US doesn't sign some important treates...

Originally posted by drfunk
its because the arrogant american pigs who run the white house are corrupt criminals and do not sign these treaties because of commercial interests or they do not want their power to be lessened while they like to dictate to the world. The hypocrisy sickens me.

but that's the govt, the American people on the other hand prefer to have their sovereignty with the US govt and don't want to be accountable to the UN (those socialist europeans and third world dictators).

I agree with you

Originally posted by drfunk
the American people on the other hand prefer to have their sovereignty with the US govt and don't want to be accountable to the UN (those socialist europeans and third world dictators).

Exactly drfunk, Couldn't have said it better myself!

And it's a very good thing, to! You folks live how you want, we'll live how we want.

As far as the money thing goes, only fools believe in free money. It always comes with strings attached. Even from a bank, you have to pay interest.

Originally posted by drfunk
its because the arrogant american pigs who run the white house are corrupt criminals and do not sign these treaties because of commercial interests or they do not want their power to be lessened while they like to dictate to the world. The hypocrisy sickens me.

Hey, wait a minute drfunk,
What the U.N. is doing today is not what they were founded upon in the first place. The U.N. was founded during WW2 by 26 nations to continue the fight against the Axis powers. Since then however, they have become a bothersome organization. Disagreeing with the United States at every turn and turning the rest of the world against us. If I had it my way, I would remove membership of the United States from the U.N., because they are adament on taking away our rights, so that we can conform to their control.

but that's the govt, the American people on the other hand prefer to have their sovereignty with the US govt and don't want to be accountable to the UN (those socialist europeans and third world dictators).

We know good and well on how to take care of our own affairs. I'll never observe any law imposed on me by the U.N. that's going to erode on my rights granted to me already by OUR Constitution. The rest of the world should conform to our demands and not the other way around. We are not an unfair nation. Our Allies, who are members of the U.N. know it too.

Yup, Funk, hypocricy all over the place, just that you got so much Kangaroo piss in your face you can't tell what it is.

The bungling morons have done JACK when it comes right down to it - unless the U.S. led them by the hand and helped them see the light. The only thing the U.N. can do is sit idly by while tribes hack one another up, or simply look the other way when a nation commits genocide (Sudan, anyone? Oh, that's right, to the U.N., genocide isn't the targeted slaughter of a group of people systematically, it is the enemy of the U.S. when the U.S. defends herself for once.). But wait, that's right, the people of Sudan are sucking hind teat because Sudan has oil and certain nations (Same ones who turned their backs on us with Iraq) are more concerned with preference contracts. These same nations took part in the Oil For Food Travesty, making big bucks and helping Hussein make big bucks while the people starved.

Don't give me any of your stupid hypocrisy garbage, hypocrite. These idiots let teh worst offenders run human rights organizations and you wonder why we don't sign on to any of thedir crap?

Originally posted by CatHerder
What would the US's reasoning be behind not being against discrimination of women? Why would the US not want to grant inalienable human rights to a child?

At least this one, I know why. It is because US is so pro-life and want to protect inalienable human rights to an unborn child, not a born child.

Originally posted by drfunk
its because the arrogant american pigs who run the white house are corrupt criminals and do not sign these treaties because of commercial interests or they do not want their power to be lessened while they like to dictate to the world. The hypocrisy sickens me.

Then maybe you could explain why Australia hasn't signed the Kyoto Protocol then? Reading from the link below it appears that Howard reasons are the same as the US.

Howard won't sign Kyoto

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne But wait, that's right, the people of Sudan are sucking hind teat because Sudan has oil and certain nations (Same ones who turned their backs on us with Iraq) are more concerned with preference contracts. These same nations took part in the Oil For Food Travesty, making big bucks and helping Hussein make big bucks while the people starved.

And who was the hypocrite buying more of Iraq's oil in 2001 and 2002 than all other nations of the world combined, while at the same time preparing for war against Iraq and condemning Iraq for weapons violations and human rights abuses?



