On Thursday 24 August 2006 22:08, Steve Lamb wrote: > Paul Johnson wrote: > > And what is the member status of those states again? Do they matter? > > Does anybody on the UN give them more than token attention? NO! Why? > > Because the UN realizes they're as nutty as they really are, too! > > However, the UN does allow everybody to have their say. It doesn't mean > > the UN is going to listen to them. > > Wrong again, Paul. You will note that 1-2 years ago the UN resolution > denouncing terrorism was softened to include a clause which allowed > terrorist activities in the event of a occupied state.
You know, if Iraq invaded us, and called us terrorists for defending ourselves, you'd be pretty pissed off, too. The UN isn't so shortsighted as to say you aren't allowed to ream an occupying force a new one. Remember: Flying commercial jets into occupied buildings == Terrorism. Carbomb in a cafe == terrorism. Defending your country against an occupying force with whatever you can improvise =! terrorism. If it is terrorism, then I guess we should have never revolted from the British: After all, they sent a peacekeeping force and told us to lay down our arms. Oh, and I guess bombing the Japanese in the 1940s to get them to stop attacking us is right out, too, since that only terrified them and the world for decades after it happened. Look at the upswing: If we lost the war, the UN you loathe so much would have never existed. So there's a few ripe eggs. Throw 'em out. But don't throw all the food out, fridge and all, in the dumpster over a couple bad eggs. > That clause was fought for and eventually put in place to appease the very > same member states you claim the UN believe is nutty and doesn't listen to. You can't blame someone for wanting to defend themselves. > > That being said, since it's creation, the UN has sided with the US more > > often than not. And why shouldn't they? > > It has? Not lately. It's pretty much run counter to the US for the > past, oh... 1-2 decades. I'd talk about more but I wasn't all that > interested in world politics when I was a kid. Is it any coincidence that happens to be the two decades dominated by Reagan and his neo-conservative legacy on the Republican Party? I mean, that party was doing great for a long time, too. How does one go from Abe Lincoln to impeaching a president over being a little too sexually ambitious? How does the party of small government end up outspending in three presidents more than all other presidents before them combined, without facing anything as earthshattering as the Great Depression, a major world war, or anything more major than the terrorist equivalent of a suckerpunch? > Strictly speaking if the US had the same exception clause to it's "freedom > of speech" as the UN has then you would be in violation of it and subject to > whatever reprimands were deemed appropriate. The very fact that you can > speak out against the US as you do, as often as you do and the fact that > your right to do so is DEFENDED by the very same nation you abhor proves > that the UN does not nor ever has reminded us of what we are and has, > indeed, run counter to what is considered one of the founding principles of > this nation. Part of freedom of the press is access to media. Blogs and email doesn't cut it, my friend. Countries that score better on freedom of speech don't tend to have more than a dozen companies competing for national mass media. > Somehow I doubt you'll read this or, in the off chance you do, find it > convincing. And you're more or less right. You lack perspective. Consider travel. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpOrab7TzgBg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
