NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm getting rather fed up with people going on about American abuses of human rights and wars that may be illigitmate or not when the actual obvious violators get ignored. Could people please sign this

http://new.petitiononline.com/SARF/petition.html

This needs signing. Its an important issue that I think that people ignore so much because they are too busy criticising America and the rest of the free world.

I will sign this obscure petition to demonstrate my support for religious freedom. I am signatory #80.

I'm getting rather fed up with people going on about American abuses of human rights and wars that may be illigitmate or not when the actual obvious violators get ignored. Could people please sign this

http://new.petitiononline.com/SARF/petition.html

This needs signing. Its an important issue that I think that people ignore so much because they are too busy criticising America and the rest of the free world.

Might as well focus on our own backyard before we try to tell someone else how to live.

Besides, an online petition to the UN asking for enforcement? The chances of this A) being ignored or B) characteristically unenforced are pretty strong.

Saudi Arabia, a US client state since 1945.

I'm getting rather fed up with people going on about American abuses of human rights and wars that may be illigitmate or not when the actual obvious violators get ignored. Could people please sign this

http://new.petitiononline.com/SARF/petition.html

This needs signing. Its an important issue that I think that people ignore so much because they are too busy criticising America and the rest of the free world.

Just because Saudi Arabia does it even worse doesn't mean we should ignore what happens closer to home. We're supposed to be the democracies. You know, democracy, freedom, rights, all that jazz. We really shouldn't be placing 'terrorists' into cells without phonecalls or any rights...

Saudi Arabia does not now, nor has it ever, claimed to be a champion of human rights.

The US does. Every day.

So when the US violates human rights, it's a bit different.

Oh ... and I don't sign online petitions.

Saudi Arabia, a US client state since 1945.

And that is why nothing will happen.

So long as the black gold keeps a flowin', the Saudi's can do as they wish.

Saudi Arabia does not now, nor has it ever, claimed to be a champion of human rights.

The US does. Every day.

So when the US violates human rights, it's a bit different.

Oh ... and I don't sign online petitions.
Beat me to it. It's like Lindsey Graham said (and this may be the only thing I've ever agreed wth him on)--when you're claiming to be the good guys, you've got to be the good guys.

And that is why nothing will happen.

So long as the black gold keeps a flowin', the Saudi's can do as they wish.
Yep.

And so long as the monkey needs a hit, well...

You need look no further than this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482922) for anti Saudi Arabianism.

You need look no further than this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482922) for anti Saudi Arabianism.

But that is just thinnly veiled satire courtesy of our inebriated Communist friend...Not overtly Anti-Saudi I'm sorry to say...

But that is just thinnly veiled satire courtesy of our inebriated Communist friend...Not overtly Anti-Saudi I'm sorry to say...
It's a start.

If you claim that criticizing how the US is run is anti-American, I direct you to:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482305

If you claim that whatever Saudi Arabia, a state that never championed itself as a paragon of human rights, and which EVERYONE KNOWS is dysfunctional, justifies the abuses that the US does, you'd be delusional, unless you're claiming that the US should be willng to be LIKE THEM. In which case you'd ALSO be delusional.

In both cases, I roll my eyes at you. :rolleyes:

I'll start


MYRTH.

I'll pass you a heavy serving: Arabia, or Iraq, or Iran, or any of the "Stans" are stinky countries...well not if you like lentils, ghapotties, (don't think I spelled that right...) fullAFWLES, and rye. They are NOT stinky coutries if you enjoy: wearing itchy camel-hair clothes, and shoes that curel your toes, and lisening to the taliban preach about: "The jews are gonna pay! The rest of the world is gonna pay! Allah is on his way! The real mushroom-cloud is on it's way! The real Holocaust is on it's way...! And it goes, on and on. They blow-up wonders of the world, they behead citizens, they kill other muslims, (Shiites vs. Soonies) and they blow themselves up because they can't fight ect... THEY ARE SIMPLY GOING THROUGH A DARK-AGES STAGE WE ALREADY PASSED!

