The Problems With International Law Are Being Clarified

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
The complexities of the world just keep getting more complex and have been since the attempts to set up the League of Nations. So too do the machinations and disparities between the members. It's becoming clear that there are so many levels of problems, whether as an American one argues that we have arrived at the point of despots or Lilliputians tying up the West or Gulliver; or we speak of the inequalities of 'power' between the US and other nations.

In any case, since the first order of business of a state is to protect the state, there are ample reasons to argue for the US pulling out of UN. But 'international law' is more than that. In order for it to 'work' it must be binding on all, but as the Iranian grab of British military demonstrates, that is not happening, heck even something as simple as the Geneva Conventions are not being applied.

This discussion of 'mediation' in divorce being analogous seems spot on:

http://neoneocon.com/2007/03/29/the...nternational-law-and-the-enforcement-problem/
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,699
Reaction score
17,819
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
The UN has morphed into the Society for the Mutual Protection of Totalitarian Regimes. It's time for us to quit, to withdraw funding, and to cease legitimizing people who are brutal tyrants.

Case in point:

When it comes to actual human rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council reflexively discharges obfuscation, like a squid and its ink. That notwithstanding, the Council's fraudulence was made perfectly clear last week, when a routine hearing on "the Occupied Palestinian Territory" was disrupted by candor.

John Dugard, a U.N. "special rapporteur" on human rights, delivered a treatise on Israel's "colonialism and apartheid," denouncing the purported way in which the Palestinians are "brutally subjugated by a Western-affiliated regime." The envoy was given shows of support from the likes of Council members Cuba and Pakistan, as well as the "observer" states Sudan, Syria and Iran. The last accused Israel of "terrorist activities." Just another day in Geneva.

The U.S. put forward a tepid rejoinder, calling the remarks "unhelpful." Enter Hillel Neuer, executive director of the NGO U.N. Watch. Seated before the Council, Mr. Neuer had the temerity to point up its modus operandi. "The dictators who run this Council," he said, "couldn't care less about the Palestinians, or about any human rights. They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state." He continued, "They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights."

Council President Luis Alfonso de Alba furiously responded, "For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement," thus violating U.N. protocol. He ruled the remarks inadmissible to the official record, and prohibited further statements "in similar tones." In the depths of the U.N., this was of course logical: Mr. Neuer's commentary had been accurate.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117522153592554150.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
The UN has morphed into the Society for the Mutual Protection of Totalitarian Regimes. It's time for us to quit, to withdraw funding, and to cease legitimizing people who are brutal tyrants.

Case in point:

When it comes to actual human rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council reflexively discharges obfuscation, like a squid and its ink. That notwithstanding, the Council's fraudulence was made perfectly clear last week, when a routine hearing on "the Occupied Palestinian Territory" was disrupted by candor.

John Dugard, a U.N. "special rapporteur" on human rights, delivered a treatise on Israel's "colonialism and apartheid," denouncing the purported way in which the Palestinians are "brutally subjugated by a Western-affiliated regime." The envoy was given shows of support from the likes of Council members Cuba and Pakistan, as well as the "observer" states Sudan, Syria and Iran. The last accused Israel of "terrorist activities." Just another day in Geneva.

The U.S. put forward a tepid rejoinder, calling the remarks "unhelpful." Enter Hillel Neuer, executive director of the NGO U.N. Watch. Seated before the Council, Mr. Neuer had the temerity to point up its modus operandi. "The dictators who run this Council," he said, "couldn't care less about the Palestinians, or about any human rights. They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state." He continued, "They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights."

Council President Luis Alfonso de Alba furiously responded, "For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement," thus violating U.N. protocol. He ruled the remarks inadmissible to the official record, and prohibited further statements "in similar tones." In the depths of the U.N., this was of course logical: Mr. Neuer's commentary had been accurate.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117522153592554150.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
I totally agree. While it may work 'between equals' it stacks the deck in favor of all the 'countries' that have been created since the 1960's. The UN provides cover for the 'system of allies, secret and not' that have developed that are on the level of pre-WWI. It's dangerous for US to be tied to it. It's a shame, but the Congress of the 1920's look brilliant in hindsight.
 

Igor Peters

Rookie
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Let's be honest here, in the end the UN is nothing more than a forum for countries to hold negotiations.
It's only as good as its participants.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Let's be honest here, in the end the UN is nothing more than a forum for countries to hold negotiations.
It's only as good as its participants.
Be that as it may, most countries belong. If it is useless in finding a way into locating the Brits, new nuclear sites in Iran, condemning Iran for clearly illegal actions, backing their own resolutions on Iraq, addressing and dealing with Bosnian activities, what use is it?

Reported a week or so ago that I believe it was Italy to pay ransom for hostages from Iraq. Now today I read that the Brits are sending a naval attache hoping to back room deal with this, since the UN basically flipped Britain off.

