|
 madscientist
journeyman
Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 110
Last seen: 21 years, 8 months
|
 Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
#781491 - 07/28/02 05:59 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I f America belives so strongly in human rights and democracy why are you opposing a bill that seeks to outlaw torture?
Fucking yanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Once someone in this forum said that Americans would be better off if the US just built a huge wall around itself and let no-one in or out. I was inclined, at the time, to disagree. Now I just wish you yanks would because we (everyone else) would be better off wothout you cunts!
Geneva
The United Nations human rights chief on Thursday welcomed a decision by the international body to enforce a treaty on torture, despite opposition from the United States.
Mary Robinson, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said the enforcement plan was "an important step toward the establishment of a new international mechanism to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
The protocol was passed late on Wednesday by a vote of 35-8 with 10 abstentions in the UN Economic and Social Council.
The United States, which had sought to reopen 10 years of negotiations on the document, abstained.
Washington's attempts to block the protocol, which seeks to enforce a 1989 international treaty against torture, were widely criticised by human rights campaigners and US allies in Europe and Latin America.
Technically, the protocol seeks visits to prisons as a way to help enforce the anti-torture convention.
But the United States said elements of the plan were incompatible with the US Constitution. Privately, US diplomats said allowing outside observers into state prisons would infringe on states' rights.
The United States was also concerned about allowing visits to terror suspects being held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.
Such visits are still unlikely unless the United States chooses to adopt the protocol.
Human rights advocates and diplomats argued that the protocol was essential to enforce the international convention on torture passed 13 years ago and since ratified by about 130 countries, including the United States.
--------------------
Instead of the dove as the symbol of peace we should have a pillow. Its got more feathers but doesnt have that nasty sharp beak......
Edited by madscientist (07/28/02 06:05 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: madscientist]
#781563 - 07/28/02 07:02 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
But the United States said elements of the plan were incompatible with the US Constitution.
I'm not familiar with the plan, but this on it's own (if true) would be reason to oppose it. If the elements which are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution were removed, perhaps things could more easily move forward.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: madscientist]
#781641 - 07/28/02 08:02 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
madscientist quotes:
The protocol was passed late on Wednesday by a vote of 35-8 with 10 abstentions in the UN Economic and Social Council.
So only two out of three of the members of this council voted FOR it? Hardly a ringing endorsement. Does that make the other one third of the members as terrible as the US? Why didn't you give THEM shit, too? Who were they?
When one out of three of the members of a council either abstain or vote against a proposal that on its surface seems such a no-brainer, that's GOTTA mean it has some serious flaws.
Note that the US didn't vote AGAINST it, but abstained from voting at all, as did nine other members. The US gave their reason for abstaining. Did the other nine abstainers have similar problems with the provisions?
The United States, which had sought to reopen 10 years of negotiations on the document, abstained.
This thing has been in negotiations for TEN YEARS???? Obviously the wording of it has been problematical for quite some time, or it would have been decided on a decade ago.
Human rights advocates and diplomats argued that the protocol was essential to enforce the international convention on torture passed 13 years ago and since ratified by about 130 countries, including the United States.
Clearly this does not mean that the US favors torture, or they wouldn't have endorsed the 1989 protocol. It just means that the US has some difficulties with the proposed monitoring mechanism. Apparently other countries have similar problems with it... A LOT of other countries.
pinky
--------------------
|
madscientist
journeyman
Registered: 05/26/01
Posts: 110
Last seen: 21 years, 8 months
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#781742 - 07/28/02 09:13 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Yes but I wonder which other countries abstained/voted against it? Maybe Iran? maybe Iraq? maybe north Korea? Anyone one for axis of evil? Oooo... look theres the USA hanging on to its coat-tails!!!
--------------------
Instead of the dove as the symbol of peace we should have a pillow. Its got more feathers but doesnt have that nasty sharp beak......
|
 luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: madscientist]
#781807 - 07/28/02 09:56 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Well mad, I've seen plenty of foolish posts here, but yours is right at the top.
Just because there is a treaty means it's automatically a good one? Just because other countries voted for it means we should automatically do so?
