I, too, like a lot of the Constitutional platform, and may have voted for Petrouka if I didn't live in a swing state. I think they need to gain more power on the local level before they could get a real shot at the White House. One can always hope though!
Beth_K said this in post #15 : h@ts, doesn't your list of things that the USA has vetoed just prove the point that the UN is a worthless entity that is totally political as well as corrupt? We all have our agendas, and each nation is bringing those agendas to the UN table, what good is that? As you said, if nations want to fight, they will fight.
You're right, the UN is a worthless organisation if resolutions mean nothing. But remember and this is important, it was America who used Hussein's disregard for UN resolutions as a reason to go to war in Iraq (although as it's been shown he was telling the truth when he said he had no WMD) so America wants it both ways and because of this has consistently undermined the UN for years -
quote:
"When it suits the US, it uses the UN to seek legitimacy for its actions, to build coalition and impose sanctions on 'rogue states'. When world opinion goes against the US, it treats the UN with utter contempt. [...] Throughout the history of the UN, America has consistently vetoed any resolution or declaration that did not reflect US priorities or business interests. 'With note-worthy regularity', writes William Blum in Rogue State (2001), 'Washington has found itself - often alone, sometimes joined by one or two other countries - standing in opposition to the General Assembly resolutions aimed at furthering human rights, peace, nuclear disarmament, economic justice, the struggle against South African apartheid and Israeli lawlessness and other progressive causes'. Blum lists some 150 instances between 1984 and 1987 when the US cast a solitary 'no' vote against General Assembly resolutions.
h@ts said this in post #17 : .. so America wants it both ways and because of this has consistently undermined the UN for years..
Just please remember that, when you're talking with your English buddies at the pub, not all Americans are blinded by this activity and that a good number oppose it strongly - 49% of voters, in fact, by my estimate. We're still working on spreading the word and dispelling myths though
Just please remember that, when you're talking with your English buddies at the pub, not all Americans are blinded by this activity and that a good number oppose it strongly - 49% of voters, in fact, by my estimate. We're still working on spreading the word and dispelling myths though
Yes, it's a nice speech, but I can't believe that nobody else besides me and usanow can take exception to even one part of it. And you call us sheeple!
Dekka00 said this in post #22 : what part did you take exception to?
Dekka00, you brought up a number of issues: affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, as well as what you called unconstitutional wars. I only brought up the declaration of war as one exception I personally had, but I'm just surprised that out of all the other posters, everyone just said basically "nice job", as if they agree 100% with everything you said.
I could go into detail on each one of the issues and whether I agree with you or not if you'd like. It's just I thought I had to set the record straight on the declaration of the war on terror.
Dekka00, you brought up a number of issues: affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, as well as what you called unconstitutional wars. I only brought up the declaration of war as one exception I personally had, but I'm just surprised that out of all the other posters, everyone just said basically "nice job", as if they agree 100% with everything you said.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I thought when they were saying nice job, they were saying he did a good job of explaining how he felt.
Not that they agreed 100% with every detail.
I agreed with most of what Dekka said, except for Iraq. I want to whoop up on em and I love Dubya.
But I think Dekka did an excellent job of explaining how he see's things.
Not to speak for everyone else or anything, but I can tell you the reason why I "clapped" for. Because he's, not trying to speak for you or anything Dek, my opinion here, just saying that he has he's opinions on many different issues that are much the same as those of you who call him "unamerican" just because he doesn't agree with the war in Iraq. He's explaining why he is concerned about it, but some of you still have your head too far up your asses to be able to actually read what someone is saying and process it without automatically going into attack mode.
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, diet coke in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Inside me lives a skinny woman crying to get out. But I can usually shut her up with cookies.
A friend is someone who thinks you're a good egg, even though you're slightly cracked.
h@ts cited this resolution as an example of a US veto at the UN
quote:
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
What is so alarming about this veto? Clearly the intent was to legitimize certain types of terror, such as Palestinian attacks on Israel, which is completely bogus. Terrorism is terrorism, and any organization such as the PLO which sponsors women and children suicide bombers deserves nothing more than our condemnation.
usanow said this in post #27 : h@ts cited this resolution as an example of a US veto at the UN
What is so alarming about this veto? Clearly the intent was to legitimize certain types of terror, such as Palestinian attacks on Israel, which is completely bogus. Terrorism is terrorism, and any organization such as the PLO which sponsors women and children suicide bombers deserves nothing more than our condemnation.
Clearly that was the intent - if you conveniently ignore the IRA, and ETA and France's trouble from North Africa or anywhere else that faced a threat from terrorism over the last 30 years.
You might find the reason for the veto a little closer to home - US criminal activities in Nicargua, ie planting bombs in Nicaragua’s harbors. Which America was found guilty of in the Interenational Criminal Court.
11-17-2004 05:40 AM