Saudi Arabia = Not co good at all. Anti-Saudi Arabic enough for ya? :rolleyes:

Just because Saudi Arabia does it even worse doesn't mean we should ignore what happens closer to home. We're supposed to be the democracies.Well technically, according to the framers of the Constitution the United States is supposed to be a representative republic like ancient Rome, but then again many of the framers did own slaves.

Hell no i wont sign a petition stating that I think they should live by my ideals rather than their own. Regardless of whether or not I think that they might extend me the same courtesy.

Saudi Arabia, a US client state since 1945.

A BRITISH client state before that.

The British brought back the exiled Al-Saud family and installed them in the throne after WWI.

Saudi Arabia does not now, nor has it ever, claimed to be a champion of human rights.

The US does. Every day.

So when the US violates human rights, it's a bit different.

As a member of Amnesty International, I have never heard anything like this. Human rights violations are human rights violations, no matter who is doing them. It's not actually "a bit different".

Of course
In human rights, the United States leads by example.
:headbang:

It also must be noted that saying "anti-Saudia Arabism" or some such is unnecessary. "Saudi Arabia" is akin to "fascist Italy". It's not the Italy you object to, it's the fascism. It would be better to say "anti-Saudism".

My take on the thing is very simple.

ANY country that has Sharia - instead of Democracy - needs wiping out ASAP.

Saudi Arabia, a US client state since 1945.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, exactly.

*nods*

American taste isn't necessarily all that good...

I'm getting rather fed up with people going on about American abuses of human rights and wars that may be illigitmate or not when the actual obvious violators get ignored. Could people please sign this

http://new.petitiononline.com/SARF/petition.html

This needs signing. Its an important issue that I think that people ignore so much because they are too busy criticising America and the rest of the free world.

This pales in comparison to everything else going on inside Saudi Arabia.

My take on the thing is very simple.

ANY country that has Sharia - instead of Democracy - needs wiping out ASAP.

Sharia is not the flip-side of democracy; it's primarily a system of laws, not a system of government.

If a democratic government decided to establish Sharia law and this was approved by the population, would they still need 'wiping out ASAP'?

Saudi Arabia does not now, nor has it ever, claimed to be a champion of human rights.

The US does. Every day.

So when the US violates human rights, it's a bit different.

Oh ... and I don't sign online petitions.

Spot on. But the US is the nation that proclamied "we believe that all men are created free and equal" while large parts of its economy were still baed on slavery so we shouldn't be too surprised at their double standards.

My take on the thing is very simple.

ANY country that has Sharia - instead of Democracy - needs wiping out ASAP.

My take on you is very simple. Anyone with your kind of bigotry and militaristic jingoism should be wiped out ASAP.

Not so good when it's on the flip side is it?

Sharia is not the flip-side of democracy; it's primarily a system of laws, not a system of government.

If a democratic government decided to establish Sharia law and this was approved by the population, would they still need 'wiping out ASAP'?
Well, that's what many people say about Iran, anyway. (not that I necessarily agree)

But then there's the question of whether the rights of minorities such as homosexuals are looked after under Shar'iah law, too, which I must admit is somewhat of a blight on their credibility. I'm not too sure which aspects of Shar'iah law are "compulsory" or "advisory", though...actually, I don't know a whole lot about it at all.

My take on the thing is very simple.

ANY country that has Sharia - instead of Democracy - needs wiping out ASAP.

BogMarsh Sharia?

Well, that's what many people say about Iran, anyway. (not that I necessarily agree)

But then there's the question of whether the rights of minorities such as homosexuals are looked after under Shar'iah law, too, which I must admit is somewhat of a blight on their credibility. I'm not too sure which aspects of Shar'iah law are "compulsory" or "advisory", though...actually, I don't know a whole lot about it at all.


A] When sharia is a personal choice for an individual, it ain't compulsory.