And if there is something in our Constitution that is incompatible with the treaty, we can't sign it. That is what sets us apart from most other countries. We have a set of rules which determines what our government can do. You may not like it, others may not like it. Too bad. We like it just fine. The US has the longest running form of government in the world. We have endured while others have fallen.
I?d go one but pinksharkmark has done a more detailed rebuttal and I don?t need to duplicate any of his answers.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#783491 - 07/29/02 06:35 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Considering it is a treaty to ban torture I would say it's a pretty good one. What part of the treaty would you say is a bad thing? This just shows the rest of the world how the U.S. is quick to condemn other countries when it comes to human rights violations, but likes to think of itself as immune from scrutiny when the spotlight may actually be turned on themselves.
--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Rono]
#783641 - 07/29/02 08:09 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Rono writes:
Considering it is a treaty to ban torture I would say it's a pretty good one.
I suggest you re-read the article. If that's not enough, re-read some of the replies to it, like mine and Evolving's. This is NOT a treaty to ban torture. The treaty to ban torture was signed in 1989, by 130 countries, INCLUDING the United States.
The latest vote was held, not on the treaty itself, but on mechanisms of enforcing its provisions, or a "... protocol which seeks to enforce a 1989 international treaty against torture..."
What part of the treaty would you say is a bad thing?
Even this article, biased as it was, did at least detail the US objections to the PROTOCOL (not to the 1989 treaty itself) --
"But the United States said elements of the plan were incompatible with the US Constitution."
I have found that actually READING these posts before responding to them is generally a good idea, rather than merely scanning a headline which tickles one's rabid anti-US biases and firing off a load of canned rhetoric as a Pavlovian response.
madscientist writes:
Yes but I wonder which other countries abstained/voted against it? Maybe Iran? maybe Iraq? maybe north Korea?
My question exactly. There were slightly more than one third of the voters who either voted against it outright or did the same thing as the US and abstained. For all you know, New Zealand, England, Canada, Australia, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway were the other nine abstainers.
I find it revealing the article didn't list which countries voted which way. Where is it from anyway? Sounds like the typical Leftist "balanced reporting" the Manchester Guardian is so famous for.
pinky
--------------------
|
politikill
journeyman
Registered: 05/23/02
Posts: 72
Loc: THC, Canada
Last seen: 21 years, 7 months
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#783711 - 07/29/02 08:44 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
You're right Pink, why don't we get some of that no biased reporting such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal... lol
Every time I have seen you encounter any information that CONTRAdicts you're right wing dogma you blame it on those bastard "leftwing" reporters.
Face it there is an agenda behind the US voting against this resolution, just like they have done over and over again on UN resolutions against terrorism (the new American scapegoat now that the Commies no longer work as the common enemy). That time you had you're good buddies the Israelis vote no as well, I guess it is that holding another countries land against International Law (or is International Law another thing that we can do away with??)
--------------------
Censorship: ahh, McCarthyism with a smiley face
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#783716 - 07/29/02 08:45 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I have found that actually READING these posts before responding to them is generally a good idea, rather than merely scanning a headline which tickles one's rabid anti-US biases and firing off a load of canned rhetoric as a Pavlovian response.
I have read the article, and forgive me if I used the wrong wording in my short post...no matter how you decide to word it, the point remains the same. There is a treaty on the table that will help end torture (on paper at least) and the U.S. refuses to sign it because it may be incompatible with parts of the US Constitution...I would love to know what parts of the constitution are that deal with continuing torture..please enlighten me on this...because maybe somewhere in your condescending reponse to me I may have missed it.
If I come across as Anti American, then you are hearing what you want to hear, I am NOT Anti-American...I do however have huge issues with the U.S. attitude that you can do whatever you want because you're the biggest bully on the block.
--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: politikill]
#783796 - 07/29/02 09:33 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
madscientist writes:
You're right Pink, why don't we get some of that no biased reporting such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal... lol
So it WAS from the Manchester Guardian. I thought I recognized the style.
