16-10-2002 07:28									#31
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: I wouldn't assert the UN is perfect, but I think its benefits to the world have far outweighed the drawbacks. With that logic, you should support the United States. The benefits of a strong America far outweigh the drawbacks.

I agree, so long as America is practicing what it preaches and being a true moral leader in both word and actions. It is not, as of yet.

When did I advocate a weak America? An America that actually IS the leader in human rights will be stronger, not weaker.

By your logic, so long as there's something worse out there, we should just sit back and be thankful for what we got. Now THAT would really hurt America.

	16-10-2002 07:29									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

That makes perfect sense, Boris. Since I have a speeding ticket on my record, it would be hypocritical of me to look down on a murderer. Unless I'm perfect, I have no right to criticize those whose behavior is worse than mine...

	16-10-2002 07:29									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov It is precisely such behavior that led to our humiliating loss of our seat on the HR Commission in the first place.

If the US lost its seat for being at fault, then what did Libya become chair for? It must have done something good to be the head of the comission, right?

Making Lybia chair is like giving Jimmy Carter a Nobel peace prize: it is using a real and possibly valuable institution as a method for slapping George W. Bush in the face, and thus marginalizes the office and devalues the honor.

	16-10-2002 07:33									#34
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten That makes perfect sense, Boris. Since I have a speeding ticket on my record, it would be hypocritical of me to look down on a murderer. Unless I'm perfect, I have no right to criticize those whose behavior is worse than mine...

Riiiiight. So for you, evil actions are relative? Something worse abroad makes our actions okay? We can use covert tactics to cause misery in nations to support U.S. financial interests, because that's a step above actually torturing people ourselves?

Why are you so adverse to holding America to the high standard it claims to represent and SHOULD represent? To me, anything less is a disservice to the country.

	16-10-2002 07:36									#35
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Goingonit If the US lost its seat for being at fault, then what did Libya become chair for? It must have done something good to be the head of the comission, right?

The chair is not voted, it is rotated. If you haven't noticed, there aren't many nations in Africa that can be said to have stellar Human Rights records. It's not a question of being deserved, it's a question of eventuality.

quote: Making Lybia chair is like giving Jimmy Carter a Nobel peace prize: it is using a real and possibly valuable institution as a method for slapping George W. Bush in the face, and thus marginalizes the office and devalues the honor.

Again, the chair is not an award given by a committee, it's rotated. And I don't know about the rationale for the Carter peace prize, but IMO the prize was long overdue anyway, since he had demonstrated his worthiness for the award years ago.

	16-10-2002 07:37									#36
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Riiiiight. So for you, evil actions are relative? Something worse abroad makes our actions okay? We can use covert tactics to cause misery in nations to support U.S. financial interests, because that's a step above actually torturing people ourselves?

Sort of. I don't want to see America violate human rights, but when we do I certainly don't think that we are suddenly equivalent to countries like Libya and the Sudan. Everything is relative Boris. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between supporting a dictator and actually being the dictator.

American support of Stalin during WWII didn't suddenly make us morally equivalent with Stalin. We were in the right in opposing him and the USSR after WWII.

	16-10-2002 07:39									#37
	Remove this text

I don't know who implied we mis-treat our prisoners of war, but I must completely disagree. When we held prisoners at the naval base in Cuba and such, not only were they able to practice their religion, we even supplied them with materials to suite it. Carpets to kneel on for prayer, etc. I'd rather be in an American prison, than any other countys'. The way people are speaking of Libya and America, its like they don't see the very basic and fundamental differences in daily life. In America, I have every right in the world to hold hands with my boyfriend in public, or even kiss if I did so choose. DO NOT EVEN TELL ME that I could have that same right in Libya. Equating Libya with the US is like a spit in my eye. I'd go on but I'm begining to supress rage.

	16-10-2002 07:48									#38
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov The chair is not voted, it is rotated. If you haven't noticed, there aren't many nations in Africa that can be said to have stellar Human Rights records. It's not a question of being deserved, it's a question of eventuality.

Then what are we talking about? I mean, if the choice is between, say, Libya, Algeria, Sudan, and Nigeria, or something, then there's no way to win. But this just shows the extent to which the Charter is flawed.

