 |
| |
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
Please let him stick to his promise so that I don't have to read his inane responses.
The thing that strikes me as incredbily ironic is that the US behaviour at the UN just points out the hypocrisy and fallacy of the strange belief that the US is the policeman of the world. And the Americans here who criticise the UN for being ineffective when their own country is partially to blame, well it's just a sad commentary on people's blindness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
Which begs the question of why the US blocked the peacekeeping efforts. The resolution mentioning the International Criminal Court specifically mentioned the countires like the US which are not a signatory of the ICC agreement would not be covered by the resolution. The US had nothing to lose by agreeing with the resolution.
The Bush administration's behavious was simply shameful and went against what the US stands for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
Ah yes, last year, that's when the righteous US declared a genocide was happening in Sudan and the response proposed by the US was to impose a international travel ban on the militia. 
Yup, where would we be without the decisive leadership of the Bush administration.
Last edited by Tingkai on 28-03-2005 at 00:20
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
The thing that I don't get is how the US was able to squander its global leadership in just a few years.
In the late-1990s, the US was seen as the country to emulate economically. Now people are questioning its economic strength.
From the first Gulf War onwards, the US was being seen as a military leader for peacekeeping efforts. Even when things went wrong, like in Somalia, most people recognised that at least the US was trying to make things better.
Right after 9/11, the world was supportive of the fight against terrorism. The US tactics were questioned, but no one disagreed with the goals.
Yet a few years later, and the US is no longer a leader. Fewer and fewer countries are willing to follow the US's leadership and that's mainly because the Bush administation doesn't want to lead., it wants to dictate, but it can't because people aren't goingto blindly follow the Bush crowd.
It's a shame really, because there so much that the US has accomplished that much of the world should emulate. There's so much that the US could do if it checked its ego at the door.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Yup, where would we be without the decisive leadership of the Bush administration. |
The French and Chinese would likely be making more money selling weapons for use against innocent villagers. What bastards we are.
I really would be interested in your defense of the main roadblock to action (China) on this issue rather than continuing on the merry go round where you mindlessly sling mud at the main force on the UNSC pushing for action.
Last edited by DinoDoc on 28-03-2005 at 02:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
The thing that I don't get is how the US was able to squander its global leadership in just a few years.
In the late-1990s, the US was seen as the country to emulate economically. Now people are questioning its economic strength.
From the first Gulf War onwards, the US was being seen as a military leader for peacekeeping efforts. Even when things went wrong, like in Somalia, most people recognised that at least the US was trying to make things better.
Right after 9/11, the world was supportive of the fight against terrorism. The US tactics were questioned, but no one disagreed with the goals.
Yet a few years later, and the US is no longer a leader. Fewer and fewer countries are willing to follow the US's leadership and that's mainly because the Bush administation doesn't want to lead., it wants to dictate, but it can't because people aren't goingto blindly follow the Bush crowd.
It's a shame really, because there so much that the US has accomplished that much of the world should emulate. There's so much that the US could do if it checked its ego at the door. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
(Brussels, March 24, 2005) – The United States is blocking U.N. Security Council action on the human rights crisis in Darfur on account of the Bush administration’s hostility to the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Watch said today. On Tuesday, the United States proposed splitting a U.N. Security Council draft resolution on Sudan into three separate resolutions, none of which would authorize a tribunal to prosecute crimes against humanity in Darfur.
“The United States is hanging the people of Darfur out to dry by stalling on justice,” said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Program. “After labeling Darfur a genocide, the United States is now blocking the credible threat of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, which could immediately deter further violence in Darfur.”
The U.S. move follows ongoing negotiations among all Security Council members on a single Sudan resolution on justice, targeted sanctions, and a peace-support mission. The U.N. peace-support mission for Sudan is to implement the Naivasha peace agreement, the accord ending the 21-year civil war between the Sudanese government and southern-based rebels. The mission of 10,000 troops will cover areas in the north and south of Sudan, but not Darfur, where continuing fighting and violence against civilians has created a human rights disaster.
“In the guise of taking action on a peacekeeping force in the North-South conflict, the United States is pushing aside measures needed to deal with atrocities in Darfur,” said Dicker. “Vague commitments to accountability are not enough. The heinous crimes committed in Darfur need immediate investigation and prosecution by the International Criminal Court.”
-- Human Rights Watch
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/sudan10367.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
The French and Chinese would likely be making more money selling weapons for use against innocent villagers. What bastards we are.
I really would be interested in your defense of the main roadblock to action (China) on this issue rather than continuing on the merry go round where you mindlessly sling mud at the main force on the UNSC pushing for action. |
I don't think France is selling weapons to Sudan. In fact, the French have been pushing the three-pronged approach of
- send peacekeepers to stop the fighting
- arrest and try suspected war criminals
- use sanctions to prevent future fighting.
China and Russia have opposed sanctions. The US opposes the ICC. So the main roadblocks to a comprehensive solution are those three countries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
the admin proposed 3 resolutions, one of which deals with a court for war criminals in Darfur- the admin wants to keep open the idea of a court other than the ICC. The French proposed a res. specifiying the ICC. I dont have the obsession with the ICC that the admin does, but I think A. this can be compromised - I fault both the admin for putting its obsession over the people of Darfur, and the french for putting sticking it to the admin over the people of Darfur. B. In any case the key res. is the one for sanctions on Sudan. If the UN doesnt come down on Sudan, the atrocities/ethnic cleansing wont stop - and THAT is way more important than where the criminals are tried - or, I think, even if they are tried. Save lives FIRST, worry about where to try the war criminals later.
And as to that, afaict, both the US and France are still pushing in the same direction, if theyre using the other issue to snipe at each other. Its still China standing in the way of a sanctions res.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-03-2005 10:07
Which member could possibly be playing politics with lives and have an economic reason to stall real action on the issue? Oh yeah, it doesn't seem to be the US. 
|