Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: The United Nations...Ushering in the NWO

  1. #1
    Gold Member Delphinium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Land of the Free, Home of the Brave
    Posts
    778

    Default The United Nations...Ushering in the NWO

    There is no margin for error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression. The expulsion of a charter member, the Republic of China [Taiwan]—an action forbidden by the U.N.'s own Charter—was a 'moment of truth,' a naked display of the United Nations' soul.

    What was Red China's qualification for membership in the U.N.? The fact that her government seized power by force, and has maintained it for twenty-two years by terror. What disqualified Nationalist China [Taiwan]? The fact that she was a friend of the United States. It was against the United States that all those beneficiaries of our foreign aid were voting at the U.N. It was hatred of the United States and the pleasure of spitting in our face that they were celebrating, as well as their liberation from morality—with savages, appropriately, doing jungle dances in the aisles.
    — AYN RAND
    The United States Should Withdraw From the United Nations
    by David Holcberg (May 12, 2001)

    Article website address: http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=528
    Summary: If America really cares about human rights, the best thing it can do is to take this opportunity and withdraw from the United Nations.
    [CapMag.com]Last week, the US was voted out of the UN Human Rights Commission. Rights violating nations such as Sudan, Libya, and Syria, were voted in. What does this vote tell us about the nature of the UN and of its members?
    Well, it clearly tells us that most of the UN's members don't care for human rights. If they did, they would not have elected savage dictatorships and terrorist sponsors to oversee and protect human rights in the world. Nobody that really cared about hens would put the foxes in charge of the hen-house. According to the UN itself, Sudan's government is directly responsible for "displacement, starvation, and killing of civilians, looting and burning of villages, abductions and rape." Libya and Syria have been known sponsors of international terrorism for over three decades. Sierra Leone, another country voted in, has been recently denounced by the UN for committing "abuses of human rights … with impunity, in particular atrocities against civilians …including executions, mutilations, abductions, arbitrary detention, forced labor, looting, [and] killings of journalists." [For modern examples of slavery in Africa see Walter Williams' article "Black Slavery is Alive in 2001"--Editor]
    But we shouldn't really be surprised with the vote's outcome. After all, Russia has been in the UN Human Rights Commission since its creation, in 1947, despite having been a totalitarian state where human rights were non-existent for most of that time. How then could the commission have had any credibility at all?
    The answer is that the presence of the US gave the UN Human Rights Commission credibility. Now that the US is gone, it has none.

    Americans should realize this fact and start asking themselves a couple of questions. For instance: Should the US have been sitting in the commission with communist Russia for almost half a century? And more importantly, should the US still be a member in the UN alongside dozens of dictatorships that have no respect for human rights? Why should the US grant these nations the legitimacy that they do not deserve?
    The reason why the US accepts these dictatorial nations is because America has partially fallen for the false ideologies of self-determination and multiculturalism. Self-determination holds that every nation has the right to determine its own form of government, regardless of how brutal or unjust that form might be. Multiculturalism holds that all nations and cultures are equally moral and should be treated with respect regardless of their particular nature. But in reality, not all forms of government are equally just and not all nations are morally equal. Most nations, in fact, are hopelessly unjust and immoral, and should not be granted any recognition or respect, but only strict condemnation.
    The US should stop financing and supporting an organization choke-full of dictatorships like the UN. The US presence in the UN serves only to legitimize these tyrannies' existence and their continuous abuse of human rights. To sanction evil is as impractical as it is immoral. The US cannot hope to protect human rights by associating itself with human rights violators.
    Of course, the US should continue to pursue a foreign policy that supports human rights, but should do so on its own, or in alliance with other nations that actually share its values. If America really cares about human rights, the best thing it can do is to take this opportunity and withdraw from the UN. Then the world may get the message that human rights are more important that membership in a corrupt and morally bankrupt organization.

    Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.

  2. #2
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! buttmunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    31,885

    Default

    Ayn Rand? **snicker**
    'Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.' Ben Franklin

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
    --Sinclair Lewis

  3. #3
    Elite Member twitchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dancing on your grave!!!!
    Posts
    9,131

    Default

    "May 12, 2001......Last week, the US was voted out of the UN Human Rights Commission........The answer is that the presence of the US gave the UN Human Rights Commission credibility."

