RE: Amnesty International (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 2:13:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Certainly you cannot be saying that Isreal when compared to all the rest of the world merits all that attention while so many nations get no resolutions while commiting the same type and number of attrocities.


I find your questions intriguing so I am reading the procedures for passing UN resolutions and I am going to look up percentages of countries that vote and religion. Also, before I read the rules, regulations and procedures.. unless I am mistaken the Security Council permanent member coutries can veto these things... if I am not mistaken.

here is a link http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm

Wikipedia on edit

Voting in the General Assembly on important questions – recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; budgetary matters – is by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Other questions are decided by majority vote. Each member country has one vote. Apart from approval of budgetary matters, including adoption of a scale of assessment, Assembly resolutions are not binding on the members. The Assembly may make recommendations on any matters within the scope of the UN, except matters of peace and security under Security Council consideration. The one state, one vote power structure theoretically allows states comprising just eight percent of the world population to pass a resolution by a two-thirds vote.
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly





anthrosub -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 2:21:28 PM)

The problem with all the "solutions" that keep being put on the table is they don't address the problem as a whole.  I know this sounds very far fetched but what is really needed is to take a HUGE step away from the conflicts (like let's say to the moon) and then turn around and look at what needs to be done.
 
Take any region of the world that fosters a particular way of life.  By that I mean the religions, governments, and economies that comprise the functionality of daily life.  What you will see is that it doesn't work anywhere else.  Even the cherished way of life in the United States is not going to work in other parts of the world simply because those areas don't have the resources or the cultural history to assimulate it.
 
I think (and again I know this is a pipe dream) what's needed it to recognize that the systems we have built up over the course of history have reached a point where something more global is needed.  Past approaches may have worked well in the past to some degree because people were generally isolated.  But with the current and future capability for cultures to come in contact with each other so easily being the norm, it's time to admit that the "old ways" must be shelved where they cause conflicts and replaced with something that migrates entire societies into a new way of life.
 
So long as everyone insists on preserving their old way of life (i.e., their identities) the problems will continue to manifest themselves.  As technology continues to develop new and deadlier ways to kill people, we will continue to see the types of increasing violence and trajedy witnessed in the past 75 years (not that there wasn't terrible things happening before that).  It's getting worse, not better.
 
The Jews want to be Jews, the Muslims want to be Muslims, the United States wants to be a nation of consumers, China is just biding its time while everyone else kills each other, Russia is still experimenting with how to govern a society, India is fast becoming the most populated place on the planet, natural resources are becoming increasingly depleted every year, etc.  When you look at what's going on from this perspective, everything appears to be what it is...ludicrous.
 
This may all sound negative but stop for a moment and consider that this is exactly what's going on in the world.
 
anthrosub



Level -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 2:24:32 PM)

The Security council (United States, France, Russia, China, United Kingdom) does indeed have veto power over any resolution.



WyrdRich -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 2:26:20 PM)

    I'm probably not 100% accurate on the quote, but didn't Machiavelli say, "it is better not to oppress a conquered people, but if you do oppress, do it utterly."

    Maybe the problem is simply that the Israelis have been far too nice.



juliaoceania -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 2:45:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

   I'm probably not 100% accurate on the quote, but didn't Machiavelli say, "it is better not to oppress a conquered people, but if you do oppress, do it utterly."

   Maybe the problem is simply that the Israelis have been far too nice.


I can imagine the same types of discourse was present when Hitler and his henchmen decided to implement the Final Solution... you know that whole the ends justify the means thingy that Machiavellian thought is famous for.



WyrdRich -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 2:53:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
I can imagine the same types of discourse was present when Hitler and his henchmen decided to implement the Final Solution... you know that whole the ends justify the means thingy that Machiavellian thought is famous for.


     I can't believe you are using Hitler and the Final Solution as an example against the Israelis defending themselves.  Is there a word for that kind of hubris???



juliaoceania -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 3:04:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

   I'm probably not 100% accurate on the quote, but didn't Machiavelli say, "it is better not to oppress a conquered people, but if you do oppress, do it utterly."