	16-10-2002 07:49									#39
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Sort of. I don't want to see America violate human rights, but when we do I certainly don't think that we are suddenly equivalent to countries like Libya and the Sudan. Everything is relative Boris.

I certainly don't think we're the equivalent of Libya or Sudan, as I said. But that doesn't mean, because our actions are relatively less bad, that they are things we should tolerate. We certainly shouldn't be high-and-mighty.

quote: I'm sorry you can't see the difference between supporting a dictator and actually being the dictator.

I don't see much difference, when the end result is the suffering of thousands of people. In fact, if we're the ones ultimately keeping a tyrant in power, doesn't that make us more cupable? At least just as culpable, IMO.

quote: American support of Stalin during WWII didn't suddenly make us morally equivalent with Stalin. We were in the right in opposing him and the USSR after WWII.

Hardly equivalent, as we were supporting an ally against a foreign aggressor in a time of war, not propping up a regime against the will of the country's own people

	16-10-2002 07:52									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten You can't be serious, Boris. No one is stupid enough to equate Libya's actions with America's... I hope.

I am. At least arguments 2-4.

It is funny, but the smallest things seemingly get blown out of proportion. Its a two way street.

	16-10-2002 07:55									#41
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: We certainly shouldn't be high-and-mighty.

How in the hell are we being high and mighty by complaining about Libya being the head of the UN Commision on Human Rights? I would be ashamed of America if we didn't complain. It's a travesty and detrimental to the protection of human rights around the globe.

	16-10-2002 08:05									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Hardly equivalent, as we were supporting an ally against a foreign aggressor in a time of war, not propping up a regime against the will of the country's own people

America didn't prop up dictatorial regimes for the hell of it; they did it to stop the spread of communism. I guess you don't consider global communism to have been as great a threat to the world as fascism.

	16-10-2002 08:07									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: We certainly shouldn't be high-and-mighty. How in the hell are we being high and mighty by complaining about Libya being the head of the UN Commision on Human Rights? I would be ashamed of America if we didn't complain. It's a travesty and detrimental to the protection of human rights around the globe.

The high-and-mightiness is from this article and people who bash the UN with constanct catch-22s.

The UN is meant to represent all the nations of the world. If you want to take relativism to its limits, there are TONS of nations that are FAR more objectionable. Quadaffi has, at least, stopped terrorism, condemned 9/11 and has provided intelligence information on Al-Queda to the U.S. government. Libya is certainly less objectionable than, say, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Should Sweden be the only nation allowed to sit on the council at all, since they seem to have cleaner hands than anyone?

	16-10-2002 08:10									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: Hardly equivalent, as we were supporting an ally against a foreign aggressor in a time of war, not propping up a regime against the will of the country's own people America didn't prop up dictatorial regimes for the hell of it; they did it to stop the spread of communism. I guess you don't consider global communism to have been as great a threat to the world as fascism.

I don't think the US had any business subverting the elected governments of foreign nations for any reason. Do you think the deaths we visited upon the people of Vietnam was somehow morally right? Do you think we really had any right to tell sovereign nations who should run them?

	16-10-2002 08:13									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Libya is certainly less objectionable than, say, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.

I know that Syria has been a member of UN human rights organizations. I bet some more of these countries have been as well. The UN has a track record for this type of thing. Making Libya chairman of the UNCHR is just the latest bit of insanity...

	16-10-2002 08:21									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Do you think the deaths we visited upon the people of Vietnam was somehow morally right?

If you're looking for morality in war, you're going to be disappointed. The deaths of millions of innocents in WWII wasn't morally right either, but that doesn't meant that the cause we fought for was unjust. America went into Vietnam to protect the people from communism, a laudable goal. The fact that the whole enterprise went to **** doesn't negate the fact that America had good intentions.

quote: Do you think we really had any right to tell sovereign nations who should run them?

Sovereignty has never been absolute and is certainly not in the modern world. Human rights abuses trump concerns over national sovereignty, for example. Do you really think that sovereignty is absolute, Boris? I don't think you want to be in the same boat as Jesse Helms and David Floyd...

	16-10-2002 08:22									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: Libya is certainly less objectionable than, say, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. I know that Syria has been a member of UN human rights organizations. I bet some more of these countries have been as well. The UN has a track record for this type of thing.