It's not working.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Let's be honest here, in the end the UN is nothing more than a forum for countries to hold negotiations.
It's only as good as its participants.
The UN is a waste of time and money. We are watching Iran laugh their asses off at the rest of world as they hold kidnapped British sailors

What does the UN do - issue a press release expressing their displeasure over their actions.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Let's be honest here, in the end the UN is nothing more than a forum for countries to hold negotiations.
It's only as good as its participants.
The UN is a waste of time and money. We are watching Iran laugh their asses off at the rest of world as they hold kidnapped British sailors

What does the UN do - issue a press release expressing their displeasure over their actions.
In 1947, nor now, the world would not stand for an international body like the UN IMPOSING its will on situations between two sovereign states.

It is a forum to hold negotiations.... an imperfect one, to be sure, but such a forum is certainly needed in the world
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
In 1947, nor now, the world would not stand for an international body like the UN IMPOSING its will on situations between two sovereign states.

It is a forum to hold negotiations.... an imperfect one, to be sure, but such a forum is certainly needed in the world
This is the same worthless outfit that has Sudan sitting on the "Human Rights Council"

Enough said
 

Igor Peters

Rookie
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Points
1
I suspect that as long as it works some of the time and as long no better alternative comes along nobody important is in a hurry to disband the UN/international law.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I suspect that as long as it works some of the time and as long no better alternative comes along nobody important is in a hurry to disband the UN/international law.
Iran is in violation of international law, and the Useless Nations is, as usual, bellowing threats and warnings - that the bad guys are ignoring

When has the Useless Nations ever worked? They go out of their way to smear and insult the US (who foots a big majority of their spending)

We saw how well the UN worked with Saddam - how many in the UN were getting bribes and kickbacks from the Oil For Food program?

There was a bigger financial fraud then Enron.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
The UN is the worst international mediation organization on the planet....

and the best.

It may have its flaws, but it serves a useful purpose and it is better than anything else devised to date.


Will it last forever unchanged or will it get better? I would say the latter
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The UN is the worst international mediation organization on the planet....

and the best.

It may have its flaws, but it serves a useful purpose and it is better than anything else devised to date.


Will it last forever unchanged or will it get better? I would say the latter
Yes it does serve a useful purpose - if you hate America and blame her for all the worlds problems.

(and while you hate her - you continue to suck as much money from her taxpayers as you can get your hands on)
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Yes it does serve a useful purpose - if you hate America and blame her for all the worlds problems.

(and while you hate her - you continue to suck as much money from her taxpayers as you can get your hands on)

If America thought it did not serve a useful purpose, why would we continue to participate in it?

If the republican party was so dead set against the UN, why didn't Bush and his republican congress just pull us out of the UN during the first six years of his administration?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
If America thought it did not serve a useful purpose, why would we continue to participate in it?

If the republican party was so dead set against the UN, why didn't Bush and his republican congress just pull us out of the UN during the first six years of his administration?
I wish they would. Ship the UN off to france where they would feel more at home

The UN building is a waste of prime real estate and great office space in the heart of NY
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
I wish they would. Ship the UN off to france where they would feel more at home

The UN building is a waste of prime real estate and great office space in the heart of NY

I didn't ask you what YOU wished....


can you answer the questions asked, please?
If America thought it did not serve a useful purpose, why would we continue to participate in it?

If the republican party was so dead set against the UN, why didn't Bush and his republican congress just pull us out of the UN during the first six years of his administration?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I didn't ask you what YOU wished....


can you answer the questions asked, please?
If America thought it did not serve a useful purpose, why would we continue to participate in it?

If the republican party was so dead set against the UN, why didn't Bush and his republican congress just pull us out of the UN during the first six years of his administration?
So am I to wave a magic wand and make them do it. I wish they would - it would save alot of tax dollar money from being flushed down the toilet

Libs would have had a cow and it would have been so much fun to watch
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
So am I to wave a magic wand and make them do it. I wish they would - it would save alot of tax dollar money from being flushed down the toilet

Libs would have had a cow and it would have been so much fun to watch

why can't you answer my simple questions?

Here: try again:


If America thought it did not serve a useful purpose, why would we continue to participate in it?

If the republican party was so dead set against the UN, why didn't Bush and his republican congress just pull us out of the UN during the first six years of his administration?
 

Chips Rafferty

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
839
Reaction score
75
Points
28
Location
North of Melbourne, Australia.
If America thought it did not serve a useful purpose, why would we continue to participate in it?

If the republican party was so dead set against the UN, why didn't Bush and his republican congress just pull us out of the UN during the first six years of his administration?
But..but...where else could Murka protect Israel as effectively than in the farce (see "Security Council") that it was instrumental in creating to keep the pygmy nations in check? :eusa_think:

Jesus but I wish Hitler had won WW2. Can you imagine half the brainwashed imbeciles here escaping Dr Mengele's merciful hypodermic? :eusa_wall:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top