Every time I have seen you encounter any information that CONTRAdicts you're right wing dogma you blame it on those bastard "leftwing" reporters.
a) I am not right wing.
b) What I write is no more "dogma" than what you write.
c) Clearly the article is biased. Not a single word is mentioned about the eight countries who actually voted AGAINST the protocol, or the other nine countries who abstained. If I (or anyone else who didn't have a personal vendetta against the US) had written the article I would have emphasized that TEN countries, the US among them, abstained from the vote, and named ALL of them.
d) That article doesn't CONTRADICT anything. It merely does an incredibly incompetent job of "reporting" the results of a UN vote. The article as factual reporting is useless, and would receive a failing grade in any Journalism 101 class, even one run by a Leftist professor.
Face it there is an agenda behind the US voting against this resolution...
Sigh. Do you even bother to READ what you post? The US did NOT vote against this resolution. It abstained from voting at all, AS DID NINE OTHER UNSPECIFIED COUNTRIES. Presumably all nine of them also had mysterious agendas. Would you care to enlighten us as to what THEIR agendas might be? Oh, I forgot, you can't, since the author of that piece of dreck didn't bother to name even one of them.
By the way, I am no fan of the US government, as numerous posts of mine will attest. But I restrict my criticism of them to things that they actually DO. My criticism is not a blind, gleeful, unreasoning, automatic knee-jerk response to every shabbily-written piece of drivel I unearth in the Manchester Guardian.
pinky
--------------------
|
politikill
journeyman
Registered: 05/23/02
Posts: 72
Loc: THC, Canada
Last seen: 21 years, 7 months
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#783849 - 07/29/02 10:02 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Pink it would appear that you are the one who does not read posts!!!!
Firstly, I am not madscientist and therefore could not tell you if it was in the Manchester Guardian.
In previous posts where we argued you said the same thing about the sources I got my information from, they were all crazy "leftists". So I say this from past experience. I am not calling you a Republican or any particular partysupporter but you're views are very right wing, which is fine.
Abstained from voting (my mistake), the example I gave was really what I was aiming at, which by the way contained the other countries that joined the US.
I was hoping to show that this is part of a patern, perhaps you could give me a list of media sources that are not crazy "leftists", so I can avoid using them in the future...
--------------------
Censorship: ahh, McCarthyism with a smiley face
|
Macey Howard
Formally MOE HOWARD
Registered: 07/02/99
Posts: 14,165
Loc: Georgia
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: madscientist]
#783865 - 07/29/02 10:10 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
Hugs and Kisses!
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Macey Howard]
#783881 - 07/29/02 10:19 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry Moe...but that statement had absolutely nothing to do with anything!
--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Rono]
#783936 - 07/29/02 10:45 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Rono writes:
...no matter how you decide to word it, the point remains the same.
No, the POINT is not the same at all. There are two completely different issues here. Clearly the US is against torture, or it would not have signed the 1989 treaty. But a mechanism for enforcing the provisions of the original treaty is an entirely DIFFERENT kettle of fish than agreeing in principle that torture must be forbidden.
For example, suppose one of the provisions of the protocol is that each prison must accept two board members appointed by the UN Security Council (which, incidentally, is currently chaired by a country which is one of the biggest human rights offenders on the planet -- Syria. See http://www.adl.org/Terror/terrorism_syria.asp ) who will have the final word in how the prison is run? Would you not find that objectionable?
Is this really one of the provisions? I don't know, and neither do you, because the article was so useless. But clearly at least some of the provisions of the protocol are controversial, and not just to the US. To repeat myself (since no one bothers to actually READ), it took TEN YEARS of debate to finally bring it to a vote, and even then 34% of the members of the council either voted against the protocols or abstained from voting. That is a mighty big percentage, don't you think? Did you ever wonder why one third of the participants couldn't bring themselves to vote for something that every correct-thinking human being should accept without question? Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the protocol is so poorly-written that those abstainers would willingly submit themselves to public castigation rather than sign it.
Of course, none of those other countries are taking any flack at all. Just The Great Satan. Gee, how surprising!
There is a treaty on the table that will help end torture (on paper at least) and the U.S. refuses to sign it...
Seventeen other countries also refused to sign it. To me, THAT is what is so noteworthy about this vote.
...because it may be incompatible with parts of the US Constitution. I would love to know what parts of the constitution are that deal with continuing torture..please enlighten me on this...
