LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteYou should care what the UN thinks, since a bad reaction from the UN is basically a bad reaction from the world. America is powerful, but you don't own the world.
The War in Iraq was not illegal, not until the UN says so.Even then, I wouldn't care. But I imagine you care what the UN says. So just making that point.
You should care what the UN thinks, since a bad reaction from the UN is basically a bad reaction from the world. America is powerful, but you don't own the world.
America does not have to own the world to be able to ignore it without suffering a backlash. I'm not American, but statements like yours make me feel indignant because you are suggesting the US should change pollicies to accomidate people who either do nothing for America, or for dictators who's only goal is maintaining and increasing their own power at the expense of their people and of the West.
Last edited by ZFBoxcar; 19 Nov 04, at 21:33.
"Yeah - maybe if we weren’t so crazy about our equal rights for everyone we'd have less money to spend on health care and more money on bombing the **** out of people."
Most EU subjects don't have rights. They have privelidges, and the 'rights' of some subjects are more equal than they are for otheres.
Well saidOriginally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
You've not made yourself look too clever there mate, for one the EU isn’t a monarchy system therefore the EU has citizens not subjects.
2 - The EU has influenced the development of English law considerably which has included the incorporation into UK law of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Commonwealth countries also largely have constitutional texts with guarantees largely equivalent to those of the European court of human rights. By contrast, the US has not incorporated into its domestic law any similar modern human rights legislation and its legal system has been increasingly forced to rely on ever more creative interpretations of ancient texts and concepts inherited from the English legal system of the 1760's. In contrast to the positive European perception of many recent US Presidents from the Democratic Party as being "on the side of freedom", matters such as the bombing of Cambodia, the Nixon impeachment, the Reagan Iran Contra affaire and so much else, have all contributed to a European view that there is something radically wrong with the Republican view of civil and human rights. Nothing better epitomises a disregard for the rule of law and human rights than the Bush Administration's treatment of prisoners taken in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.
Concepts of human rights have also been slower to gain acceptance in the United States of America than in Europe. For example, slavery was abolished in England by judicial decision in 1772, it wasn’t until 90 years later in 1862 that slavery was finally abolished in Washington.
Although you did not directly say it I believe it be implied in your post that the USA is the world leader of human rights however the opposite seems to be true, certainly it cannot be said that the USA stands at the forefront of liberal thought on these issues.
Last edited by slippery_chimp; 20 Nov 04, at 03:20. Reason: typo
"You've not made yourself look too clever there mate", slavery wasnt ended in 1772, that judicial decision efectivly took britain out of the slave trade, they were still importing slaves, just not exporting, they stopped importing and made it illegal in 1808, along with the US. slavery is finaly made illegal in great britain in 1838. it is then abolished in 1865 (not 1862) in the US.
so britain had 238 years of slavery, while the US had 89 years of slavery. who were the slow ones?
this doesnt even delve into the fact that englang pretty much had a monopoly on the slave trade industry for most of its existance in europe.
Last edited by Donnie; 20 Nov 04, at 03:35.
Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
Listen to the words long written down
When the man comes around- Johnny Cash
I said Washington in 1862, not the whole of the US.
next point is irrelevant as England had a monopoly on pretty much all trade during this period.
regardless, england still had over 140 more years of slavery than the US. and virginia ended slavery in 1777. (if you want to pick specific parts of the US)
Last edited by Donnie; 20 Nov 04, at 16:09.
Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
Listen to the words long written down
When the man comes around- Johnny Cash
There is no such thing as "human rights", as they are positive rights. That is to say they gurentee you something, something that must be created. In order to have a right to food and education you must be willing to destroy the livelyhoods of people in order to provide for these rights. Thus these so called human rights are non-sense that destroy the very thing rights are designed to protect, namely one's life and means of it.
No matter how much Europeans and Liberals want to distort it. The United States of America was the freest country on the face of the earth.
Last edited by Praxus; 20 Nov 04, at 16:50.
i love stewie.
Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
Listen to the words long written down
When the man comes around- Johnny Cash
Surprising is the fact that the US is the one who cries from the rooftops about human rights and abuses.
How do you reconcile this, Praxus?
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
I stated a fact. If you don't like it, you can refute it, but instead of doing that you decide to attack my county. Why?
What is International law? It's nothing but a precedents. Counties should do what is moral if international law agrees with that fine if not screw it.I disagree strongly with this statement, Europe did not ignore it, it's simply the case that if you argue 'a humanitarian case' it means you want to over throw the current form of government which is illegal under international law, (not that the US bothers about such things).
I also think that Europe is not pacifist, it's non-violent, it's a fine line but the difference is significant.There is no germane difference.
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
If you are doing the right thing, it doesn't matter how many people tell you to do the wrong thing. You should ignore them.
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
Thus, people in EU nations are subject to the EU, and are subjects of it. But you’re the clever one of course.
You need to read some more history. I count one democratic president in the last twenty-four years.In contrast to the positive European perception of many recent US Presidents from the Democratic Party as being "on the side of freedom",
You know very little about the Republican Party.matters such as the bombing of Cambodia, the Nixon impeachment, the Reagan Iran Contra affaire and so much else, have all contributed to a European view that there is something radically wrong with the Republican view of civil and human rights.
It's nice that you have so much time to worry about the rights of murders and terrorists. What would you suggest we do with them? Try to "rehabilitate" them perhaps?Nothing better epitomises a disregard for the rule of law and human rights than the Bush Administration's treatment of prisoners taken in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.
One example for a hundred and fifty years ago proves nothing.Concepts of human rights have also been slower to gain acceptance in the United States of America than in Europe. For example, slavery was abolished in England by judicial decision in 1772, it wasn’t until 90 years later in 1862 that slavery was finally abolished in Washington.
Based on what your one example from 150 years ago.Although you did not directly say it I believe it be implied in your post that the USA is the world leader of human rights however the opposite seems to be true,
"Liberal thought"certainly it cannot be said that the USA stands at the forefront of liberal thought on these issues.
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
NEVER FORGET
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: