NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_eu/un_rights_council

The UN thinks governments should stop people from bashing religion, at least that is how a UN body voted.

No shit.

I like the "let's cure terrible diseases and such" element, but it's totally powerless to do... well... much about anything.

Oh good, another feel vote from the UN. :rolleyes: Further proof that the UN is in desperate need of action.

No shit.

I like the "let's cure terrible diseases and such" element, but it's totally powerless to do... well... much about anything.

Yeah, but it can give legitimacy to Islamic countries which want to stifle free speech, as well as undermining any legitimacy the Human Rights Council had left.

Wow. It's now actually WORSE than the League of Nations. As useless as it was, the LoN never took free speech AWAY from people, AFAIK.

So we're legitimizing the elimination of free speech?

So we're legitimizing the elimination of free speech?

Pretty much. Yay for Islam!

http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/un-fail/

Oh good, another feel vote from the UN. :rolleyes: Further proof that the UN is in desperate need of action.

Yeah. It's quickly turning into another League of Nations...

Why blame the UN? The governments of its member states are responsible for the decisions it, or bodies elected by it, makes. This includes electing countries with poor human rights records to the Human Rights Council.

Wow. It's now actually WORSE than the League of Nations. As useless as it was, the LoN never took free speech AWAY from people, AFAIK.
Neither has the UN. Or are you under the impression this decision means anything at all?

Pretty much. Yay for Islam!
Evil Muslims!

Why blame the UN? The governments of its member states are responsible for the decisions it, or bodies elected by it, makes. This includes electing countries with poor human rights records to the Human Rights Council.
That and a complete shake-up of the remit and operation of the UNSC.

Pretty much. Yay for Islam!

It's not about Islam. It's about letting countries with repressive governments and atrocious human rights records on the UN Human Rights Council. The UN is the problem, here.

The UN would accept leadership of the Human Rights Commision going to countries like the Sudan. They have no connection to reality.

Yeah. It's quickly turning into another League of Nations...
It's always been like this...

What will this little bone the UN threw to Iran* do?


Absolutally nothing.



*- Yes, not just Iran, but theyre the most fun to pick on

The UN is a rather fascinating example of tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority). Or it would be if not for vetoes on the security council.

The UN is a rather fascinating example of tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority). Or it would be if not for vetoes on the security council.

In oder to be a tyranny, dont you have to, actually you know, accomplish something?


In order to be a tyranny, dont people have to, um, listen to you?

The UN is a rather fascinating example of tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority). Or it would be if not for vetoes on the security council.
It's the worst of both worlds, really.

The UN is a rather fascinating example of tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority). Or it would be if not for vetoes on the security council.

No, for two counts.

1) It's can't do anything about it. It's a feel good resolution, and has no impact.

2) The UN is not a democratic body. It's membership is made up of state governments, without any proportion to population. Repressive, autocratic regimes have just as much say as democratic states, and China has just as much weight as Monaco. This would be tyranny by oligarchy, if the UN had any power to enforce its decisions, which it doesn't.

Neither has the UN. Or are you under the impression this decision means anything at all?

Exactly. In order for this decision to mean anything, the UN would actually have to be able to DO something, which luckly, it (Usually) cannot.

In oder to be a tyranny, dont you have to, actually you know, accomplish something?


In order to be a tyranny, dont people have to, um, listen to you?

It's an example really. If the UN had any power at all we'd be in a theocratic authoritarian world in about 5 years.

Yay democracy!

It's an example really. If the UN had any power at all we'd be in a theocratic authoritarian world in about 5 years.
Depends who was on which council, to be honest.

THe problem isn't the UN, it's these middle eastern and primarily Muslim nations, they need to be kicked from power.

I love how freedom of speech no long protects offensive speech...

They'll just have to cancel Comedy Central then, and burn half of the books in the world.

Damn cowards!

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125716.html

a few nations got together to say they are concerned and found themselves with a sufficient majority to have the UN also echo this

am I missing something here? isn't the UN a world forum?

a few nations got together to say they are concerned and found themselves with a sufficient majority to have the UN also echo this

am I missing something here? isn't the UN a world forum?