[edit on 18-9-2004 by AceOfBase]

Ace thats crap because many people would look down upon the us if we didnt buy oil from them. TIs the neo-facist who hate america who will damn them if they do and damn them if they dont. They would claim were are starving iraqi children when in reality the UN is getin fat off the oil money.

Originally posted by Quicksilver
Ace thats crap because many people would look down upon the us if we didnt buy oil from them. TIs the neo-facist who hate america who will damn them if they do and damn them if they dont. They would claim were are starving iraqi children when in reality the UN is getin fat off the oil money.

It is US/UK blocking the intentions of many other nations for lifting sanctions against Iraq. US/UK maintained No-fly zone in north and south Iraq, just waiting for the right moment to invade and occupy.

Originally posted by Quicksilver
Ace thats crap because many people would look down upon the us if we didnt buy oil from them. TIs the neo-facist who hate america who will damn them if they do and damn them if they dont. They would claim were are starving iraqi children when in reality the UN is getin fat off the oil money.

But it's ok to condemn France for their oil contracts with Iraq?

I don't agree with the sanctions that were placed against Iraq or the ones Powell and others want put on Sudan but if you're going to badmouth the French and others for their oil contracts, you need to look at the US also.

[edit on 18-9-2004 by AceOfBase]

It's so amusing when you see how our present and past administrations had done with other countries around the world, and then again we wonder why we are targeted and hated so much.

Did Jesus once said "do not do unto others what you don't want to be done to you"?

Yes US is a bless nation indeed.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I usually don't get involved in UN rants, but seeing as today is a slow news day.... You need to understand that the UN is primarily two things: a debating society, and a mechanism for the majority of the countries comprising it -- a bunch of socialist mendicants -- to attempt to extract money from other countries, first among them the United States of America.

They Law of the Sea is a great example of this. The UN posits that, since the sea belongs to no one, no one country can claim the sea-bed for puposes such as colonization or mining. Well, that makes sense; who is the USA to say that no one can mine the bed of the Irish Sea except them?

Unfortunately, the Law of the Sea goes a bit further. the UN claims that the sea-bed belongs to ALL nations, and that if if any nation chooses to mine the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, it must share the bounty of its mining with all the other nations! Now obviously, neither Mongolia nor the Democratic Republic of the Congo are going to invest heavily in sea-bed mining; they have neither the desire, money, or expertise to do so. And anyway, under the Law of the Sea, why should they? All they need to do is sit back and watch one of the nations with the engineering skills, desire, will-power, and money (translation: the United States) to do so, and then stick their hand out for their "share"!

The Kyoto Accords are pretty much the same way. This piece of Judiciary juju, in an attempt to clean up pollution, says that all countries must cut down on their pollution and, if they must pollute more than the UN-imposed maximum, can buy "pollution credits" from countries that don't pollute.

What this means is that a country that manufactures a lot is going to pollute a lot, and they can kep on manufacturing (and in the process, polluting) if they make payments to countries which don't manufacture and have pollution "credits" to sell, such as Mongolia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In other words, in order to build more American airplanes or houses, we have to bribe bureaucrats in Ulan Bator and Kinshasa.

By the way, did I say that "all countries must cut down on their pollution..."? Oops, my mistake! Silly me, I forgot that India and China, as "developing" countries (and HUGE polluters) are exempt from the requirements of these accords.

Well said. Reasoning like that is the reason why I'm glad the U.S. hasn't signed any of those treaties. Most of them have attractive titles, but when you read the fine print most of them are a fraud.

I don't understand why some of you folks have to attack each other over the fact that the US hasn't ratifed these international agreements. Some of the arguements here against signing some of these are daft and not at all thought out, one explanation was pretty bang on though. You have a section in your Constitution that does not allow any nation to impose laws and/or govern your nation. That is a very valid reason for not ratifying the ICC, I suppose if the USA wanted to be part of the international court, either as a prosecutor or defendant, they'd have to ammend their constitution first.

