More UN corruption. *sigh* those globalists at it again

[Edric O]

was made by Edric trying to imply that the UN, which is entrenched in a 100 BILLION DOLLAR scandal in the world bank, is helping the poor and needy.  rofl.

1. The war in Iraq has already costed the US taxpayers far MORE than 100 billion dollars, and it isn't even over yet.

2. The UN is helping the needy, using all the OTHER money it has BESIDES those 100 billion dollars. I pointed out your hypocrisy in accusing the UN of not using all its resources to help the needy, when your own beloved Bush isn't using all his resources to help the needy.

...socialist/globalists...

How would you like it if I called you a fascist/bushist? Outraged, maybe? Perhaps you would point out to me how you despise fascism and how ridiculously inappropriate it is for me to associate fascism with Bush?

It is equally ridiculous to associate socialists with globalists, seeing how the two groups are bitter enemies. Can you comprehend that, Emprworm, or do I need to spell it out to you? Perhaps you feel insecure knowing that you can't throw all your political opponents in a single category? Don't worry, you are not alone:

"It belongs to the genius of a great political leader to make even adversaries far removed from one another seem to belong to single category, because in weak and uncertain characters the knowledge of having different enemies can only too readily lead to the beginning of doubt in their own right. Once the wavering mass sees itself in a struggle against too many enemies, objectivity will put in an appearance, throwing open the question whether all others are really wrong and only their own movement are in the right. And this brings about the first paralysis of their own power. Hence a multiplicity of different adversaries must always be combined so that in the eyes of one's own supporters the struggle is directed against only one enemy."

- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"

[emprworm]

i only lumped them together because of their unity in hating Bush and (usually) America.

globalists, socialists, communists have a lot in common in this regard.

ANd please tell me, what is the UN doing to help poverty?  Really, I'd like to know

[Wolf]

I was under the impression that it was building schools, vaccinating villages, defusing landmines, etc. For the last three years, I have been a part of a Model UN organization, and have learned much about the body. In fact, http://www.wmo.ch/web/aom/pwsp/human.html is a site about just these sorts of missions. There is the Commission on Human Rights, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and others. Each body attempts to address pressing world issues. If you don't like the above scientific UN link, try this current event http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21495962.htm

[Edric O]

i only lumped them together because of their unity in hating Bush and (usually) America.

globalists, socialists, communists have a lot in common in this regard.

Yes, and they also have in common the fact that they are carbon-based lifeforms. So what? Maybe you and Hitler both share the same favourite food. So what?

Believe it or not, the universe DOES NOT revolve around George W. Bush. Being "pro-Bush" or "anti-Bush" is a trivial distiction, like being "pro-cheese" or "anti-cheese".

[Wolf]

Well, Emprworm's lumping of those groups together might be relevent if he was illustrating how they were all against George W. Bush. I don't think he was trying to make them seem like they had more in common than that, anyway. That, and not everyone who lumps groups together is another Adolf Hitler.

[emprworm]

  There is the Commission on Human Rights

you mean the Human Rights Commission of the UN, the one chaired by Momar Kadafi, and then Fidel Castro?

you mean THAT "human rights" commission?

[Wolf]

Yup. You know, not even the US has signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[emprworm]

well i dont blame them.  who would sign a human rights declaration with Kadafi as its chair?

rofl.  thats like performing John Lennon's "Give Peace A Chance" with Bin Laden on the piano.

[Wolf]

This is what I was talking about; http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Read that, and tell me what good reason the US has not to sign it. However, I can't find any voting records on that document, so I'm not positive that the US didn't sign it, but I'm still fairly certain.

This is similar, a different document? http://www.aceproject.org/main/samples/me/mex28.pdf

[emprworm]

This is what I was talking about; http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Read that, and tell me what good reason the US has not to sign it. However, I can't find any voting records on that document, so I'm not positive that the US didn't sign it, but I'm still fairly certain.

This is similar, a different document? http://www.aceproject.org/main/samples/me/mex28.pdf

because dictators sit as the chair of the commission.  its a complete farse.  no one signs on to a joke.  the document is a joke.  Dictators sign the document, and then go home and rape the wives of their citizens.  the US will not be a part of a fassad.