More-or-less. What we'd need for it to be an actual governing body is either a council of nations (all meeting certain criteria, of course) with veto power or one where all the council countries have a larger proportion of votes to swing things. As it stands, the UN would destroy the planet as a gov't...

The Sudan is the last country known to man with legalized slavery. They are also the head of the United Nations Human Rights Council. 'Nuff Said

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_eu/un_rights_council

The UN thinks governments should stop people from bashing religion, at least that is how a UN body voted.

It was a body dominated by Muslim nations. What do you expect?

Pretty much. Yay for Islam!

7 posts before the Muslim-bashing began. That's gotta be some sort of record.

7 posts before the Muslim-bashing began. That's gotta be some sort of record.


The motion was put forward by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.
It was forced through by Islamic countries.
Islam is the only religion to be mentioned explicitly for protection by the resolution, with eight paragraphs devoted to it.


How the hell is it 'Muslim-bashing' to point out that Islam motivated this illiberal motion?

I don't see the problem this non-binding resolution presents.

I don't see a problem at all. It just shows if we gave a world government real power we would all be screwed. Majority of the world is not free.

As long as this is ingored, it shouldn't be a problem. The only time we should care about things like this is if there's ever a danger of it becoming binding, in which case we'd just veto it. I really don't understant how anyone could object to the presence of vetos after looking at this. This is the best advertisment for keeping the veto that you could get!

The motion was put forward by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.
It was forced through by Islamic countries.
Islam is the only religion to be mentioned explicitly for protection by the resolution, with eight paragraphs devoted to it.


How the hell is it 'Muslim-bashing' to point out that Islam motivated this illiberal motion?

Because the "Yay for Islam!" post was made by FO, who is a known and particularly vile Muslim-basher who uses this - much like you do, apparently - as an excuse for hate- and fear-mongering.

You can play "I'm just pointing out facts" all you like, but your Agenda is pretty fucking clear to me.

You can play "I'm just pointing out facts" all you like, but your Agenda is pretty fucking clear to me.
But this is quite clearly an Islamic project, thought of by an Islamic organisation and pushed through by Islamic countries against the opposition of non-Islamic ones. The first talk of a motion like this came after the Danish cartoons when Arab governments asked the Danish one to stop this "defamation".

So yeah, it's not a cool resolution and it's done with a "protect Islam" sort of motive. That doesn't tell us anything about Islam in general, but that doesn't mean we have to deny that the use of the religion as a political weapon (probably mainly against domestic dissent in the countries that voted for it) was the main factor here.

But this is quite clearly an Islamic project, thought of by an Islamic organisation and pushed through by Islamic countries against the opposition of non-Islamic ones. The first talk of a motion like this came after the Danish cartoons when Arab governments asked the Danish one to stop this "defamation".

So yeah, it's not a cool resolution and it's done with a "protect Islam" sort of motive. That doesn't tell us anything about Islam in general, but that doesn't mean we have to deny that the use of the religion as a political weapon (probably mainly against domestic dissent in the countries that voted for it) was the main factor here.

meh, Islam is ultimately is an enemy of the left but in the short-term it's a good ally against the western capitalism.

Because the "Yay for Islam!" post was made by FO, who is a known and particularly vile Muslim-basher who uses this - much like you do, apparently - as an excuse for hate- and fear-mongering.

You can play "I'm just pointing out facts" all you like, but your Agenda is pretty fucking clear to me.
Don't be stupid. This is blatently a way to defend Islam before all other faiths. You know where I stand on this kind of issue, and even I can see it's a complete feel-good pisstake. Alright, squire?

Don't be stupid. This is blatently a way to defend Islam before all other faiths.

Mm yes, and it is matched by blatant ways to attack Islam before all other faiths too.

Mm yes, and it is matched by blatant ways to attack Islam before all other faiths too.
Oh fucking please.

