PDA

View Full Version : children and the hungry demand "rights"


Det. Bart Lasiter
12-28-2008, 05:44 AM
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3941.doc.htm

Specifically:

ANNEX III

Vote on Right to Food

The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/63/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

Abstain: None.

Absent: Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tuvalu.ANNEX VIII

Vote on Rights of the Child

The draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/63/L.16/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

Abstain: None.

Absent: Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kiribati, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

How will they learn to not be 5 and not be hungry if we coddle them like this?


So... thoughts?

Tommycat
12-28-2008, 07:10 AM
Seems as though you are mischaracterising WHY the US voted against.

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the United States said that, while agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the resolution, his delegation could not support the text as drafted. The United States felt that the attainment of the “right to adequate food” or the “right to be free from hunger” was a goal that should be realized progressively. The current resolution contained numerous objectionable provisions, including inaccurate textual descriptions of underlying rights. The United States was the largest food donor in the world of international humanitarian food aid and it would continue to work towards providing food security to all. In the future, he expressed hope that the co-sponsors would work to address his delegation’s concerns, so the United States could join other countries in adopting the draft.
Hmmm seems to me that there were some things within the text that the US objected to. Far from being against the hungry, as we are the largest provider of food.

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the United States welcomed the commitment of the United Nations and the Third Committee on issues relating to the rights of the child. The United States was equally committed to the issue and had worked to ensure that the protection of the rights of children was fully integrated into its foreign policy. However, she also expressed disappointment over the failure to make a number of minor changes that would have allowed the United States to support the draft. In particular, she referred to preambular paragraph 2, which stated that the Convention on the Rights of the Child “must constitute” the standard, and in operative paragraph 2, which might have been improved by urging States to “consider” becoming States parties to the Convention, as each State had a sovereign right to make such decisions on their own. Finally, operative paragraph 31, which recognized the contribution of the International Criminal Court in ending impunity for the most serious crimes against children, was not necessarily supported by fact, as it had not yet tried a single case in that regard.
Basically we didn't like the text because parts of it trumped individual States sovereign rights, some of the text was funky, and giving credit to the ICC for things it had not done.

Sometimes I wonder why we bother providing as much aid to other countries as we do. No matter how much we do, we still get characterized as being against things we are supporters of.

vanir
12-28-2008, 07:39 AM
Well it all stands to reason. The United States is one planet, and everybody else another.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-28-2008, 07:42 AM
Seems as though you are mischaracterising WHY the US voted against.


Hmmm seems to me that there were some things within the text that the US objected to. Far from being against the hungry, as we are the largest provider of food.


Basically we didn't like the text because parts of it trumped individual States sovereign rights, some of the text was funky, and giving credit to the ICC for things it had not done.

Sometimes I wonder why we bother providing as much aid to other countries as we do. No matter how much we do, we still get characterized as being against things we are supporters of.


I see meaningless wordplay and bull**** excuses. Nothing more.

As to your last point, I'm guessing it has something to do with much of U.S. foreign policy being an impedance to humanitarian efforts.

Tommycat
12-28-2008, 08:04 AM
I see meaningless wordplay and bull**** excuses. Nothing more.

As to your last point, I'm guessing it has something to do with much of U.S. foreign policy being an impedance to humanitarian efforts.

Most law is just wordplay. If we're going to be held to it, it has to be acceptable to us legally.

Yeah, what percentage of food does your country provide? WE provided 49% of food aid. EU COMBINED was less than 1/2 what we did. But somehow YOU call US against the hungry.

vanir
12-28-2008, 08:17 AM
About ten years ago the US initiated a monetary fund to support the fight against poverty in Africa. The requirement details were that it was a loan to be repaid, and that the monies loaned would be spent with specific US industries at inflated prices. And that until the loan was repaid local policy was to procreate a US friendly economic-domestic policy.

Imperialism in as many wordplays. This act resulted in demonstrations around the globe, particularly among environmentalist and holistic political groups. You give, you don't demand. It's called charity, it begins at home and it doesn't involve political or any other agendas. But then that wouldn't be capitalism now, would it?

See, when people that are determinedly religious stand against you, you don't say, let's wipe out fundamentalist extremists. You say, what am I doing wrong?

Of course in some countries that just doesn't get the illusion of a majority vote, for some ungodly reason. I should think many more will continue to question polling dictum in the US in the coming future, as each begins to find it harder and harder to actually identify these majority voters anywhere within their own neighbourhoods, anywhere.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-28-2008, 09:28 AM
Most law is just wordplay. If we're going to be held to it, it has to be acceptable to us legally.

Yeah, what percentage of food does your country provide? WE provided 49% of food aid. EU COMBINED was less than 1/2 what we did. But somehow YOU call US against the hungry.49%. You are us and us are you MIND TRIP

that's actually part of the reason i even brought this up, i have to rely on the u.s.' reputation when i travel and i don't want my passport being turned into a reason to be hated and ridiculed thanks.

Adavardes
12-28-2008, 12:12 PM
This whole thread is an epic facepalm, to be completely honest. It's ridiculous. Not only do we start a war against all the UN's cautions against it, ignoring international policy and turning ourselves into THE most ignorant, moronic country on the planet, we turn around and hold back global progress by being the only one to vote against two huge steps toward better human rights, and progressive measures to staving off world hunger. We could have just signed off on it and stopped being international *******s, but NOOOOO.