B] When it is applied to an entire population, it is. Which is to say, when it is LAW, it is compulsory. ( The odd thing about laws, they are compulsory. )

Plain and simple.

The point was made by Ayatollah Khomeini in a speech on the first of march, 1979, in Tehran.
It translate as follows: what is not important is that women choose to wear the chador ( A ), what is important is that we force/compel them to do so.( B ).

A] When sharia is a personal choice for an individual, it ain't compulsory.

B] When it is applied to an entire population, it is. Which is to say, when it is LAW, it is compulsory. ( The odd thing about laws, they are compulsory. )

Plain and simple.

The point was made by Ayatollah Khomeini in a speech on the first of march, 1979, in Tehran.
It translate as follows: what is not important is that women choose to wear the chador ( A ), what is important is that we force/compel them to do so.( B ).

Don't think I was supporting Iran, because i'm not...

And the problem is, yes, law is compulsory, but the definition of what constitutes rights is totally subjective. I believe that it is my right to put whatever substance I like inside my own body; however, the common opinion in most Western nations is that pot smoking is wrong and should be illegal. Would you then argue that my rights are being violated? The law in western nations is supposed to be democratic, but it does not reach everybodys interpretation of what is fair. Can we apply that mode of thinking to Iran, as well?

Don't think I was supporting Iran, because i'm not...

And the problem is, yes, law is compulsory, but the definition of what constitutes rights is totally subjective. I believe that it is my right to put whatever substance I like inside my own body; however, the common opinion in most Western nations is that pot smoking is wrong and should be illegal. Would you then argue that my rights are being violated? The law in western nations is supposed to be democratic, but it does not reach everybodys interpretation of what is fair. Can we apply that mode of thinking to Iran, as well?

Mixed feelings on this. I used to give the Iranians the benefit of the doubt ( on several fronts. ).

What is disturbing is the appeal to higher agencies ( supernatural ) as the source of law.

I do not object to the appeal to higher agencies to determine what is Right and Wrong ( while I >may< differ ), but I do object to the appeal to higher agencies as the ultimate source of legitimacy. Which is where the doubt comes in.

What if democratic processes are used to abolish democracy?

I don't think a democracy can tolerate any other source of legitimacy than the majority-decision. ( No more than a King could not affirm the Divine Right of Kings without political suicide. )

But returning to the question: no, I don't think that you have an innate right to smoke pot.
I'd love to see a new definition or principle of law stating that victim-less crimes are beyond state-control ( thus legalising your assumed right ) , but that is not what the law says now.

Mixed feelings on this. I used to give the Iranians the benefit of the doubt ( on several fronts. ).

What is disturbing is the appeal to higher agencies ( supernatural ) as the source of law.

I do not object to the appeal to higher agencies to determine what is Right and Wrong ( while I >may< differ ), but I do object to the appeal to higher agencies as the ultimate source of legitimacy. Which is where the doubt comes in.

Yeah, and i'd agree, but I try to see it from their point of view.

I do think that we'd lose any moral superiority if we went in, removed the regime and instituted our value system on the grounds that it is "better", however.

What if democratic processes are used to abolish democracy?

That's a difficult situation. If done blatantly and openly, it is (supposedly) the will of the people, after all, and I don't believe that a democracy can function without the consent of the people. On the other hand, the rights of the pro-democratic minority are clearly going to be curtailed severely. Naturally, I don't think that a referendum to commit genocide on a certain segment of the population can possibly be justified.

The citizens of different states enjoy different rights. All citizens whose counstries are members of the European Union have rights which are specifically defined by treaty and enforced at a European level by the European Court of Human Rights. It is arguable that certain tenets of both Islam and Christianity as practised by certain groups with the EU contradict these definitions. European society has evolved a long way from the de-facto theocracy of the middle ages and has gradually built up traditions of law and politics that are different from those in Iran or the US.