Look at the various threads about Christianity here, or some of the stuff published in Iran and Syria about Judiasm and you'll see that nobody is immune to wankey pricks who are rude about the various religions of the world.

This is news to people?

The UN has been an expensive and divisive piece of crap since it was created.

This is news to people?

The UN has been an expensive and divisive piece of crap since it was created.
The UN doomsayers have been around for a very long time, but I fundamentally view the UN as a force for good, for without it and the system of international relations - we would have a system of "might equals right".

The UN doomsayers have been around for a very long time, but I fundamentally view the UN as a force for good, for without it and the system of international relations - we would have a system of "might equals right".

You say "might equals right" like it's a bad thing.

"Might equals right" is the fundamental law of human nature. Society only exists because the collective desire to maintain society is stronger than the desire to see it destroyed.

Of course, I'm a citizen of a nuclear weapons capable state run by a psychotic bastard with the IQ of a pineapple, so I can't talk.

You say "might equals right" like it's a bad thing.

"Might equals right" is the fundamental law of human nature. Society only exists because the collective desire to maintain society is stronger than the desire to see it destroyed.

Of course, I'm a citizen of a nuclear weapons capable state run by a psychotic bastard with the IQ of a pineapple, so I can't talk.

Applying individual psychology to a relationship between nations doesn't work because they are different things. Also saying that a majority thinks something does not make it immediately correct, that's a fallacy.

You say "might equals right" like it's a bad thing.

"Might equals right" is the fundamental law of human nature. Society only exists because the collective desire to maintain society is stronger than the desire to see it destroyed.

Of course, I'm a citizen of a nuclear weapons capable state run by a psychotic bastard with the IQ of a pineapple, so I can't talk.

If you have no problem with Might Makes Right, then I suppose you won't have any problems at all with China and Russia having things their way in the world.

Time for the USA to serve the UN with a long overdue eviction notice.

I agree. The UN has done very few things to justify it's existence.

Time for the USA to serve the UN with a long overdue eviction notice.
Yeah, isolationism so works:rolleyes:

Yeah, isolationism so works:rolleyes:

Sometimes, sometimes not. Blanket statements rarely cover the entire scenario.

Sometimes, sometimes not. Blanket statements rarely cover the entire scenario.

In this case it does, those who advocate economic nationalism or isolationism of any kind fail to grasp the reality of modern societies.

In this case it does, those who advocate economic nationalism or isolationism of any kind fail to grasp the reality of modern societies.

Depends. A country large or diverse enough to supply itself with most of what it needs for an indefinite (or extended) period of time could do it.

I agree. The UN has done very few things to justify it's existence.

I suppose humanitarian relief and keeping Korea from completely turning into Kimland aren't good enough to justify the UN's existence.

Depends. A country large or diverse enough to supply itself with most of what it needs for an indefinite (or extended) period of time could do it.
I spose, but they would be limited to the bare necessities of life, a single country couldn't possibly supply of all the products of modern society without relying on other countries for imports, it's called Specialization.

Either way, being isolationist these days is highly contradictory, being isolationist in years past made sense because the aircraft, modern communications, sea travel, horse travel etc hadn't come about (if you go back in time).

I suppose humanitarian relief and keeping Korea from completely turning into Kimland aren't good enough to justify the UN's existence.

Korea IS kimland, to think otherwise is delusion. As for the humanitarian relief, many countries would do that with or without the UN.

I spose, but they would be limited to the bare necessities of life, a single country couldn't possibly supply of all the products of modern society without relying on other countries for imports, it's called Specialization.

Either way, being isolationist these days is highly contradictory, being isolationist in years past made sense because the aircraft, modern communications, sea travel, horse travel etc hadn't come about (if you go back in time).

You are assuming that said country would cut off all trade (I agree that no country could do that). Being isolationist does not disallow the fact that the country could and would trade. It just means said country would do so in a more limited fashion and have as little contact with others as possible.

Korea IS kimland, to think otherwise is delusion. As for the humanitarian relief, many countries would do that with or without the UN.