You also have a section in your constitution that says "all men are created equal" (which implies all human beings; men, women, and children) yet children aren't afforded the same human rights by the USA; the reason for this is the USA, specifically Texas and a couple other states, do not want to give up the right to execute a child for comitting murder. The rights of the child have nothing to do with abortion in this treaty - the reason the US doesn't ratify that treaty is because you want to hold on to the right to execute a child. (It's in your state department notes on their website.)

The US won't rafity Koyoto for one reason and one reason only. Your politicians are all in the pockets of the big oil companies. If you think for a moment that you couldn't compete on the world market, regardless what the pollution requirements, you're mistaken. What could possibly be wrong with reducing pollution levels across the world? It's important to get this accord in place - developing nations cause more and more pollution every day and there needs to be something in place to prevent foreign companies from setting up over polluting factories in nations that do not have pollution laws and regulations. By foreign I mean a US/Canadian/European company setting up an oil refinery in some 3rd world country that causes more pollution than any 5 refineries in North America combined (as an example) - it's happening already... THIS is why the US won't ratify it, not because it will reduce pollution levels in the US by a puny 2-3%, but because US companies wouldn't be able to build unregulated pollution-pig factories in poor nations.

The other parts; I really don't know what the US thinking is behind not signing or not ratifying some other treaties and accords. Why would the US not ratify inalienable human rights for women? Are they still a lesser person in the USA? I am curious to say the least!

You know, I wonder about women rights I feel like we are moving backward instead of ahead, we are nothing more than third class citizens or about to become third class citizens in this country.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
�����..
But it's ok to condemn France for their oil contracts with Iraq?
�����..

The difference is we bought it they sold it and were making a very tidy profit from it as well as arms sales to the Iraqis.

Originally posted by CatHerder
The other parts; I really don't know what the US thinking is behind not signing or not ratifying some other treaties and accords. Why would the US not ratify inalienable human rights for women? Are they still a lesser person in the USA? I am curious to say the least!

Simply stated it was "reproductive rights" that the neocons objected to. No UN project, mandate, relief program or treaty that allows for a woman's right to choose will be acknowledged by the US.

Well I for one like it! THese are set up to "hurt" the UNited States and therefore I am against them, the left lost another one HAHA!


Go GW!

Originally posted by Bleys
Simply stated it was "reproductive rights" that the neocons objected to. No UN project, mandate, relief program or treaty that allows for a woman's right to choose will be acknowledged by the US.

Ah yes... "the land of the free"

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by Bleys
Simply stated it was "reproductive rights" that the neocons objected to. No UN project, mandate, relief program or treaty that allows for a woman's right to choose will be acknowledged by the US.

Ah yes... "the land of the free"

No, I truly believe this is the land of the free - we just have to neuter the religious right in this country. But even more concerning to me is the countries that sign on to these declarations who have no intention of adhering to them. When you look at the human (let alone women's) rights violations of some of them - you have to wonder what's really going on.

Catherder says:

"You have a section in your Constitution that does not allow any nation to impose laws and/or govern your nation....You also have a section in your constitution that says 'all men are created equal'...."

I am afraid that your information on my country's Constitution is incorrect; there is nothing in our Constitution which forbids another nation to impose laws and/or govern our nation, although, as an independent nation, such freedom for others' impositions would be a given.

Nor is there any section in our Constititution which says that 'all men are created equal'; that is a part of our Declaration of Independence, and has nothing at all to do with our Constitutionally-derived laws.

www.house.gov...

"The US won't rafity Koyoto for one reason and one reason only. Your politicians are all in the pockets of the big oil companies."

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.

"It's important to get this accord in place - developing nations cause more and more pollution every day and there needs to be something in place to prevent foreign companies from setting up over polluting factories in nations that do not have pollution laws and regulations."

It is the domestic factories in the developing countries like India and the PRC which are the ones doing the polluting -- and it is those two countries which are exempted from the Kyoto Accords anyway!

Perhaps you should consider addressing the sins of the Chinese- and Indian-owned factories before inveighing aginst against foreign factories, most of which do not even exist yet!

"The other parts; I really don't know what the US thinking is behind not signing or not ratifying some other treaties and accords."

I can tell.