Because the UN can't dictate to a region who they can and can't nominate.

quote: Making Libya chairman of the UNCHR is just the latest bit of insanity...

See above.

The African delegation is making Libya the chair, not the entire UN. Again, it's a question of rotation. Do I want to see Libya as the head? No. Do I prefer Libya over Zimbabwe? Modestly.

There are going to be countries whose policies we object to in situations like this. But I see NO rationale here for disengagement from the UN. As I said earlier, I see it as proof we need to be there more than ever.

And we should pay our damn dues, too.

	16-10-2002 08:22									#48
	Got spare money?

Boris, "an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." I don't give two sh!ts what country it happens in. Just because its "sovereign nation" doesn't make it immune to morality. We're the big brother on the block, and we have every right in the world to stand up against oppressive governments. A "nation" is a label given to a pile of dirt. If people are being gased and mass murdered "over there", I honestly think it does not matter who's territory it is, attacking the oppressors is the only right thing to do.

	16-10-2002 08:28									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You act like Zimbabwe was the only other option. There are many African nations with better human rights records than Libya. Tunisia, right next door to Libya, would've been a good choice.

	16-10-2002 08:31									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: Do you think the deaths we visited upon the people of Vietnam was somehow morally right? If you're looking for morality in war, you're going to be disappointed. The deaths of millions of innocents in WWII wasn't morally right either, but that doesn't meant that the cause we fought for was unjust. America went into Vietnam to protect the people from communism, a laudable goal. The fact that the whole enterprise went to **** doesn't negate the fact that America had good intentions.

This opens up a whole new debate, which is the intentions of the United States in Vietnam. They were not as laudable as the official line you seem eager to swallow.

Just because the cause is just does not excuse the methods. The ends never justify the means. I certainly do not object to America's participation in WWII (don't forget war was declared on us first), but I certainly object to the methods of war waged in some instances, such as Dresden or Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Would my criticizing such tactics somehow mitigate the crimes of the Nazis? Of course not.

quote: Sovereignty has never been absolute and is certainly not in the modern world. Human rights abuses trump concerns over national sovereignty, for example.

If the United States is willing to be consistent here, you'd have a point. But we're not, which can only mean we only care about human rights abuses when stopping them promotes our national self-interest. We certainly didn't care about the atrocities of the Taliban until it was in our self-interest. We didn't do a thing in Rwanda. We've let human rights abuses go on around the world.

In fact, we reinstated a regime with a horrendous human rights record (Kuwait). We're currently allies with Saudi Arabia, where homosexuals are sentenced to death and women are chattel. Consistency?

quote: Do you really think that sovereignty is absolute, Boris? I don't think you want to be in the same boat as Jesse Helms and David Floyd...

Absolute, no. But something that should only be tread upon VERY lightly. Certainly not to the degree the United States has in the past. Certainly not to the degree of invading a country that is currently not posing any direct threat to us for the purposes of "regime change."

	16-10-2002 08:37									#51
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by 1 Boris, "an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." I don't give two sh!ts what country it happens in. Just because its "sovereign nation" doesn't make it immune to morality. We're the big brother on the block, and we have every right in the world to stand up against oppressive governments. A "nation" is a label given to a pile of dirt. If people are being gased and mass murdered "over there", I honestly think it does not matter who's territory it is, attacking the oppressors is the only right thing to do.

Lets imagine that the US is the second strongest nation in the world. How would you feel about the stronger nation invading the US and (for example) freeing all the inhabitants of your prisons?

Doesn't feel good, does it? I imagine 90% of the 3rd world feels the same way about the USA, now.

All governments are oppressive. That's what government is for. You just want the US gov't to decide how much oppression is OK. Quite frankly, given the US government's record on morality, they shouldn't have that right.

	16-10-2002 08:38									#52
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: If the United States is willing to be consistent here, you'd have a point. But we're not, which can only mean we only care about human rights abuses when stopping them promotes our national self-interest.

This is an utter lie. Please explain how intervening in Bosnia was in our national self-interest. Or in Kosovo. Or in Somalia. Or in East Timor (mostly the Aussies, but we played a role).