Oh? Last I recall there were two Koreas instead of one under the apathetic/insane rulership of Kim Jong-Il.

Oh? Last I recall there were two Koreas instead of one under the apathetic/insane rulership of Kim Jong-Il.

You were talking of BOTH north an south? It didn't sound that way. Anyway, wasn't the defence of South Korea, American? If not entirely, Americans did most of the work.

You are assuming that said country would cut off all trade (I agree that no country could do that). Being isolationist does not disallow the fact that the country could and would trade. It just means said country would do so in a more limited fashion and have as little contact with others as possible.

Yes but why would any country want to do that? Modern society has made the differences in humanity smaller and smaller, another few decades will see them all but non existant.

Yes but why would any country want to do that? Modern society has made the differences in humanity smaller and smaller, another few decades will see them all but non existant.

If so, that will be a sad day indeed.

You were talking of BOTH north an south? It didn't sound that way. Anyway, wasn't the defence of South Korea, American? If not entirely, Americans did most of the work.

Don't try to backpedal away from this. I specified the UN helped prevent Korea (as a whole) from completely turning into Kimland and you specifically replied to that post knowing I was referring to the Korean Peninsula as a whole.

And you're conveniently downplaying or outright ignoring the roles of the military forces sent by the other UN members in a true coalition to help repel the North Korean invasion.

Don't try to backpedal away from this. I specified the UN helped prevent Korea (as a whole) from completely turning into Kimland and you specifically replied to that post knowing I was referring to the Korean Peninsula as a whole.

And you're conveniently downplaying or outright ignoring the roles of the military forces sent by the other UN members in a true coalition to help repel the North Korean invasion.

Backpedal? I honestly thought you were refering to North Korea. If you choose to think otherwise, that is your mistake.

Backpedal? I honestly thought you were refering to North Korea. If you choose to think otherwise, that is your mistake.

How does "Korea" automatically refer to "North Korea"? Admit it, you've been caught with your foot in your mouth again, just like when you declared the Grand Muslim/Atheist Conspiracy of NSG.

How does "Korea" automatically refer to "North Korea"? Admit it, you've been caught with your foot in your mouth again, just like when you declared the Grand Muslim/Atheist Conspiracy of NSG.

Calling Korea "not kimland" brings to mind WHAT exactly? Could it be...oh, I dunno, North Korea? As to the second part, Lul wut?

Calling Korea "not kimland" brings to mind WHAT exactly? Could it be...oh, I dunno, North Korea? As to the second part, Lul wut?

You missed the word "Completely" as in the whole Korean Peninsula. Just when I forget human beings can be so dense and obstinate, you refresh my memory.

As for the "lul whut," you forget that whole Muslim/Athiest Conspiracy Rant of yours that got you banned for a couple days? Let me refresh your memory.

Here's one shining highlight.

Yes, as you can see, i'm an ebil American who deserves to die. The atheist-muslim god-people (who can do and think no wrong) declare it! It is so!!!!

And another.

I don't care if Islam takes over europe, in fact, I think it would be nice.



PS, the atheists on this forum DO sympathize with muslims! Quit being such a whiner.

And another.

Take a look at the muhammed vs jesus thread, almost every page I found atheists defending muslims.

You have just been pwned like stolen merchandise.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_eu/un_rights_council

The UN thinks governments should stop people from bashing religion, at least that is how a UN body voted.

First off, this is....

http://www.codysortore.com/images/epic.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/pirateneko/other%20crap/f8a930c6.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/emmamoonpotter/epic_fail.jpg

Secondly,

Maybe Muslim should be lest concern about who is talking "trash" about their religion and more about the radicals who are blowing things up, killing innocent people and calling for another 9/11 and Holocaust........OVER A STUPID CARTOON!

I try to be tolerant of all religion, I really do (well except for Scientology, but that's another topic) but I really cannot stand by while Muslim and followers of Islam threaten MY Freedom of Speech.