[Wolf]

Fassad? You mean, Facade? However, that document was not created by the Human Rights Commission, Emprworm, it was written and signed by the General Assembly.

I thought you read it?

Furthermore, who chairs a committee is not ample justification for the refusal to sign a work that recognizes human rights.

[DukeLeto]

because dictators sit as the chair of the commission.  its a complete farse.  no one signs on to a joke.  the document is a joke.

Yet, curiously, the rest of the western world has signed on to it...As has just about everyone else.

There is something you must learn, Empy: The United States is not "everybody".  What the US decides doesn't really matter to France, Russia, China, or the UK, and it most certainly doen't matter to the UN.  No other nation MUST follow what Bush says.  You seem to forget: Bush is dictator only of America.

But then again, what do I know?  I'm just an ignorant civilian, right Empy?

[Edric O]

It doesn't matter who sits at the Human Rights commission, as long as the Human Rights commission does its job.

So don't gives us names, Emprworm. Give us facts.

[Dante]

'fassad,' heh heh heh heh...

[Wolf]

Yeah, Dust, I found that funny, too, but had to rush past it in my effort to make my point.

First off, who sits at the Commission does not give voting members justification to vote down legitimately good legislation.

Second, no one "bad" (unless you don't like the Secretary General) was sitting at the head of the body that created this declaration in the first place -- namely, the General Assembly. So even if you disagree with my first point, you still have no excuse.

[SurlyPIG]

Were you born yesterday emprworm?  Globalists push for unrestricted free trade on raw materials regardless of working/employment standards, and removing tariffs on natural resources while maintaining tariffs on manufactured products.  In short, globalists are for multinational, nearly-monopolous corporate giants.  Globalists are pro-Bush.

[emprworm]

It doesn't matter who sits at the Human Rights commission, as long as the Human Rights commission does its job.

So don't gives us names, Emprworm. Give us facts.

the human rights comission does NOT do its job.

[emprworm]

Were you born yesterday emprworm?

[SurlyPIG]

but Bush is not a globalist, as he has proposed several import bans.  One ban, as I recall, got Europe so angry, it vowed to ban Florida's orange exports in an attempt to thwart the 2004 election.

He banned only imports that were competitive with American products.  But you do have a point, so more accurately, he is an exclusively American globalist.

[emprworm]

fine, i'll grant you that.

[DukeLeto]

the human rights comission does NOT do its job.  therefore it is a farce.

More baseless accusations.

tell me...how is Lybia doing in the human rights department, considering that its dictator was the elected CHAIR of the human rights comission?

A position which, as you seem to so easily forget, he DID NOT TAKE.

[Wolf]

Emprworm, please address the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the US did not sign was not drafted by your "farcical" Commission, and therefore is completely impervious to your argument that the US should not sign because the Commission is chaired by dictators.

[emprworm]

there is no "human rights commission" that has anything to do with human rights.  Fidel Castro was elected to head the commission after Momar Kadafi. 

To be part of a "human rights" commission chaired by dictators is quite a comedy. 

The entire UN is a joke.  Dictators casting votes on world affairs....yea, that makes a lot of sense.  The US should simply pull out of the hypocritical UN entirely.

[Wolf]

So, now you're extending your definition of what invalidates the Human Rights Commission to the entire UN, so you're argument that the US shouldn't have anything to do with dictators still stands? My next question, then, is why the US should have nothing to do with the UN because there are dictators in the UN, but that the US openly negotiated with North Korea on the WMD issue, when North Korea is a dictatorship? And that the US is prepared to sign a treaty with the DPRK, a treaty drafted in part by dictators? Also, I'm sure Edric could name vast amounts of dealings the US has had with dictators.

Basically, the point illustrated above is that a good thing done by the wrong people is no less a good thing. And, furthermore, I feel this still stands;

"Emprworm, please address the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the US did not sign was not drafted by your "farcical" Commission, and therefore is completely impervious to your argument that the US should not sign because the Commission is chaired by dictators."

I beg of you, please, if you respond to anything in this post, respond to that last paragraph.

[emprworm]

well Wolf, if you want to know why the US doesn't care about the UN human rights commission, read this article.