+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: U.S. pressing UN Human Rights Commissioner to put off West Bank settlements probe

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Horhey View Post
    U.S. To Veto Palestinian Statehood Bid Despite "Overwhelming Intl Consensus"


    The Obama administration "wants to postpone the establishment of the [human rights] panel to the latest possible date, hoping this will lead to the unofficial burial of the matter."

    Palestinians dont have anything to offer the US so they dont have human rights. Ive been looking through the record and Israel provides massive services to Washington. Far more than most people realize.
    If true that means that under his smiling veneer of 'the educated reasonable man' hides a typical Republican bigot!! SHAME!!
    If that comes about then 'Murka will become the newest Pariah; not as bad as the Third Reich as some try to make out (in my opinion), but on its way, and slowly pressing the pedal to the metal.

    If this why the loonies (?) fly planes into tall twin 'Murkan buildings?
    I deal in facts. If anyone finds 'facts' to be anti-Semetic; Jew hating, neo-Nazi; Islamo-fascist, etc, I disclaim any responsibility for their delusions

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Horhey View Post
    U.S. To Veto Palestinian Statehood Bid Despite "Overwhelming Intl Consensus"


    The Obama administration "wants to postpone the establishment of the [human rights] panel to the latest possible date, hoping this will lead to the unofficial burial of the matter."

    Palestinians dont have anything to offer the US so they dont have human rights. Ive been looking through the record and Israel provides massive services to Washington. Far more than most people realize.
    If true that means that under his smiling veneer of 'the educated reasonable man' hides a typical Republican bigot!! SHAME!!
    If that comes about then 'Murka will become the newest Pariah; not as bad as the Third Reich as some try to make out (in my opinion), but on its way, and slowly pressing the pedal to the metal.

    If this why the loonies (?) fly planes into tall twin 'Murkan buildings?
    I deal in facts. If anyone finds 'facts' to be anti-Semetic; Jew hating, neo-Nazi; Islamo-fascist, etc, I disclaim any responsibility for their delusions

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by klipkap View Post
    If true that means that under his smiling veneer of 'the educated reasonable man' hides a typical Republican bigot!! SHAME!!
    If that comes about then 'Murka will become the newest Pariah; not as bad as the Third Reich as some try to make out (in my opinion), but on its way, and slowly pressing the pedal to the metal.

    If this why the loonies (?) fly planes into tall twin 'Murkan buildings?
    What, you think we're the only country that blocks internationally popular movements?

    Take a look at the things that Russia and China have blocked.

    This isn't a "Murka" thing. It's a "self-interest" thing. The UN Security Council is a joke, just like the UN itself is. When you have so many competing interests always fighting each other, the net result is just the same old bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

    Like I said, if we'd all just drop the facade of giving a (*)(*)(*)(*) about human rights, then we could face the harsh reality that countries act in their self-interests regardless of the moral implications. This is true of every country, not just America.
    "Chaos... isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them.
    And some are given a chance to climb, but they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.
    Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is."

  4. Default You have 2 choices; so do I

    Quote Originally Posted by Serfin' USA View Post
    What, you think we're the only country that blocks internationally popular movements?

    Take a look at the things that Russia and China have blocked.

    This isn't a "Murka" thing. It's a "self-interest" thing. The UN Security Council is a joke, just like the UN itself is. When you have so many competing interests always fighting each other, the net result is just the same old bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

    Like I said, if we'd all just drop the facade of giving a (*)(*)(*)(*) about human rights, then we could face the harsh reality that countries act in their self-interests regardless of the moral implications. This is true of every country, not just America.
    I don't agree with you that three wrongs make a 'right'. I never will. It is a very selfish reasoning.
    But I do agree with you, Serfin' USA, there are in reality only two options:

    1) The option that tries to prevent wars and oppression, and does things via conviction and agreement. That is exactly why the UN came into being after World War 2. When the bulk of the parties don't agree with what you want, then there are indeed times when you will suck the hind mammary, and the selfish ones with big egos obviously find this to be less than perfect. It is the only real option for avoiding bloody noses .... often.

    2) The other is to do things 17th-18th Century style and to use brute force combined with threats and allegiances. That way the strong with big egos are more likely to get their ways. But they will suffer the plight of the bully in the schoolyard. One day someone else will become bigger, and say "Hey you .... we bought all of these IOUs of yours. Pay back half .... NOW." And the ego will take a huge dump. In fact I suspect that that day is just around the corner.

    Also, in the meantime, dissatisfied less muscular schoolboys will find ways to get back at you for being selfish and ego-bloated. They will connive against you; steal your stuff; hurt your friends which you will steadily lose; snap at you like jackals; make you bleed from a thousand little wounds like the Vietcong and Somalis did, and the Taliban are now doing. And then they will take these tactics into your own backyard, and will fly planes into tall twin buildings; drop pink stuff into open reservoirs; sabotage off-shore oil wells; import suitcases containing complicated switch-gear onto dark beaches on moonless nights; and act as the modern day equivalent of the 'injun' who acquired repeater rifles. And they will hurt you. And you will feel lots of pain. And your grand children will ask you why. And when you explain to them, you will see pity cross their small faces.

    I have made my choice. It seems that so have you. Good luck
    Last edited by klipkap; May 06 2012 at 08:53 AM.
    I deal in facts. If anyone finds 'facts' to be anti-Semetic; Jew hating, neo-Nazi; Islamo-fascist, etc, I disclaim any responsibility for their delusions

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by klipkap View Post
    I don't agree with you that three wrongs make a 'right'. I never will. It is a very selfish reasoning.
    But I do agree with you, Serfin' USA, there are in reality only two options:

    1) The option that tries to prevent wars and oppression, and does things via conviction and agreement. That is exactly why the UN came into being after World War 2. When the bulk of the parties don't agree with what you want, then there are indeed times when you will suck the hind mammary, and the selfish ones with big egos obviously find this to be less than perfect. It is the only real option for avoiding bloody noses .... often.

    2) The other is to do things 17th-18th Century style and to use brute force combined with threats and allegiances. That way the strong with big egos are more likely to get their ways. But they will suffer the plight of the bully in the schoolyard. One day someone else will become bigger, and say "Hey you .... we bought all of these IOUs of yours. Pay back half .... NOW." And the ego will take a huge dump. In fact I suspect that that day is just around the corner.

    Also, in the meantime, dissatisfied less muscular schoolboys will find ways to get back at you for being selfish and ego-bloated. They will connive against you; steal your stuff; hurt your friends which you will steadily lose; snap at you like jackals; make you bleed from a thousand little wounds like the Vietcong and Somalis did, and the Taliban are now doing. And then they will take these tactics into your own backyard, and will fly planes into tall twin buildings; drop pink stuff into open reservoirs; sabotage off-shore oil wells; import suitcases containing complicated switch-gear onto dark beaches on moonless nights; and act as the modern day equivalent of the 'injun' who acquired repeater rifles. And they will hurt you. And you will feel lots of pain. And your grand children will ask you why. And when you explain to them, you will see pity cross their small faces.

    I have made my choice. It seems that so have you. Good luck
    Your reasoning seems to assume a certain level of decency among governments. Historically, I see little evidence of that.

    To me, there is only one choice. The differences in approach are only nuances rather than divergences. We're currently pretending that our decisions have some moral underpinnings, but the facade is paper thin. It's about self-interests and always has been. I see no rational reason to assume this will be different in the future, because human nature hasn't changed any since our beginning.

    Some countries have made social progress, and technological progress has been steady, but when it comes to foreign relations, war has lessened out of self-interest -- not out of morality. This still leaves room for things like Palestine's struggle.
    "Chaos... isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them.
    And some are given a chance to climb, but they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.
    Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is."

  6. Default

    CNN: U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal

    The United States vetoed Friday a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have declared Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal.
    This is why people and the media especially, should almost always dismiss what politicians say because they often do the opposite. Declarations of benign intent by leaders are predictable and they offer no evidence. You always have to pay attention to what they actually do. If more people did that they wouldnt be able to get away with it.
    Last edited by Horhey; May 09 2012 at 08:54 AM.
    "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies. When American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy." --Pentagon Defense Science Board, 11/24/04

    "Washington does not want to remain a stick-wielding imperialist. It is doubtful, however, that any American President would permit such a shift." --James LeMoyne, New York Times, 2/7/88

  7. Default

    The Christian Science Monitor: If Obama opposes Israeli settlement activity, why did US veto UN vote?
    A United Nations resolution condemning Israeli settlements, which the US vetoed Friday, put the US in a difficult position at a time when Arabs are rallying for freedom and democracy.

    Last edited by Horhey; May 09 2012 at 09:46 AM.
    "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies. When American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy." --Pentagon Defense Science Board, 11/24/04

    "Washington does not want to remain a stick-wielding imperialist. It is doubtful, however, that any American President would permit such a shift." --James LeMoyne, New York Times, 2/7/88

  8. Default

    There should be a history thread of the times the US has vetoed stuff or saved them from the UN.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks