Another reason why the UN is a joke...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I wouldn't assert the UN is perfect, but I think its benefits to the world have far outweighed the drawbacks.

With that logic, you should support the United States. The benefits of a strong America far outweigh the drawbacks.

I agree, so long as America is practicing what it preaches and being a true moral leader in both word and actions. It is not, as of yet.

When did I advocate a weak America? An America that actually IS the leader in human rights will be stronger, not weaker.

By your logic, so long as there's something worse out there, we should just sit back and be thankful for what we got. Now THAT would really hurt America.

[Drake Tungsten]

That makes perfect sense, Boris. Since I have a speeding ticket on my record, it would be hypocritical of me to look down on a murderer. Unless I'm perfect, I have no right to criticize those whose behavior is worse than mine...

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It is precisely such behavior that led to our humiliating loss of our seat on the HR Commission in the first place.

If the US lost its seat for being at fault, then what did Libya become chair for? It must have done something good to be the head of the comission, right?

Making Lybia chair is like giving Jimmy Carter a Nobel peace prize: it is using a real and possibly valuable institution as a method for slapping George W. Bush in the face, and thus marginalizes the office and devalues the honor.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
That makes perfect sense, Boris. Since I have a speeding ticket on my record, it would be hypocritical of me to look down on a murderer. Unless I'm perfect, I have no right to criticize those whose behavior is worse than mine...

Riiiiight. So for you, evil actions are relative? Something worse abroad makes our actions okay? We can use covert tactics to cause misery in nations to support U.S. financial interests, because that's a step above actually torturing people ourselves?

Why are you so adverse to holding America to the high standard it claims to represent and SHOULD represent? To me, anything less is a disservice to the country.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Goingonit
If the US lost its seat for being at fault, then what did Libya become chair for? It must have done something good to be the head of the comission, right?

The chair is not voted, it is rotated. If you haven't noticed, there aren't many nations in Africa that can be said to have stellar Human Rights records. It's not a question of being deserved, it's a question of eventuality.

Making Lybia chair is like giving Jimmy Carter a Nobel peace prize: it is using a real and possibly valuable institution as a method for slapping George W. Bush in the face, and thus marginalizes the office and devalues the honor.

Again, the chair is not an award given by a committee, it's rotated. And I don't know about the rationale for the Carter peace prize, but IMO the prize was long overdue anyway, since he had demonstrated his worthiness for the award years ago.

[Drake Tungsten]

Riiiiight. So for you, evil actions are relative? Something worse abroad makes our actions okay? We can use covert tactics to cause misery in nations to support U.S. financial interests, because that's a step above actually torturing people ourselves?

Sort of. I don't want to see America violate human rights, but when we do I certainly don't think that we are suddenly equivalent to countries like Libya and the Sudan. Everything is relative Boris. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between supporting a dictator and actually being the dictator.

American support of Stalin during WWII didn't suddenly make us morally equivalent with Stalin. We were in the right in opposing him and the USSR after WWII.

[1]

I don't know who implied we mis-treat our prisoners of war, but I must completely disagree. When we held prisoners at the naval base in Cuba and such, not only were they able to practice their religion, we even supplied them with materials to suite it. Carpets to kneel on for prayer, etc. I'd rather be in an American prison, than any other countys'. The way people are speaking of Libya and America, its like they don't see the very basic and fundamental differences in daily life. In America, I have every right in the world to hold hands with my boyfriend in public, or even kiss if I did so choose. DO NOT EVEN TELL ME that I could have that same right in Libya. Equating Libya with the US is like a spit in my eye. I'd go on but I'm begining to supress rage.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The chair is not voted, it is rotated. If you haven't noticed, there aren't many nations in Africa that can be said to have stellar Human Rights records. It's not a question of being deserved, it's a question of eventuality.

Then what are we talking about? I mean, if the choice is between, say, Libya, Algeria, Sudan, and Nigeria, or something, then there's no way to win. But this just shows the extent to which the Charter is flawed.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Sort of. I don't want to see America violate human rights, but when we do I certainly don't think that we are suddenly equivalent to countries like Libya and the Sudan. Everything is relative Boris.

I certainly don't think we're the equivalent of Libya or Sudan, as I said. But that doesn't mean, because our actions are relatively less bad, that they are things we should tolerate. We certainly shouldn't be high-and-mighty.

I'm sorry you can't see the difference between supporting a dictator and actually being the dictator.

I don't see much difference, when the end result is the suffering of thousands of people. In fact, if we're the ones ultimately keeping a tyrant in power, doesn't that make us more cupable? At least just as culpable, IMO.

American support of Stalin during WWII didn't suddenly make us morally equivalent with Stalin. We were in the right in opposing him and the USSR after WWII.

Hardly equivalent, as we were supporting an ally against a foreign aggressor in a time of war, not propping up a regime against the will of the country's own people

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You can't be serious, Boris. No one is stupid enough to equate Libya's actions with America's...

I hope.

I am. At least arguments 2-4.

It is funny, but the smallest things seemingly get blown out of proportion. Its a two way street.

[Drake Tungsten]

We certainly shouldn't be high-and-mighty.

How in the hell are we being high and mighty by complaining about Libya being the head of the UN Commision on Human Rights? I would be ashamed of America if we didn't complain. It's a travesty and detrimental to the protection of human rights around the globe.

[Drake Tungsten]

Hardly equivalent, as we were supporting an ally against a foreign aggressor in a time of war, not propping up a regime against the will of the country's own people

America didn't prop up dictatorial regimes for the hell of it; they did it to stop the spread of communism. I guess you don't consider global communism to have been as great a threat to the world as fascism.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

We certainly shouldn't be high-and-mighty.

How in the hell are we being high and mighty by complaining about Libya being the head of the UN Commision on Human Rights? I would be ashamed of America if we didn't complain. It's a travesty and detrimental to the protection of human rights around the globe.

The high-and-mightiness is from this article and people who bash the UN with constanct catch-22s.

The UN is meant to represent all the nations of the world. If you want to take relativism to its limits, there are TONS of nations that are FAR more objectionable. Quadaffi has, at least, stopped terrorism, condemned 9/11 and has provided intelligence information on Al-Queda to the U.S. government. Libya is certainly less objectionable than, say, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Should Sweden be the only nation allowed to sit on the council at all, since they seem to have cleaner hands than anyone?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Hardly equivalent, as we were supporting an ally against a foreign aggressor in a time of war, not propping up a regime against the will of the country's own people

America didn't prop up dictatorial regimes for the hell of it; they did it to stop the spread of communism. I guess you don't consider global communism to have been as great a threat to the world as fascism.

I don't think the US had any business subverting the elected governments of foreign nations for any reason. Do you think the deaths we visited upon the people of Vietnam was somehow morally right? Do you think we really had any right to tell sovereign nations who should run them?

[Drake Tungsten]

Libya is certainly less objectionable than, say, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.

I know that Syria has been a member of UN human rights organizations. I bet some more of these countries have been as well. The UN has a track record for this type of thing. Making Libya chairman of the UNCHR is just the latest bit of insanity...