I think Churchill had it right whe he said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

But returning to the question: no, I don't think that you have an innate right to smoke pot.
I'd love to see a new definition or principle of law stating that victim-less crimes are beyond state-control ( thus legalising your assumed right ) , but that is not what the law says now.

That's where we differ, then, but is either of us absolutely and proveably right or wrong? No.

Same with Iran and the West, I think. We can't force our moral opinions on them.

(part A)Yeah, and i'd agree, but I try to see it from their point of view.

I do think that we'd lose any moral superiority if we went in, removed the regime and instituted our value system on the grounds that it is "better", however.



(part B) That's a difficult situation. If done blatantly and openly, it is (supposedly) the will of the people, after all, and I don't believe that a democracy can function without the consent of the people. On the other hand, the rights of the pro-democratic minority are clearly going to be curtailed severely. Naturally, I don't think that a referendum to commit genocide on a certain segment of the population can possibly be justified.

part A.

Its difficult to understand their POV. Can you decide by majority-vote to abolish majority-vote without, erm... psychological results? Yes, but not without effort.

I would agree on not going in. We can always reconsider if and when they actually get around to abolishing democracy. Meanwhile, one war at a time ( and the wrong one at that ) certainly seems enough! As Aquinas said: just cause, right motive. One must have both in order to start a justified war. We have a casus belli. But what is our motive? ( I still can't figure out what it was for Iraq, if you know what I mean. )

Part B.

My argument is about the Divine Right of Democracy, a fancy way of saying that since Democracy is so far the best system ever produced, it is seacular sacrilege to experiment with other systems. Which means that any decision to impose anything else is - unthinkable, and invalid.

When you bring up the problem of majority-imposed-genocide, it is very easy to bring in an appeal to higher agencies than the majority ( which seems paradoxical ). I use the following dodge to get around it: any minority so threathened has the recourse of appealing to other democracies to mediate, and if necessary, intervene.

A flight of fancy? No - it is the principle at the heart of the Council of Europe, whose authority to so mediate and intervene has been accepted by almost every democracy on the eastern hemispehere.

That's where we differ, then, but is either of us absolutely and proveably right or wrong? No.

Same with Iran and the West, I think. We can't force our moral opinions on them.

Our argument then, is how to implement a change we both more or les agree on...

I think Churchill had it right whe he said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Try a benevolent dictatorship and you'll change your mind.

Democracy pisses off up to and including 49% of people in a first-past-the-post system, and about 60% of people (possibly) in Electoral college (as a question, why the hell doesn't the US have a first-past-the-post/proportionally represented government?).

If you claim that criticizing how the US is run is anti-American, I direct you to:


I'm not doing that. What I'm saying is that countries like Saudi Arabi need more attention from the Anti American crowd. I can indeed understand that the reason America is so criticised is because of seeming hypocracy, but still I think that the US relationship with Saudi Arabia needs to be more criticised and more publicised.

I'm not doing that. What I'm saying is that countries like Saudi Arabi need more attention from the Anti American crowd. I can indeed understand that the reason America is so criticised is because of seeming hypocracy, but still I think that the US relationship with Saudi Arabia needs to be more criticised and more publicised.

So you're saying that the US should be MORE criticized for dealing with Saudi Arabia? Meh. I could, but Brazil has relationships with China (So does the US), so... meh. :p

I hate Saudi Arabia. I hate them even more for this.

"Amin fled to exile, first in Libya, where sources are divided on whether he remained until December 1979 or early 1980, before finding final asylum in Saudi Arabia."

Those bastards gave a man who murdered 500,000 of his own people in A Sub-Saharan Africa country which until his arrival, was doing VERY well for itself.

Oh good. A thread perpetuating hatred. What a wonderful idea.

Oh good. A thread perpetuating hatred. What a wonderful idea.
A dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.

A dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.

No, not really.

Online pettitions are a load of crap. Waste of time just like an Online Marathon. (worth shit)

Online pettitions are a load of crap. Waste of time just like an Online Marathon. (worth shit)
Yea I admit this is true.