There are none. Perhaps the reason the US doesn't feel the need to vote on this protocol is that its own Constitution already prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment", and feels that its own prison overview bureaucracy is sufficient to deal with those in the penal system who break the rules. The Constitution does, however, lay down in some detail the responsibilities and obligations of the various branches of the US Government. It makes no provisions for the governments of OTHER countries to supercede those responsibilities. I suspect that may be why some of the other seventeen countries have some problems with this protocol, too -- I'll bet some of those countries have constitutions of their own.
If I come across as Anti American, then you are hearing what you want to hear, I am NOT Anti-American...
Could have fooled me. Many posts of yours make it abundantly clear that you have problems not just with the American government, but with Americans and their way of life.
..as opposed to the kind and generous nation you are now? -- July 25, 2002, in thread " Bush Gets his Way"
The way I see it, the U.S. is the worlds spoiled, greedy little fat kid that needs a spanking... -- July 23, 2002, in thread "Bush Gets his Way"
that's super...now go back to your usual American habit of overeating, watching way too much T.V., starting pointless wars and listening to Britney Spears. -- July 23 2002, in thread "Kent State"
Sure...if you'll go back to fucking the rest of the world.. -- July 23 2002, in thread "Kent State"
Americans in general don't read, and for the most part, believe whatever they are told by their "elected" officials. -- July 22 2002, in thread "The American Government Knows Exactly What You Need"
Why would anyone get the impression you were anti-American after reading such little gems?
pinky
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: madscientist]
#783945 - 07/29/02 10:48 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Here's the story straight from the UN web site. It's a prime example of why posts like madscientists are sadly lacking in information and are actually misleading.
Economic and Social Council recommends adoption of anti-torture protocol
25 July ? A draft optional protocol to the world?s major anti-torture pact aimed at allowing experts to visit prisons has been endorsed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) following two rounds of voting on the matter.
On Wednesday afternoon, the Council recommended that the General Assembly adopt the draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture as a means of establishing a system of regular visits by independent bodies to centres where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel punishment.
Eight countries ? Australia, China, Cuba, Egypt, Japan, Libya, Nigeria and the Sudan ? voted against the draft text, while ten ? Bhutan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, the Russian Federation, the United States and Zimbabwe ? abstained on the measure, which passed after 35 countries cast their ballots in favour.
The vote was taken after ECOSOC members defeated an amendment proposed by the United States that would have re-opened negotiations on the text of the draft protocol. That proposed amendment was defeated by a vote of 15 in favour to 29 against, with 8 abstentions.
Following the decision, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, issued a statement in Geneva welcoming the Council?s endorsement as ?an important step towards the establishment of a new international mechanism to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.? She voiced hope that the General Assembly would make the concept a reality.
_________________________
So it would seem that we (the US) merely, as stated earlier, had problems with the wording. And it would also seem we weren't the only ones.
My my my..... isn't the US such a horrible place. Try again US basher.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: politikill]
#783992 - 07/29/02 11:05 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
politikill writes:
Firstly, I am not madscientist and therefore could not tell you if it was in the Manchester Guardian.
Whoops! Correct. I did read your POST, but I screwed up on who was the postER. My bad.
...you're views are very right wing, which is fine.
There's right wing, and then there's Right Wing. I am an atheist who believes the only legitimate function of government is to protect its citizens from the initiation of physical force. The government should run the police, the courts, and the military. Period. If you believe that makes me Right Wing, then I guess we differ on the meaning of Right Wing.
In previous posts where we argued you said the same thing about the sources I got my information from, they were all crazy "leftists".
Noam Chomsky IS a crazy Leftist. Worse, he's dishonest.
....the example I gave was really what I was aiming at, which by the way contained the other countries that joined the US.
Sorry, which example is that? The only other country you mentioned in your post was Israel. Which other countries are you referring to?
perhaps you could give me a list of media sources that are not crazy "leftists", so I can avoid using them in the future...
