 |
| |
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
Dr. Strangelove : sure. I know it's that way. And , of course , in both cases it's wrong. However all of this was just my argument to disprove the validity of any UN document. And the fact if it is a UNSC or not doesn't change much. Probably, it would mean that there is EVEN MORE power in the hands of the strong states, that don't do what's right for humanity , but what's good for themselves. I would of course support an omnipotent SC, if it would really benefit humankind, or even put up a genuine effort of doing so. But so far , little has been made that was much out of line of the policies of the big powers (even during the cold war ), and even when UN projects aimed at really helping a country out, or restoring calm in the region were established , they failed miserably , primarily due to total failure of UN in the area of logistics, coordination,or simple willpower and the ungenuine motives of many member states that contributed forces , as can be seen quite clearly in UNIFIL , or UNTAC(sp?) .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
--"If you think it's such a bad treaty, then why have all but 1 of the world's nations signed and ratified it?"
Because politicians are involved? Sorry, but just because a lot of people do something, that doesn't make it right. Especially when those people are politicians.
BTW, my reasons for saying this shouldn't be ratified are not necessarily the same as my government's reasons for not doing so. I wish they were, but probably not. I make no attempt to claim the US government is perfect, or even reasonably close. However, this UN treaty, like most of them, is largely incompatible with the principle of individual rights. I cannot agree to it, no matter how few other countries even pay lip-service to the concept of individual rights these days.
--"In other words, you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?"
If you mean "you" as in the US, I would have to say "dunno". I don't know the official reasons for not signing the treaty. If you mean "you" as in me personally, then yes.
--"Same with nuclear test bans, landmine bans, Kyoto, etc"
Landmines are too militarily useful to be banned, no matter how many people sign some UN treaty. It sure isn't going to stop them from using them to defend territory. No point in signing a treaty that won't be followed.
Not sure what the current fuss with nuclear test bans are. Last I heard the US didn't want anyone conducting them, since we can model the explosions well enough on computer.
Kyoto is one of the biggest pieces of overblown crap to ever come out of the UN. Even accepting their own numbers it does next to nothing at great expense while ignoring more viable solutions. The actual research used is faulty in the first place, and the IPCC panel won't even play the results straight, but are twisting them for their own agenda.
Wraith
"Bureaucracy is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies."
-- Balzac
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I noticed that it said tha all kids should have access to "social security". Odd that they should choose the terminology used by the USA for it's largest social entitlement program. Does any other nation use the name "Social Security" for its welfare programs? Maybe what the UN means is that all the kids of the world have a fundamental right to help themselves to American welfare funds. At least, that may be the way that Jesse Helms interprets it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
Krop, don't mind Chris... he's being an ******* again, as is his fashion.
--
Anyway, the treaty, unlike some others, does have major problems in social policy. It really infringes on some state rights legislation, such as when to try as an adult, etc. This does lead to some horrible problems. However, I think we should sign the treaty, but not ratify it... which in diplospeak means we approve of the sentiment, but not the actual provisions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Krop, don't mind Chris... he's being an ******* again, as is his fashion.
--
Anyway, the treaty, unlike some others, does have major problems in social policy. It really infringes on some state rights legislation, such as when to try as an adult, etc. This does lead to some horrible problems. However, I think we should sign the treaty, but not ratify it... which in diplospeak means we approve of the sentiment, but not the actual provisions. |
Actually there was a phrase in the treaty taking into consideration various legal definitions of age of majority. The phrase read something to the effect that the age limits listed in the treaty were not meant to supercede those limits prescribed by laws of the states.
Look, this treaty goes way beyond anything within the scope of the UN for anytime in the forseeable future. It should be for the most part a declaration of joint principles. The UN is certainly not going to mandate education for every child in those developing nations currently unable to afford it. The provision for "social security" is so nebulous as to be useless. There were a number of useful provisions, like the prohibition of child soldiers and the international sale of children that are within the jurisdiction of international law and could be formed into a treaty that has meaning. By burying these provisions among those that are impractical the treaty negates what good it could accomplish.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
quote:
The US doesn't have life imprisonment or capital punishment for minors |
Yes it does. Bootstrapping by trying a 16 year old as an adult doesn't mean that when you kill him you aren't executing a minor. The US has killed, IIRC, 9 people in the last decade for crimes they committed as minors. You are among the 6 nations to have done so since 1990.
quote:
Like I said, if they want to help kids they could set a minimum age for military service, to say somewhere between 16 to 18. They didn't did they? I wonder why |
The US blocked passage of a recent treaty that would have set minimum military age at 18 because of its heavy reliance on 16 and 17 year-old soldiers. I believe that the US and Canada are the only First World nations to allow minors to serve in the military. |
First, the treaty does actually provide that individual states may set their own age limits.
Second, the US was one of about half the member states to sign the special protocol prohibiting the use of minors in armed conflicts. The protocol set 15 as the minimum age. Ninety states did not sign the special protocol on child soldiers. One hundred states did not sign the special protocol against child pornography, child prostitution and child slavery. The US signed that one too. What does it mean when half the members that wouldn't ratify the agreement on fighting child slavery, did sign the general convention?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
what a sophisticated discussion. very "German CS players' board"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
they talk in German, but the same BS
"das heisst nun mal dass die anders sind."
"nein mann, das heisst dass die scheisse sind."
"du bist scheisse, ey!"
and so on...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2002 23:47
on blocking the treaty. Damn UN 
. Kropotty , reply.
|