   Maybe the problem is simply that the Israelis have been far too nice.


I take that to mean wiping them out, if I am mistaken I apologize.. speaking of oppressing people utterly tends to bring bad imagery into my mind.. it is a pretty ruthless statement.. especially since a lot of those people you are advocating oppressing are women and children.



WyrdRich -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 3:14:25 PM)

     So are a lot of the people Hamas would rather kill than get along with. 

    There was a Golda Meier quote running around a few months ago that there will only be peace in the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Israelis.  It was a sad day when Arafat walked away and even sadder that Hamas won't choose peace.  If the 'end' for Israel is survival, I for one, will give them a lot of slack on the 'means.'



Level -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 3:21:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

It's kind of hard to bury the hatchet when one side keeps trying kill the other with it, Crappy.  Peace was on the table and the Palestinians walked away.  As far as I'm concerned, that was it.

  How do you negotiate with someone who won't acknowledge your right to keep breathing?


You cannot have peace unless there is justice


What exactly needs to be done to get to that justice?



juliaoceania -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 3:24:37 PM)

I am not talking politics for a moment here


When I hear about a group of young Jews at a disco getting blown up it deeply saddens me

When I hear about a 3 yr old getting shot in the head because her 10 yr old brother threw some rocks at Israeli soldiers, it deeply saddens me

When I hear that every male and female in Israel has to join the military it saddens me

When I hear that a farmer lost his olive grove because a dvisive wall was built it saddens me.

It is all wrong and it is all sad, and you know what... all the things I posted above are true.. you do not give people equal access to the law or economic well being they turn on you. If you want peace you have to give people some justice. Occupying their land and using their water for swimming pools while they hike to get a bucket of water a few hundred yards away is not the way one acts when they want peace... it just isn't



meatcleaver -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 3:31:21 PM)

Edited.



meatcleaver -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 3:37:44 PM)

The simple answer to this is Israel 1,000 Hezzbollah 43.

Israel has also been condemned by Amnesty International for war crimes and have sadly been commiting crimes against humanity for 40 years if you apply the Geneva convention. Collective punishment by destroying houses, appropriation of occupied land, redirecting water, ethnic cleansing etc. etc.

The real problem is that the USA and Britain back Israel without question and then say they are fighting for civilisation. It would help a little if the friends of Israel told them to get their house in order. As it is at the moment all three are totally hypocritical when they talk about civilisation, freedom, justice and the rule of law.



Archer -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 4:07:51 PM)

The Veto power only applies to Security Council resolutions which are the only enforacable ones, condemnation and any type of resolution that does not call for action of the security council are not subject to veto because they have no teeth.
Not all resolutions come from the Security Council. Otherwise you'd not see 70 of them having been passed because the US would have vetoed the majority of them.





meatcleaver -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 4:09:56 PM)

Actually the best thing that could ever happen is that culprits from BOTH sides are put on trial in Den Haag for war crimes. Maybe then the message would get through that war crimes and crimes against humanity are not acceptable.

Of course we know that will never happen because I can't think of one major country that shouldn't have someone on trial and that includes the USA, Britain, France, Russia and China.



meatcleaver -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 4:13:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

The Veto power only applies to Security Council resolutions which are the only enforacable ones, condemnation and any type of resolution that does not call for action of the security council are not subject to veto because they have no teeth.
Not all resolutions come from the Security Council. Otherwise you'd not see 70 of them having been passed because the US would have vetoed the majority of them.



There isn't one Security Council member that is there on moral grounds. All are there because of power or historical power and none of them vote objectively on resolutions, all prefering to vote depending on their own prejudices and policies.



CrappyDom -> RE: Amnesty International (9/16/2006 8:46:35 PM)

So Rich, I take it that if someone used immenent domain to take yours and everyone you know's house and property but then later tried to make it up to you by offering you one of the doghouses to live in, you would eagerly shake their hands and say thanks?

The arabs are far from saints but the Isralies are every bit as bloody as the arabs.   Simplistic answers and the placement of one side on a pedestal and the other in the gutter is not the way to bring lasting peace.



philosophy -> RE: Amnesty International (9/17/2006 7:42:26 AM)

"Certainly you cannot be saying that Isreal when compared to all the rest of the world merits all that attention while so many nations get no resolutions while commiting the same type and number of attrocities"
"Not all resolutions come from the Security Council. Otherwise you'd not see 70 of them having been passed because the US would have vetoed the majority of them."

...er.........the main thrust of your argument appears to be that general resolutions are so numerous against Israel because of some Islamic conspiracy, but that there are no security resolutions because america vetoes them.....and morally what would be the actual difference between those acts? It's ok for america to shield Israel from world condemnation, but its not ok for the world to condemn Israel when America can't veto the condemnations? 

Your idea that it is Islamic nations condemning Israel 70 times is false. It's western nations, with developed systems of justice, that are making that call. Western nations with but one exception. Israels friend, who'll back it no matter what it does, America. Such a foreign policy utterly distorts the truth of what is going on, and merely polarises the argument. In another thread you stated that you'd like to see a more balanced approach to this whole problem. America reflexively vetoing security council resolutions is not a balanced approach.



NorthernGent -> RE: Amnesty International (9/17/2006 7:53:23 AM)

I don't know who you are specifically referring to Ken, but most people maintain that both sides of the problem are just that... a huge problem.  The issue which you might be addressing is that some people do not buy into the American policy of giving Israel free reign and freedom from accountability.... we are also usually people who do not believe even our own country has that right.

In 100% agreement with this post.

It's a cycle of tit-for-tat violence where there is no right and wrong. The root cause of this issue disappeared a long time ago under the weight of politics, vested interest and violence. No-one seems to know or care and instead it is used as a battle ground for religious values i.e. the Christian fundamentalists side with Israel and the secular with Palestine (a huge generalisation and it does not apply to everyone but there is some thruth in this).

The point that has been lost is that European Imperialism and racism is at the heart of the issue but then it has deliberately been lost because understanding the damage caused by European Imperialism would open a few people's eyes on the consequences of US Imperialism - and this is something that is just not in the interests of our governments.

Regards



Archer -> RE: Amnesty International (9/17/2006 11:35:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"Certainly you cannot be saying that Isreal when compared to all the rest of the world merits all that attention while so many nations get no resolutions while commiting the same type and number of attrocities"
"Not all resolutions come from the Security Council. Otherwise you'd not see 70 of them having been passed because the US would have vetoed the majority of them."

...er.........the main thrust of your argument appears to be that general resolutions are so numerous against Israel because of some Islamic conspiracy, but that there are no security resolutions because america vetoes them.....and morally what would be the actual difference between those acts? It's ok for america to shield Israel from world condemnation, but its not ok for the world to condemn Israel when America can't veto the condemnations? 

Your idea that it is Islamic nations condemning Israel 70 times is false. It's western nations, with developed systems of justice, that are making that call. Western nations with but one exception. Israels friend, who'll back it no matter what it does, America. Such a foreign policy utterly distorts the truth of what is going on, and merely polarises the argument. In another thread you stated that you'd like to see a more balanced approach to this whole problem. America reflexively vetoing security council resolutions is not a balanced approach.



Shall we then go to the record and Cite the initiators of the resolutions the originators and votes are available.
Now not having done all my own research on this I'll admit I am a bit less than perfectly defensable in the possition but the prima facia case of several resolutions being initiated by Libia, Egypt, Syria and voted en mass against a common enemy begs for consideration of just the kind of Democratic tyrany I charge. 7 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper.




juliaoceania -> RE: Amnesty International (9/17/2006 11:44:00 AM)

I wonder if you are stating that collective punishment does not happen and Israel does not do this? Israel admits to doing it.

If you think that people should have their homes mowed down because of what another did, well that is not what our country was founded on was it? How would you feel if because your child or your brother or your father did something that the government would  mowed your house down for it? Should we have destroyed Timothy McVeigh's family for what he did? That is immoral by the standards we live under. I have a hard time comprehending any American advocating this behavior.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.598999E-02