First off, this is....

http://www.codysortore.com/images/epic.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/pirateneko/other%20crap/f8a930c6.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/emmamoonpotter/epic_fail.jpg

Secondly,

Maybe Muslim should be lest concern about who is talking "trash" about their religion and more about the radicals who are blowing things up, killing innocent people and calling for another 9/11 and Holocaust........OVER A STUPID CARTOON!

I try to be tolerant of all religion, I really do (well except for Scientology, but that's another topic) but I really cannot stand by while Muslim and followers of Islam threaten MY Freedom of Speech.

Keep in mind that the "Muslims" proposing this nonbinding resolution for the most part are fundies who are part of very undemocratic governments that need religion as a smokescreen to cover their incompetence and corruptions. And again, how does a nonbinding UN resolution which'll be ignored or vetoed anyways somehow threaten American Freedom of Speech?

You have just been pwned like stolen merchandise.

Pwned like stolen merchandise? I'm not understanding the simile here. :confused:

Pwned like stolen merchandise? I'm not understanding the simile here. :confused:

The joke relies on pronouncing it "Pawned," as in selling off for cash.

The joke relies on pronouncing it "Pawned," as in selling off for cash.

Ah, LOL! :D

Applying individual psychology to a relationship between nations doesn't work because they are different things. Also saying that a majority thinks something does not make it immediately correct, that's a fallacy.

I never said that the majority is always correct. It's just that when any group, majority or minority, is strong enough to force its will onto other groups, their opinions are often accepted as truth, regardless of actual merit. It's like the old saying "history is written by the victors".

If you have no problem with Might Makes Right, then I suppose you won't have any problems at all with China and Russia having things their way in the world.

Chinese might and Russian might are irrelevent if there are other, mightier countries that are able and willing to stop them. If might makes right, then greater might should make greater right.

Also saying that a majority thinks something does not make it immediately correct, that's a fallacy.

Didn't you once say "the masses are never wrong"?

Let's just ban all free speech and all artistic reproductions of allah to soothe a couple emotional islamic third world nations. maybe oil will be cheaper for it! what a joke. the un is worthless, it's time for the US to trim or eliminate its UN contributions.

Keep in mind that the "Muslims" proposing this nonbinding resolution for the most part are fundies who are part of very undemocratic governments that need religion as a smokescreen to cover their incompetence and corruptions. And again, how does a nonbinding UN resolution which'll be ignored or vetoed anyways somehow threaten American Freedom of Speech?

The problem is that it's set a bad Presidence(sp). Sure it's non-binding now, but they're just testing the water. Yes yes, those who proposed this are the fundies, but they are also the one in power and have Nukes. So far their population doesn't seem to be reeling them in.

The problem is that it's set a bad Presidence(sp). Sure it's non-binding now, but they're just testing the water. Yes yes, those who proposed this are the fundies, but they are also the one in power and have Nukes. So far their population doesn't seem to be reeling them in.

It's "precedent", and comes from "to precede".

And yes, frankly, I think the proposal is a bad idea as well. If nothing else, it makes the fundies look like bigger jerks than they already are. Uguu....

Didn't you once say "the masses are never wrong"?

If I did I recant that statement.

If I did I recant that statement.

That's a bit difficult, since your entire ideology revolves around that idea.

That's a bit difficult, since your entire ideology revolves around that idea.

Hardly, the reason I would recant if I did say that in the past is because it's completely incompatible with my views. Leninism requires a certain minority of committed political activists to win power for the working class, any socialist who says that the majority of workers must 'rise up' is utopian and naive in the extreme.

super power governments run by corporate mafias that don't give a dam about real people, places and things, are the real pieces of crap that deliberately prevent the u.n. from being able to do and be all that it would be, could be, should be.

i think anyone who pretends the failing lies primarily with the u.n. itself, is deceiving themselves on some level.

that if they were a little more honest, even with them selves, let alone the rest of us, this would be so completely unavoidably obvious, even to them.

the real reason political leaders, those of a so called conservative bent, in super power governments, rag about the u.n., is simply it's inconvenience to their dishonesty to their own populas.

=^^=
.../\...

Because the "Yay for Islam!" post was made by FO, who is a known and particularly vile Muslim-basher who uses this - much like you do, apparently - as an excuse for hate- and fear-mongering.

You can play "I'm just pointing out facts" all you like, but your Agenda is pretty fucking clear to me.

Ah, so you can't dispute the facts, you're just ad hominening the poster. Good to know.

I challenged you a few weeks back to back up your repeated assertions that I'm a 'Muslim-hater' and promised that, if you could find a single post in which I said I hated all Muslims, I'd retract it and publicly apologise. You never replied. You're a damn liar and you know it.

Can I deny holocaust or critically examine it....?

No wait, it is actually illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial) around the world.

Freedom of speech is nice but there are limits to it, sometimes more arbitrary, sometimes less :p

Can I deny holocaust or critically examine it....?

No wait, it is actually illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial) around the world.

Freedom of speech is nice but there are limits to it, sometimes more arbitrary, sometimes less :p

Just because is IS illegal, doesn't mean it should be. Holocaust denial laws are one of the greatest human rights violations in the West today.

for without it and the system of international relations - we would have a system of "might equals right".

We already have that.

What will this little bone the UN threw to Iran* do?

Absolutally nothing.

*- Yes, not just Iran, but theyre the most fun to pick on
He who has not suspended Habeus Corpus may cast the 1st stone.

This resolution is crap, and a compete debacle, but I always put the boot in a thread, when someone points out how bad an "evil country" is, without acknowledging their faults.

You missed the word "Completely" as in the whole Korean Peninsula. Just when I forget human beings can be so dense and obstinate, you refresh my memory.

As for the "lul whut," you forget that whole Muslim/Athiest Conspiracy Rant of yours that got you banned for a couple days? Let me refresh your memory.

Here's one shining highlight.



Unless I was banned while I was away whiner, I wasn't banned.

I suppose humanitarian relief and keeping Korea from completely turning into Kimland aren't good enough to justify the UN's existence.

Sounds to me likle you're holding on to the delusion that Korea already isn't kimland. It is.

He who has not suspended Habeus Corpus may cast the 1st stone.

This resolution is crap, and a compete debacle, but I always put the boot in a thread, when someone points out how bad an "evil country" is, without acknowledging their faults.

Iran is far worse than the US, and it's stupid to say otherwise.

Also, if Iran has habeas corpus, I'd be extremely surprised.

You have just been pwned like stolen merchandise.

Seriously though, its not that hard to pwn Kontor.

He who has not suspended Habeus Corpus may cast the 1st stone.

This resolution is crap, and a compete debacle, but I always put the boot in a thread, when someone points out how bad an "evil country" is, without acknowledging their faults.

I like how you just turned a comment about this being a non-binding resolution into an attack on the US. Well done. You pull anything when you made that stretch?


And are you honostly, honostly, comparing the US to Iran and saying that the US has no right to critisize Iran because we're just as bad? Seriously?:headbang:


Last I checked, there wasnt a death sentence in the US for being gay, despite what some fringe groups want. And get updated on your facts. Bush never formally suspended Habeus Corpus, an he Supreme Court has declared that terror suspects have a right to invoke it. So Shrubs is the only one who wishes it was ignored it seems.


Oh wait, my bad, there cant be any such laws in Iran, they have no homosexuals:D

I agree. The UN has done very few things to justify it's existence.
Its health programmes have genuinely helped out the poorest in the world, and ended Smallpox. This is a Good Thing.

The problem is that it's set a bad Presidence(sp). Sure it's non-binding now, but they're just testing the water. Yes yes, those who proposed this are the fundies, but they are also the one in power and have Nukes. So far their population doesn't seem to be reeling them in.