Stop spouting off propaganda as though it were fact.

	16-10-2002 08:39									#53
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten You act like Zimbabwe was the only other option. There are many African nations with better human rights records than Libya. Tunisia, right next door to Libya, would've been a good choice.

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/count...nt=30&Expandall

	16-10-2002 08:40									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

One way to look at this turn of events is that Libya's current human rights practices will certainly be placed within the limelight. Libya may find itself embarassed, it may take action to correct somne of these problems, who knows?

	16-10-2002 08:41									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Every country has human rights violations. Doesn't change the fact the Tunisia is light years ahead of Libya in that department...

	16-10-2002 08:42									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: If the United States is willing to be consistent here, you'd have a point. But we're not, which can only mean we only care about human rights abuses when stopping them promotes our national self-interest. This is an utter lie. Please explain how intervening in Bosnia was in our national self-interest. Or in Kosovo. Or in Somalia. Or in East Timor (mostly the Aussies, but we played a role). Stop spouting off propaganda as though it were fact.

So please explain U.S. inconsistency in policing the world on Human Rights? Why didn't we invade Rwanda or Zimbabwe or etc.?

You seem pretty eager to swallow propaganda, though, since you think Vietnam was just a heroic struggle to stop communism.

	16-10-2002 08:44									#57
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Every country has human rights violations. Doesn't change the fact the Tunisia is light years ahead of Libya in that department...

Here comes that moral relavatism again. So which is it...we stand up for all human rights abuses, or we adhere to relavatism? Clearly Tunisia is an oppresive regime, albeit somewhat better than its neighbors. Why aren't we invading?

	16-10-2002 08:48									#58
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove One way to look at this turn of events is that Libya's current human rights practices will certainly be placed within the limelight. Libya may find itself embarassed, it may take action to correct somne of these problems, who knows?

One point to bring up is that Quadaffi has increasingly been trying to move Libya into the mainstream of the world affairs. I think this presents the best opportunity to improve human rights there--diplomatic and peer pressure. I am willing to bet it will work better than sanctimonious bullying.

	16-10-2002 08:52									#59
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Here comes that moral relavatism again. So which is it...we stand up for all human rights abuses, or we adhere to relavatism? Clearly Tunisia is an oppresive regime, albeit somewhat better than its neighbors. Why aren't we invading?

Are you really this stupid? You don't put a person in prison for life for a misdemeanor or even a minor felony. You save the worst punishment for the worst crimes. The same concept applies to human rights violations. You don't invade a country unless the violations are particularly heinous. You can call it "moral relativism", but I call it common sense.

Even if the crimes are heinous, you have to actually be able to build support for the intervention and carry it out. In Rwanda we couldn't build support. And we aren't powerful enough to intervene in China. There go the two most used examples of American "inconsistency".

quote: You seem pretty eager to swallow propaganda, though, since you think Vietnam was just a heroic struggle to stop communism.

Vietnam was a struggle to stop communism. I never said that it was heroic. Most struggles aren't.

	16-10-2002 09:21									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Alright Boris:

"(1) relies on its courts to suppress domestic opposition"

Even had Gore gotten the vote count he had requested, he still would have lost. Bush clearly got more legal votes.

Moreover, were the US supressing domestic opposition the way Libya does, you and many other people who ***** and moan about the US would be thrown in jail. While posts like the ones you made on this thread would make that tempting, the fact that people like you, Michael Moore, Chomsky et al are allowed to preach your anti-US filfth does more to discredit the shrieking that this is a police state.

"(2) uses torture to interrogate and punish prisoners"

There is no evidence that torture has been used against the detainees at camp X-ray. They are provided with regular meals and treated decently.



"(3) arrests and detains its citizens arbitrarily and often holds prisoners incommunicado for years;"

I disagree with the holding, but the detainments we have made been far from arbitrary, and in most cases for camp X-Ray it has been people on the battlefield.

" (4) refuses prisoners the right to a fair public trial. "

Zacarias Moussaoi anyone?

A few selected, even if improper, harsh moves against terrorists does not equate to a systematic police state such as Libya.



and (4) refuses prisoners the right to a fair public trial. In addition, the report says, Libya “restricts freedom of speech, press, assembly, association and religion.”