There are far too many too list. Anything by Noam Chomsky and the Manchester Guardian should always be scrutinized carefully, though.
pinky
--------------------
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#784013 - 07/29/02 11:14 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
"Eight countries ? Australia, China, Cuba, Egypt, Japan, Libya, Nigeria and the Sudan ? voted against the draft text, while ten ? Bhutan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, the Russian Federation, the United States and Zimbabwe ? abstained on the measure, which passed after 35 countries cast their ballots in favour. "
It should be obvious from this list that the vast majority of the nations who voted against or abstained from this protocol di d so because they are notorious violators of human rights, i.e., they have something to hide. Of course, most nations are willing to sign a convention that condemns torture IN PRINCIPLE because such a convention and 75 cents will buy you today's newspaper. The true test is whether or not a nation will commit itself to enforecement protocols. It's no surprise that the United States didn't sign this one because the US never, repeat, never, allows itself to be submitted to the scrutiny of international law. And I suppose you could say, since the US has taken on the onus and expense of acting as the world's policeman, it has earned that right. It does harm from a PR point of view, however, in that it simply makes the US appear hypocritical to the outside (as madscientist's response makes clear). There's nothing new about this, however.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
#784016 - 07/29/02 11:15 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Could have fooled me. Many posts of yours make it abundantly clear that you have problems not just with the American government, but with Americans and their way of life.
Okay fine...let's go through these one by one shall we?...
as opposed to the kind and generous nation you are now? -- July 25, 2002, in thread " Bush Gets his Way"
An Anti American-goverment statement
The way I see it, the U.S. is the worlds spoiled, greedy little fat kid that needs a spanking... -- July 23, 2002, in thread "Bush Gets his Way"
Another Anti U.S. Government statement...perhaps the title of the thread should have given you a clue on that one...
that's super...now go back to your usual American habit of overeating, watching way too much T.V., starting pointless wars and listening to Britney Spears. -- July 23 2002, in thread "Kent State"
Now that one in itself looks like an attack on Americans lifestyles..but if you took the time to read the thread you would see that it was in good humour...along with Canadians being Mosse fuckers. Quit taking statements out of context.
Sure...if you'll go back to fucking the rest of the world.. -- July 23 2002, in thread "Kent State"
Now unless you think that I'm implying that the average U.S. citizen is actually capable of "fucking the rest of the world" then that would lead me to think I was talking about your goverment...again.
Americans in general don't read, and for the most part, believe whatever they are told by their "elected" officials. -- July 22 2002, in thread "The American Government Knows Exactly What You Need"
Now that IS an attack on the citizens of the U.S...and I stand by it. Many Americans couldn't even find the U.S. on a world map, nevermind Afghanistan.
And thank you Luvdemshrooms for listing the countries that Abstained from voting...just for posterity I'll list these wonderful countries again...I'm sure all of these countries are known for their great humanitarian efforts... "Bhutan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, the Russian Federation, the United States and Zimbabwe"
The U.S. is keeping good company by abstaining...
In all fairness I was very surprised to see Australia and Japan on the "no" side....but did you see the rest of the list? China, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria and the Sudan...hardly an endorsement. None of these countries are going to get a humanitarian award any time soon....
--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
Edited by Rono (07/29/02 11:24 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: Rono]
#784053 - 07/29/02 11:36 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Now I feel you're taking liberties with my post.
The point was to show that the US did not vote against anything. We merely abstained. We also wanted further dialog on the text. That is a major difference.
It doesn't matter which other countries abstained or voted against. They had their reasons. We have ours. To imply that because we were on the same side of the vote means that we either agree or disagree with these other countries is absurd.
It's readily apparent that when it comes to almost anything the US does, many here will take any oppourtunity to jump on the "kick the USA" bandwagon without any rational thought.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Carry on torture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#784069 - 07/29/02 11:46 AM (21 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Now I feel you're taking liberties with my post.
You're right...I was
It doesn't matter which other countries abstained or voted against.
Funny...Pinky seemed to think it was pretty important...now that it shows the personality of the rest of the countries that didn't sign (besides Japan and Australia) it doesn't matter so much? hmmmm....
To imply that because we were on the same side of the vote means that we either agree or disagree with these other countries is absurd.
Why is that absurd?..please explain.
It's readily apparent that when it comes to almost anything the US does, many here will take any oppourtunity to jump on the "kick the USA" bandwagon without any rational thought.
Perhaps you're right...but it's also readily apparent that there are those that will follow blindly.
--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder
Edit 
Reply 
Great_Satan
1 2 all )
bukkake
LucidDream
carbonhoots
Madtowntripper
SneezingPenis
Luddite