• 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

j-mac said:
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
Click to expand...

Unlike many other countries, the US already airs its dirty laundry to the world. It is one of the most open societies on the planet. It is the countries that DON'T have such openness are the ones that need the HRC to pry them open ... not the US and most EU countries...
 
ludahai said:
I would not mind it from a group of like-minded countries. I would accept criticism from most EU members and a variety of other Member States (even the likes of Namibia and South Africa) over many of the states that are, in fact, members of the HRC.
Click to expand...

The UN has ignored Rwanda and Dafur but now want to examine the human rights of Americans, a people with a free media and the ability to leave. In fact a country which millions of people would want to enter.

By offering these dictatorships a record of the American Human Rights, whatever it may contain, it gives them a legitimacy they otherwise don't deserve.

When we allow these third world despots to pass judgment on any of the democracies then we have indeed entered that much discussed slippery slope.

The sooner BHO is out of office, and a defender of democracy is elected, the less dangerous the world will become.
 
Leo said:
Perhaps Monseur Le Marteau was suggesting that Americans should care about what the non-corrupt people of the world, who are not buffoons, might think? Or are you simply suggesting that that every nation other than the USA is composed of corrupt buffons?
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was suggesting.

I've quoted it for expressing a gem of intelligent truth.
 
Leo said:
Perhaps Monseur Le Marteau was suggesting that Americans should care about what the non-corrupt people of the world, who are not buffoons, might think?
Click to expand...

In which case, the United Nations is obviously not the venue for such an exposition.
 
Gardener said:
In which case, the United Nations is obviously not the venue for such an exposition.
Click to expand...


Well exactly.

If anyone would want to investigate the history of human rights in the United States, quite apart from the many thousands of books published on the subject already, then it should be those nations who have a history of positive human rights and how each democracy might improve on them.

But having the corrupt UN do the investigating is straight ahead propaganda, designed to encourage the anti American Left, as well as to justify further attacks by terrorists.

You'll notice that the UN no has no interest in investigating human rights abuses in Muslim countries and, in fact, have made it illegal to criticize them at all.

This issues demonstrates just how far the Leftist anti American will go, and they care not who their fellow travelers might be.
 
j-mac said:
Yes, wonderful display of like minded pap.


j-mac
Click to expand...

So, agreeing with something already stated means I have no thoughts of my own?

Could it not be that, just maybe, we're of a like mind, and we've reached that consensus through different thought processes, because it's a fairly logical theory to support?
 
Grant said:
Well exactly.

If anyone would want to investigate the history of human rights in the United States, quite apart from the many thousands of books published on the subject already, then it should be those nations who have a history of positive human rights and how each democracy might improve on them.

But having the corrupt UN do the investigating is straight ahead propaganda, designed to encourage the anti American Left, as well as to justify further attacks by terrorists.

You'll notice that the UN no has no interest in investigating human rights abuses in Muslim countries and, in fact, have made it illegal to criticize them at all.

This issues demonstrates just how far the Leftist anti American will go, and they care not who their fellow travelers might be.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely not illegal to criticise Middle-Eastern governments on human rights -- in fact, several reports come out each year on human rights violations in Muslim nations. So, stop lying, firstly.

Secondly, only an international body could have the neutrality to investigate human rights violations in all nations. Or would you prefer America to continually submit to human rights investigations from, say France? I know the French or the British wouldn't stand for the Americans investigating their internal affairs.

Why? Because all nations are guilty of some human rights violations. None of the nations on earth today have a perfect record. So for America to investigate France, or for France to investigate America would be rather hypocritical.

The UN, however, while not perfect in cataloguing every human rights issue on Earth, at least has a neutral eye towards it.

The idea that the UN is somehow specifically anti-American is ridiculous, and moreover, arrogant. The UN is made up of all the member states of that organisation -- America is part of the UN, and thus, a part of the UN IS America. It can't be anti-American. It can simply be fair, which can seem very unfair from nationalist standpoints.
 
Le Marteau said:
It is absolutely not illegal to criticise Middle-Eastern governments on human rights -- in fact, several reports come out each year on human rights violations in Muslim nations. So, stop lying, firstly.

Secondly, only an international body could have the neutrality to investigate human rights violations in all nations. Or would you prefer America to continually submit to human rights investigations from, say France? I know the French or the British wouldn't stand for the Americans investigating their internal affairs.

Why? Because all nations are guilty of some human rights violations. None of the nations on earth today have a perfect record. So for America to investigate France, or for France to investigate America would be rather hypocritical.

The UN, however, while not perfect in cataloguing every human rights issue on Earth, at least has a neutral eye towards it.

The idea that the UN is somehow specifically anti-American is ridiculous, and moreover, arrogant. The UN is made up of all the member states of that organisation -- America is part of the UN, and thus, a part of the UN IS America. It can't be anti-American. It can simply be fair, which can seem very unfair from nationalist standpoints.
Click to expand...




the UN commits horrid acts of rape and murder, they are not neutral either.
 
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Burundi
Haiti
Liberia
Kosovo
serbia
etc....




U.N. Faces More Accusations of Sexual Misconduct (washingtonpost.com)



I strongly recommend you read:

Amazon.com: Barracks and Brothels: Peacekeepers and Human Trafficking in the Balkans (Csis Panel Report) (9780892064649): Sarah Elizabeth Mendelson: Books


I have seen the horrors of UN "peacekeepers" first hand.




Cambodians beaten, raped and killed at illegal detention camp funded by UN | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Ah, you mean UN Peacekeepers. I thought you were referring to some UN resolution that was clearly against international law, which then was enforced by UN soldiers. Which of course has not occurred.

Anyway, I've no problem agreeing that not all UN Peacekeepers have been perfect angels, so to speak. Such is the nature of war, and they're not exempt from it, even if they wear blue berets that say they're there just for peaceful purposes.

However, I ask you -- where is a forum as truly international, and as relatively clean, as the UN, that could make inquiries into the human rights and international law abuses of all nations?

The UN isn't perfect, nothing is. But I would argue that the UN is the best possible choice.

Who else would you suggest to perform this function?
 
Le Marteau said:
Ah, you mean UN Peacekeepers. I thought you were referring to some UN resolution that was clearly against international law, which then was enforced by UN soldiers. Which of course has not occurred.

Anyway, I've no problem agreeing that not all UN Peacekeepers have been perfect angels, so to speak. Such is the nature of war, and they're not exempt from it, even if they wear blue berets that say they're there just for peaceful purposes.

However, I ask you -- where is a forum as truly international, and as relatively clean, as the UN, that could make inquiries into the human rights and international law abuses of all nations?
Click to expand...


I would grant you this concession, but I still have in my burn box from those days long ago a copy of a memo telling UN peacekeepers to park thier vans out of site of the underage brothels so as to not make the UN look bad.

Here check out this article its about Cambodia, but it demonstrates I am not the only one who has witnessed this:


A memo distributed to UN personnel says: ‘Please try not to park your Landcruiser outside brothels
Click to expand...

http://www.newint.org/features/1993/04/05/keynote/



The UN isn't perfect, nothing is. But I would argue that the UN is the best possible choice.
Click to expand...


I would laugh at this notion. This international house of dictators is only good at eating up prime New York Real Estate and embezzling sanction money.


Who else would you suggest to perform this function?
Click to expand...


No idea. No clue, don't really care. We as Americans are fine policing our selves.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
I would grant you this concession, but I still have in my burn box from those days long ago a copy of a memo telling UN peacekeepers to park thier vans out of site of the underage brothels so as to not make the UN look bad.

Here check out this article its about Cambodia, but it demonstrates I am not the only one who has witnessed this:




Keynote -- New Internationalist






I would laugh at this notion. This international house of dictators is only good at eating up prime New York Real Estate and embezzling sanction money.





No idea. No clue, don't really care. We as Americans are fine policing our selves.
Click to expand...


I'd be much more happy to agree with you that the UN needs to change, if only you didn't offer such a ridiculous claim as "Americans are fine policing ourselves". It's nothing against the Americans in particular, but that's as asinine as saying "I never make any mistakes, and therefore I never need your help". Americans can do a fine job of policing American streets, yes, but Americans will have a hard time policing their government, or their society writ large. Why? Because they're too close to it. By nature of being American, they're not going to be able to see the problems with some things American. Just as the French can't see some of the problems that come from French policies, and the Brits can't see some problems that come from British actions.

Essentially, you need an outsider's input. I'm not saying the outsider's input should be the sole word of law, but, for example, when writing an article for publishing -- it's a wise choice to get outside editing, just because you're too close to the writing to spot all the mistakes yourself.

It's the same with nations -- and some sort of organisation that can help be the world's neutral 'editor' would be an undeniable good.

Perhaps it is the UN now, perhaps it is a reformed UN, perhaps it's something entirely different from the UN. But it has to be something.
 
I hope you understand, after what I saw with UN peacekeepers I'd rather put a bullet through a few of those blue helmeted jack booted thugs lon before I support any change with the UN other than disbandment.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Burundi
Haiti
Liberia
Kosovo
serbia
etc....




U.N. Faces More Accusations of Sexual Misconduct (washingtonpost.com)



I strongly recommend you read:

Amazon.com: Barracks and Brothels: Peacekeepers and Human Trafficking in the Balkans (Csis Panel Report) (9780892064649): Sarah Elizabeth Mendelson: Books


I have seen the horrors of UN "peacekeepers" first hand.




Cambodians beaten, raped and killed at illegal detention camp funded by UN | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Let's not forget UN ambulances being used to transport Hezbollah fighters and storing ammunition for Hezbollah at the UN's base.
 
Im sure all these atrocities were sanctioned by the leaders of the UN!
 
SE102 said:
Im sure all these atrocities were sanctioned by the leaders of the UN!
Click to expand...