    Every year, one third of the countries on the commission come up for re-election. In that year, the three seats up for re-election allotted to western countries went to France, Austria and Sweden. The US was replaced by Sweden. The US was back on the council in 2003. What's the issue? Why do you hate Sweden?

    Credibility? Interesting. A lack of credibility is the reason often cited for the US being removed from the commission that year. They had consistently voted against human rights protections. The United States was the only one of 42 countries at the UN Commission on the Status of Women meeting to reject a resolution on the release of women and children hostages. This resolution condemned violent acts which are the consequences of hostage taking. The resolution condemned, in particular, rape, murder, torture, slavery, and trafficking in women and children. It calls for the immediate release of women and children taken hostage in armed conflict.

    Make sure women and children are safe in armed conflict? No. Abolish land mines which kill or maim thousands every year? No. Make AIDS drugs available to everyone? No. International criminal court for cross-border criminals? No. Defend civilians from indiscriminate violence in time of war? No. Ban the use of child soldiers? No. Prevent the execution of juvenile offenders? No. Acknowledge that humans have a basic right to adequate food? No. etc. etc.

    I'm not sure that the author of your opinion piece knows what credibility means. Or multiculturalism for that matter.

    The purpose of the commission is to discuss human rights issues. The writer of your piece yammers on about the 'bad' countries. How do you think things are going to get changed? Through the proposed policy of "strict condemnation"? Or perhaps through dialogue?

    And with regards to your title...........
    Exerpt from Bush's (Sr.) speech to Congress, March 6, 1991:

    "Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.
    The Gulf war put this new world to its first test, and, my fellow Americans, we passed that test.
    For the sake of our principles, for the sake of the Kuwaiti people, we stood our ground. Because the world would not look the other way, Ambassador [Saud Nasir] al-Sabah, to-night, Kuwait is free.
    Tonight as our troops begin to come home, let us recognise that the hard work of freedom still calls us forward. We’ve learned the hard lessons of history. The victory over Iraq was not waged as "a war to end all wars." Even the new world order cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace. But enduring peace must be our mission "

    By the way, you do know that the US was one of the countries to establish the United Nations in the first place?







    Ayn Rand... *double snicker*

    "The howling backwoods that is IMDB is where film criticism goes to die (and then have its corpse gang-raped, called a racist, and accused of supporting Al-Qaeda)" ----Sean O'Neal, The Onion AV Club

  4. #4
    Gold Member Delphinium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Land of the Free, Home of the Brave
    Posts
    778

    Default

    why in the world would you want an international court?! That would be madness. You would have countries like China holding the power of life and death over American citizens possibly. Anything to do with the UN I'm pretty much automatically against, they are an evil organization.

    Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.

  5. #5
    Elite Member twitchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dancing on your grave!!!!
    Posts
    9,131

    Default

    Why? Well, for example, currently Bosnia-Herzigovina would like Serbia and Montnegro held accountable for genocide. How else could this be settled?

    There are fifteen judges on the court. Decisions are by majority. How could one Chinese judge control all the others?

    Examples of 'evil' please.

    "The howling backwoods that is IMDB is where film criticism goes to die (and then have its corpse gang-raped, called a racist, and accused of supporting Al-Qaeda)" ----Sean O'Neal, The Onion AV Club

  6. #6
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    51,887

    Default

    it's true the commission had a credibility problem. it was set up in a way that it was bound to become political, and it did. and the peer review mechanism - whereby every member state is subject to an examination of its human rights record - was not sufficiently enforced or applied with a double standard (basically, if you had money and the right connections, the same rules didn't apply to you... kinda like in real life ).
    that is why the commission was abolished and the human rights council was created. less members, tighter rules, 10 weeks spread out throughout the year instead of 6 all at once like the commission, and a universal peer review mechanism. and review of all the special procedures and mandates. also, any member state found guilty of state-sanctioned or systematic human right violations is expelled. the first session was in june and the second session just started monday.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  7. #7
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! buttmunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    31,885

    Default

    why in the world would you want an international court?! That would be madness. You would have countries like China holding the power of life and death over American citizens possibly. Anything to do with the UN I'm pretty much automatically against, they are an evil organization.
    An international court would hold war criminals responsible. It's no big stretch to imagine why certain segments of the population aren't on board with this idea. And as far as blanket statements about the UN being an evil organization, it appears you know next to nothing about this enormously complex organization, which certainly has its faults but is not inherently bad. In fact, it does do some good in the world.
    'Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.' Ben Franklin

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
    --Sinclair Lewis

  8. #8
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Delphinium needs to get over this idea that the US is somehow above reproach and should not be subject to the same set standard of rules everyone else is.

    Gee, self-important much? If all nations agreed to a set framework for what constituted war crimes or other negative actions why would the US need to suddenly back out?

    It must be really difficult to come to terms with the fact that the infant nation of the USA (comparitavely speaking) might be held accountable for its actions, and as such threw a tantrum because it was worried it wouldn't get its way.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  9. #9
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! buttmunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    31,885

    Default

    Of course we throw tantrums! We're an infant nation!
    'Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.' Ben Franklin

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
    --Sinclair Lewis

  10. #10
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Yes, hence the allusion!
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  11. #11
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! buttmunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    31,885

    Default

    Well, erm, YEAH!.....................
    'Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.' Ben Franklin

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
    --Sinclair Lewis

  12. #12
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    51,887

    Default

    the US likes to pick and choose what international laws it follows, and then condemn and criticise countries for not meeting their international obligations. 'do as i say, not as i do' basically.

    take the war on terror...
    since the creation of nation-states, it has been understood that states have the monopoly on the use of force - within certain legal parametres, supposedly - and that is what makes terrorism illegal.
    but what of states hiring private contractors to do their dirty work for them? iraq is full of private contractors carrying out 'interrogations' (i.e. torture) for the US government, just so it can circumvent its obligations under the geneva convention.
    the prisoners in guantanamo were put there and labelled 'enemy combatants' instead of POWs, again so that the US government could circumvent the geneva convention. the supreme court ruled it illegal but guantamo is still there, and according to various sources, they are actually building a new block.
    why don't more people question the legality of that? terrorism is so obviously illegal people lose sight of what can be called state-sanctioned terrorism which not only erodes the culture of human rights and international law, it creates more hatred of the west and more public justification of terrorism in many countries. why should they condemn terrorism if the west has such an obvious double standard, telling developing countries to follow the very tenets of international law while they themselves pick and choose which laws they follow.
    for the past week and a half of human rights council, i've watched europe and the US compliment countries that allow special rapporteurs to go in and examine the human rights situation, and especially the ones that grant experts full access, and harshly criticise those that don't, or that won't even allow special rapporteurs into the country... well, when it came to the rapporteurs that were - finally, after 3 years of requests - granted access to guantanamo, they were only allowed a heavily guarded tour and not allowed to interview prisoners privately, which is one of the prerequisites to carrying out a credible investigation. the US justified it by saying it's the same tour they allowed their own senators and congressmen... as if the fact that they keep their own countrymen in the dark makes it alright to do the same to the UN... but when it is myanmar or some other obvious easy target that we are talking about, any other country that doesn't allow full access, you hear the US make a speech saying that the state has to cooperate more with the special mechanisms and meet its obligations under international law...
    sorry for the OT ramble, but the point is, this kind of behaviour will only lead to more and more hatred of the west and justification of terrorism in the minds of many. the US isn't gaining anything by blatantly disregarding international instruments that took years to put in place and that, if properly implemented, would be a lot more successful than any 'war on terror' and cowboy talk
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 18th, 2006, 06:45 PM
  2. France threatens to nuke other nations
    By Grimmlok in forum Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 19th, 2006, 11:01 AM
  3. Chelsea Clinton @ United Nations event
    By SVZ in forum Photo Archive
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: November 20th, 2005, 05:19 PM
  4. Alyssa Milano @ United Nations event
    By SVZ in forum Photo Archive
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 11th, 2005, 05:06 PM
  5. Jennifer Lopez @ United Nations event
    By SVZ in forum Photo Archive
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 11th, 2005, 04:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •