviors and decide if we wish to address anything, try to make policies better, try to ensure that our government is working to protect and proliferate our rights.

And how does this report, or this council at the UN do this?


j-mac
 
And how does this report, or this council at the UN do this?


j-mac

It definitely gives a standard by which we can make comparison.
 
It definitely gives a standard by which we can make comparison.

Yeah, and we couldn't do this without airing our dirty laundry to the world? I guess the question I am asking is that if you believe that it is an opportunity for the US to be introspective about our own practices, then do we need the UN, and especially this particular body within that corrupt org. to judge us on this?

j-mac
 
Yeah, and we couldn't do this without airing our dirty laundry to the world? I guess the question I am asking is that if you believe that it is an opportunity for the US to be introspective about our own practices, then do we need the UN, and especially this particular body within that corrupt org. to judge us on this?

j-mac

No we don't need the UN. However, currently it is the UN which offers the standard. We can see how things stack up, we can look at their criticism and see if it's fair. And if we should look for alterations in our policy, it would give a decent starting point to the debate. There's nothing wrong in what we are doing here, and there is nothing that could force us to change. But it is a good chance to examine our own practices as they relate to the international standard.
 
No we don't need the UN. However, currently it is the UN which offers the standard. We can see how things stack up, we can look at their criticism and see if it's fair. And if we should look for alterations in our policy, it would give a decent starting point to the debate. There's nothing wrong in what we are doing here, and there is nothing that could force us to change. But it is a good chance to examine our own practices as they relate to the international standard.


I just believe that we have always looked to human rights in this country as a standard of individual freedom and as such are the leaders in the world. All this report does in my eyes is lend more credence to a board that is replete with violators worse than ourselves in some bizarre self flagellation exercise. And, it gives one more bit of ammo to those opposing the Obama regime to hang the "America sucks" yoke around his neck.

j-mac
 
Yeah, and we couldn't do this without airing our dirty laundry to the world? I guess the question I am asking is that if you believe that it is an opportunity for the US to be introspective about our own practices, then do we need the UN, and especially this particular body within that corrupt org. to judge us on this?

j-mac

It's pretty hard to be objective about your own actions.

Land of the Sea Treaty

Agenda 21

j-mac

Ahh yes. Surrendering our sovereign power over international waters...
 
Last edited:
It's pretty hard to be objective about your own actions.

Oh I don't know about that, we seem to have plenty in here willing to say that America sucks....

Ahh yes. Surrendering our sovereign power over international waters...

And that is all you think those two pieces of crap out of the UN are about?


j-mac
 
Oh I don't know about that, we seem to have plenty in here willing to say that America sucks....

Don't mistaken my critisisms of areas where I feel our country can improve as meaning that I think America sucks. There is nothing wrong in wishing America to be even better tomorrow than it is today.
 
Oh I don't know about that, we seem to have plenty in here willing to say that America sucks....

And we've literally had someone say America has done nothing wrong.



And that is all you think those two pieces of crap out of the UN are about?


j-mac

Instead of me making your argument for you, why don't you tell me? What provision in there troubles you?
 
Whoever invented the phrase "human rights" needs to be shot at dawn.

Really, let's stop pretending that this inane phantasm of "human rights" actually exists and start living in the real world, where the rights you have are the ones you fight for, not the ones that some moral arbiter decides you're entitled to.
 
If a concert of nations of some sorts agrees to a set of standard rights and enforces them within their respective territories then human rights become real.
 
Don't mistaken my critisisms of areas where I feel our country can improve as meaning that I think America sucks. There is nothing wrong in wishing America to be even better tomorrow than it is today.

I'm all for improving our country, as well. What I'm not in favor of, is getting dressed up for a dog-n-pony show, at the UN.
 
If a concert of nations of some sorts agrees to a set of standard rights and enforces them within their respective territories then human rights become real.
In other words, you have "American rights" or "Soviet rights" or "rights that certain people can agree on and enforce in their geographic territory."

There are no "human" rights.
 
Meaningless, politically correct drivel.

The UN is a tiger without teeth.
 
First, let's dispose of an annoying strawman in this thread: "So, we cannot criticize the US because others do the same and worse?". No one is saying we cannot criticize the US (well, maybe one person). No one is saying that we cannot arrest a burglar because a rapist exists (as much as some might want the US arrested). This strawman is invented to deflect from political aggression by the UN. What people are saying is: "to prioriize the US, given UNHRC member states, is ludicrous." To allow the likes of communist dictatorships, total-power monarchs and theocracies (wtf is Libya anyways?) to lecture to the US flies in the face of decency. What we have here is a case of the pot calling the water black.

So, let's end all this "just because they are worse is no reason that blah blah blah" and get it straight - it is the prioritization (and the blatent human-rights abusing UNHRC member states) that offends decent, intelligent educated people.


Second, here's one of my favorite songs by a favorite artist: "Democracy [is coming to the USA]", by Leonard Cohen.

YouTube - Leonard Cohen - Democracy [OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO]
 
Last edited:
A show of goodwill against nations our administrations chuckle about destroying in halls and behind closed doors might help.
The idea of nuking cities in coastal china was seriously considered and thrown around the american government during korea.
Places like Venezuela are convinced the US has strategies to invade. Paranoia? Arguably... Given history, maybe a smart paranoia.

it is the prioritization that offends decent, intelligent educated people.

The decent intelligent educated people tend to understand what goes on in the UN and not talk about it in forums either. So who knows what they think.
 
The decent intelligent educated people tend to understand what goes on in the UN and not talk about it in forums either. So who knows what they think.
Speak for yourself. I'm more than decent, way intelligent and almost a PhD. I tend to think that I most often engage either the topic or another intelligent poster. I write about it in forums because very few rural Kenyans would have any idea what I was talking about (or have any inclination to discuss it instead of farming).

Now, if you don't mind, stop crapping on all of us, and change your ugly avatar.
 
Last edited:
Strange... any proficiency international relations theory or have any expertise on international institutions/law/organizations?

And an avatar change may be fine... still beats something that belongs on the back of a ****ing pickup truck.
 
Back
Top Bottom