They sure as weren't investigated by the UN and no one was ever prosecuted. Is that the level of accountability you're looking for, in the panel that puts the United States under a microscope?
 
apdst said:
They sure as weren't investigated by the UN and no one was ever prosecuted. Is that the level of accountability you're looking for, in the panel that puts the United States under a microscope?
Click to expand...
The only people liberals hold accountable are Republicans -- where just an accusation of impropriety is grounds for removal from office.
 
Le Marteau

It is absolutely not illegal to criticise Middle-Eastern governments on human rights -- in fact, several reports come out each year on human rights violations in Muslim nations. So, stop lying, firstly.
Click to expand...

A resolution which has recently passed in the UN makes it illegal to be critical of Islam, and of course the laws which govern these Muslims nations is Sharia. Thus there shall be no criticism of those nations which are governed under Islamic sharia law, a law based on the subjugation of the weak (women, children, Gays) by the powerful. It obviously breeds ignorance and hatreds and yet criticizing this backward and dangerous religion has managed to be made illegal by the UNHRC.

UN passes resolution calling for criminalization of criticism of Islam

UN-acceptable censorship: The United Nations tries to outlaw criticism of Islam
Secondly, only an international body could have the neutrality to investigate human rights violations in all nations. Or would you prefer America to continually submit to human rights investigations from, say France? I know the French or the British wouldn't stand for the Americans investigating their internal affairs.
Click to expand...

And which 'international body' would that be? The ICC? The UN? It argued by some that the ICC should have this job while others say the UN. Both are corrupt and should be disbanded. The Americans have expressed no interest in examining the human rights in either France or Britain, two well established democracies with a strong history of human rights. It is generally the third world where human rights are most in danger and that, of course, includes almost all Muslim, and communist, nations.
Why? Because all nations are guilty of some human rights violations. None of the nations on earth today have a perfect record. So for America to investigate France, or for France to investigate America would be rather hypocritical.
Click to expand...

"Some" human rights violations? No comparison can be found in Britain or France where young girls cannot attend school, where young gays are being publicly hanged, where hatreds are being taught in grade school, where accused adulterers are stoned to death by authorities, and the list goes on. This is the most disgusting and inhumane group of misfits since the Communists managed to gain some power and now the world must beat off these madmen as well.

The UN, however, while not perfect in cataloguing every human rights issue on Earth, at least has a neutral eye towards it.
Click to expand...

Whatever are you talking about here? Do you not follow the UN? Are you not aware of its history? Is the media being actively censored where you live?

The idea that the UN is somehow specifically anti-American is ridiculous, and moreover, arrogant. The UN is made up of all the member states of that organisation -- America is part of the UN, and thus, a part of the UN IS America. It can't be anti-American. It can simply be fair, which can seem very unfair from nationalist standpoints.
Click to expand...

OOO! America is arrogant! And so they should be, as well as France, Britain and all the other democracies. Who wants to emigrate to third world nations ruled by dictators and religious fanatics? The UN should be composed only of democracies. Theocracies, dictatorships and the like should not be tolerated.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 2 is especially appropriate to Islam run nations. They should be expelled from the UN unless they allow freedom of religion. In fact it would be far better to drop the UN altogether and an organization composed only of legitimate democracies be established.
 
Grant said:
Le Marteau



Thus there shall be no criticism of those nations which are governed under Islamic sharia law, a law based on the subjugation of the weak (women, children, Gays) by the powerful.
Click to expand...


What I find amazing in discussions like these is how completely inverted the political labelling has become. If one is in any way opposed to this brutality, they are characterized as some sort of right wing conservative, but if they look the other way, indulge in some apologia, and march in politically correct lockstep, people call them liberal. The terms have become nearly meaningless due to the Euro-style group think where the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity has overriden the actual underlying themes that have long defined liberalism.

What I find worisome is how so few Europeans are independent minded enough to figure out that if instititutions are already liberal, they need to conserve these institutions in order to support liberal points of view. The illiberal leftists seem hell bent on destroying liberalism, such is the mindless political fundamentalism inherent in their conformist doublespeak. They cannot separate the notions of ideas from people, and treat the resistance of illiberal ideas as if it were some sort of bigotry againt people. The United Nations is one of the prime culprits in spreading this meme that so completely undermines liberalism.
 
Gardener

What I find amazing in discussions like these is how completely inverted the political labelling has become.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it transformed itself almost unnoticed.

Perhaps it began with the rise of Communism where the Liberals felt it was a different sort of 'lifestyle' and that the pursuit of equality of outcome for everyone was a positive goal. This general support forced them to ignore or play down the atrocities committed by Communist regimes, that it was 'anti Soviet propaganda', that Americans were also bad, and so forth.

Now they have warped into accepting another murderous ideology, though a lack of technology prevents Islamists from yet being on the same level as the Communists. Just as with Communism they will try to downplay Islamic terrorism and blame the west for the problems. Their argument then, as now, is seeking moral equivalence between the two conflicting ideologies and it has always been along the lines of "Oh yeah?? What about the Indians?"

"Liberals" will not now defend women and gays in Muslim dominated countries, groups they once vigorously claimed to support if only to make the west look bad. Their hypocrisy is astounding.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom