 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
In WW1, you came in late. in WW2, the Russians did most of the heavy lifting.
But who cares. Bring on your fascist morons, and see how far they get.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
So you don't consider not being able to testify or give evidience nor to submite papers for consideration to ba a form of censorship? It's a blanket gag order and that's censorship if I ever saw it. |
If they were being taken off the internet, then it would be censorship. Seeing as the commission is poisoned from the inside by hypocrisy, it hardly makes much difference anyway. The media attention that RSF will get from this will probably be more useful to their cause anyway.
quote:
A few members did this and the organization punished those members according to an LA Times article I read today. The guilty we punished and the dictators used this as an excuse to eliminate a watch dog organization. As for changes of heart; I have hand none. It is one thing for an organization which has been invaited to give testimony to be censored for that testimony and a TOTALLY different one for protesters to block public streets and prevent emergency vehicles from reaching their destinations. One of these actions puts the public in danger while the other does not thus one is allowable while the other is not. |
They didn't 'eliminate' it, they suspended it for a year and gave it more media attention in the process. As for putting the public in danger, fair enough, although I think that linking 'blocking public streets' with 'prevent emergency vehicles from reaching their destinations' is an example of a complex question fallacy.
quote:
I trust the trail and the information which the judge didn't allow to be admited based up the, extraordinarially favorable, extradition treaty the Libyans negotiated. |
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this sentence.
quote:
I have never advicated leaving the UN nor would I. I have repeatedly pointed out that the current struction of the UN is completely nonfunction and should be massively over hauled. Until that over haul is completed the UN should only be window dressing with no real power or else it will be hijacked by worthless P.O.S. countries as the Human Rights Commission has been. |
The current structure of the UN is not completely nonfunctional, it does plenty of good stuff, such as clearing landmines, helping refugees and combating disease. Whilst I agree with you that it needs to be reformed, I don't want it to become another cheerleader for team America. Landmines, child soldiers, the ICC, even the Kyoto Treaty, these are all things which should not be quietly sidelined as 'nonfunctional'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Why would we need a round 3? We'll just have to watch as your raving lunatics and some islamist raving lunatics kill each other. I'll just break the chips out and watch.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TCO
Do you or do you not understand now that a missile directed at the residence of a leader of a country constitues a threat? Do you still think it needs to be verbal. Yes or no. |
Yes or no will not suffice.
I was thinking of posting something huge about my understanding of the whole Libya thing... a threadjack of the highest order, not a smart thing. I'll try to be brief.
Gaddaffi made the original threat, claiming the Gulf of Sirte for his own, and daring anyone else to cross them.
This was politely kicked around at a diplomatic level, and no one took it seriously.
When Gaddaffi decided to help a little vengeance to make up for the idiocy of the USS Carl Vinsen (might be Vincennes seen it spelt both ways) the US decided to show the Colonel exactly what he was messing with.
Afterwards - with a whole lot of things going off in the background - Libya comes around. 9/11 accelerated the process hugely, with Gadaffi and a lot of other people wanting no association with the word "terrorist".
At the time, I think I was keen for the whole thing to end quickly and successfully. The reasons why it started didn't seem as important as ending it with minimal cost.
No more threadjack posts - and I still don't see what's wrong with including Libya politically rather than letting them rot.
Hasn't done a lot of good in NK, has it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Poor little thread.
But who cares. 9/11 was a kind of shock. next time it will be *shrug*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Remember the last three foiled plots were in Europe."
One more reason to distance ourselves from Bush and his ilk. They want to deatroy us? Fine. Let'em try.
In the meantime Bush can prop up the whacky fundies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
On topic; what's all the fuss? Who cares about the UN finding out about human rights abuses when Amnesty's been doing that for decades?
Anyway, who would you rather have on the case - a bunch of ex-secret police who know the tricks because they used to play them, or a bunch of soft bummed business types who don't know their arse from their elbow?
Judge on results - if Libya makes a dog's breakfast of it well fair enough, but at least give them a chance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
Who thinks peacekeeping and diplomacy is for wimps? Who tears up treaties whenever it suits them? Who, in it's dealing with NK, encourages every tinpot there is to get nukes as fast as possible?
The American Navy is useful (although the super-carriers are questionable), at least for keeping the sealanes free of pirates. I have no idea how many forward deployed troops are currently operating under UN command. Tens of thousands, at least. When was the last time the American army responded quickly in force? Certainly not Iraq.
At least the UN doesn't spend it's money on pointless weapons systems.
Sorry, but I don't think you've proved your point at all. Security does not stem purely from force, indeed, excessive force can be detrimental to security.
I'd say he's George III, for added irony. |
security indeed does not stem purely from force. but lacking the history the capability and the will to use force doesn't lead to security anymore than yelling at a guy w/ a gun leads to not getting jacked.
the US's carrier fleets are some of the best projections of power the world has ever known. and are extraordinarily effective at giving aggressive nations pause.
in the end you do not like the US's policies but u have failed in every regard to try to diminish their actual role in security.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
If they are so effective, why are you still launching them? |
Sandman, you are overlooking the fact that nuke ships have a limited lifespan. OK, all ships do - but nukes are a special case.
The US has to keep building them to keep the numbers in service.
In a sense, they're locked into a cycle - but the nuke fleets have had notable sucesses, albeit at a huge cost.
As noted above, they also have had their failures.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2003 03:31
|