Precedence means nothing to the United States. It all ready ignores the ICC and the Kyoto Protocols, and will move to stop any measure that condemns Israel, even if it's a purely symbolic fluff like this piece of crap that's being proposed. Even if it somehow manages to pass, I doubt the Caliphate Conspiracy Theorists are going to see much in the way of things to prove them correct.

super power governments run by corporate mafias that don't give a dam about real people, places and things, are the real pieces of crap that deliberately prevent the u.n. from being able to do and be all that it would be, could be, should be.

i think anyone who pretends the failing lies primarily with the u.n. itself, is deceiving themselves on some level.

that if they were a little more honest, even with them selves, let alone the rest of us, this would be so completely unavoidably obvious, even to them.

the real reason political leaders, those of a so called conservative bent, in super power governments, rag about the u.n., is simply it's inconvenience to their dishonesty to their own populas.

=^^=
.../\...

.

super power governments run by corporate mafias that don't give a dam about real people, places and things, are the real pieces of crap that deliberately prevent the u.n. from being able to do and be all that it would be, could be, should be.

i think anyone who pretends the failing lies primarily with the u.n. itself, is deceiving themselves on some level.

that if they were a little more honest, even with them selves, let alone the rest of us, this would be so completely unavoidably obvious, even to them.

the real reason political leaders, those of a so called conservative bent, in super power governments, rag about the u.n., is simply it's inconvenience to their dishonesty to their own populas.

=^^=
.../\...

RIP all semblances of logical reasoning.

RIP all semblances of logical reasoning.
What are you, a tool of our Halliburton-owned, Gitmo-loving, islamophobic masters of the New World Order or something?

What are you, a tool of our Halliburton-owned, Gitmo-loving, islamophobic masters of the New World Order or something?

If he's not, then that clearly means he's a freedom-hating liberal islamofascist who needs to be locked up in Gitmo.

Last I checked, there wasnt a death sentence in the US for being gay, despite what some fringe groups want.

...

Oh wait, my bad, there cant be any such laws in Iran, they have no homosexuals:D

To be accurate, there aren't any laws against merely being gay in Iran either. Homosexual acts, on the other hand...

Cameroi is right. Last year UNICEF reported a number of problems concerning the education, well-being and poverty levels of children in the UK. The Labour government essentially laughed awkwardly and said the UN report was wrong.

Take a look at one of the more prominent threads on the front page right now.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552890

They released another report, claiming once again that Britain's children are at risk. Once again, the government is shrugging it off.

Just because is IS illegal, doesn't mean it should be. Holocaust denial laws are one of the greatest human rights violations in the West today.
Hear, hear!

I like how you just turned a comment about this being a non-binding resolution into an attack on the US. Well done. You pull anything when you made that stretch?
And are you honestly, honestly, comparing the US to Iran and saying that the US has no right to critisize Iran because we're just as bad? Seriously?:headbang:
This forum has many right and left wind idealogues. Someone used this UN thing to bash Iran, when the US ignores the UN much more than any other country. This may be a fault of how the UN is set up, but it doesn't change the fact that someone whining about Iran ignoring the UN is farcical.
I'll grant the habeus corpus bit is a bit unrelated, so I've used the above paragrah to get more on topic.

Korea IS kimland, to think otherwise is delusion.

Assuming you mean Kim Jong il when you say kimland, I can only surmise that you failed your history studies and have been hiding under a rock ever since.

To be accurate, there aren't any laws against merely being gay in Iran either. Homosexual acts, on the other hand...
You're defending that?

Hear, hear!

Personally, I'd rank the whole ongoing "separate but equal" crap that's going on in all but a few countries to be a wee bit higher.

Ditto for the torture.

And about ten or twelve other things.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_eu/un_rights_council

The UN thinks governments should stop people from bashing religion, at least that is how a UN body voted.

The UN is a piece of crap

We agree.

The government favors Catholics by the appointment of a Catholic supreme court justice, mandatory school uniforms, illegal abortions law, organ donation rates are the lowest in the world.

UN Ambassador Minister Ninoska Perez Castellon.

President Lincoln Diaz-Balart
Vice President Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Hispanic Republic of Miami Jai-Alai.