And the fact that this is even a point of argument on whether or not America's decision was just is absurd. It should be fairly obvious that this is exactly why other countries dispise us. And yes, it does matter, because believe it or not, America isn't master of the world!

@ Tommycat:

I don't care how you paint it, what happened there was wrong. America is not a country to be loved unquestioningly, it is most definately up on the chopping block not only for being one of the countries with the lowest quality of education, sanitation, health, and understanding of global policy, but also for being the country that is all of these things, and holds everyone back, because we think we have a god-given right to bully anyone around that doesn't think and act just as we do, and think that because we have more military power, we are somehow superior, when really, we are not.

AMERICA MAKES ME SO MAD!

Tommycat
12-28-2008, 09:37 PM
The problem is that even when we do something right, we don't get the credit for it. Instead people just go "Yeah, well what about X" and don't even give acknowledgement to the good. Lets face it, people will hate us regardless. Maybe things will change with the new administration, but I doubt it. Maybe instead of just accepting when someone says that we're opposed to feeding the hungry instead of telling people Yeah that was bad of us to oppose those two annexes(which I have not seen the text of, so I cannot say whether it was poorly worded), you could simply point out that we do provide 49% of the food aid.

About our education: Though this is getting off topic, we have consistently had the highest completion rates. We turn out almost twice as many scientists and engineers than we have jobs for. It really depends on what criteria they are using to judge the education.
IThe most recent figures show just 76 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds with uppersecondary education in the UK as of 2006, which is 11 percentage points lower than the corresponding figure for the US despite continuing problems with dropout rates in the US, particularly US cities.4

I would also like links to proof of your other claims please. I'm not saying you are a liar by any means, I would just like to see the info for myself.

Web Rider
12-29-2008, 12:14 AM
A "feel good" measure and nothing more, nothing less.

How to we(the world) ensure everyone has an "equal food standard"? Do we give everyone a cheesburger? Do people get to choose whatever they want so long as it is above a certain caloric value? How do you DO that? Not everyone even needs the same amount of food, some people need more, some people simply want more. You can't possibly expect anything realistic to come out of saying "everyone deserves the right to eat food."

As for children, this falls into my "when people say 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!' our brains turn off" point of view. The EU is not helping themselves by micromanaging it's nations. The UN will not help by doing the same. Yes, everyone who cares KNOWS children have rights, life, liberty, ect...but they are also children, and require parents to some degree, and we know when they're harmed that it's BAD. Really, what is this going to do other than make an unenforceable law that doesn't DO anything other than state the obvious?

And, look at some of the nations that supported it, Afghanistan, Belarus, Egypt, Israel, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, are we joking here? Half the nations that support this have a horrible human rights record, saying "oh, they're good" for doing this is like patting the dog for learning how to shake but still letting him poop on the carpet.

Rev7
12-29-2008, 12:23 AM
A "feel good" measure and nothing more, nothing less.
QFE

vanir
12-29-2008, 12:35 AM
Right, wrt comments like the following, it's time to grow up:

The problem is that even when we do something right, we don't get the credit for it.

Mate, this is pure and whole childishness. Doing good is the minimum acceptable standard of human behaviour. It's normal. It's not supposed to stand out. Get it?

Now going and as good as making an argument of, "pander to me or I'll go do bad," just makes you public enemy number 1 from the very start. It makes you an arrogant, dangerous child who needs to be controlled. And here's the down and dirty, nobody will. It's not democratic to do so.

So you just go do what you want, and we'll go do good like it's normal behaviour. Then at the end you can whinge about how nobody likes you and it's not fair, whilst we're the ones with all the honest friends we can trust with our backs turned.


I mean come on. As far as people liking you goes, what you choose is what you get. Not happy? What on Earth did you choose, feller? Same goes for nations. Argue the finer points, go right ahead. That was precisely what we wanted to see. Now we know. We know. We know you.

Cheers ;)

Web Rider
12-29-2008, 01:34 AM
Mate, this is pure and whole childishness. Doing good is the minimum acceptable standard of human behaviour. It's normal. It's not supposed to stand out. Get it?
No, it's not normal. Normal is acting in self interest. I do what is best for me because I'm designed to survive. I do not do what is good for you at the expense of me because that is death.

Now going and as good as making an argument of, "pander to me or I'll go do bad," just makes you public enemy number 1 from the very start. It makes you an arrogant, dangerous child who needs to be controlled. And here's the down and dirty, nobody will. It's not democratic to do so.
Oh yeah, because calling somebody an arrogant dangerous child who needs to be controlled really doesn't make you sound like an arrogant dangerous child who needs to be controlled.

So you just go do what you want, and we'll go do good like it's normal behaviour. Then at the end you can whinge about how nobody likes you and it's not fair, whilst we're the ones with all the honest friends we can trust with our backs turned.
Mature, trusting friends who will decide what's best for you, what clothes to wear, how much food to eat, if you die in some land you can't spell.


I mean come on. As far as people liking you goes, what you choose is what you get. Not happy? What on Earth did you choose, feller? Same goes for nations. Argue the finer points, go right ahead. That was precisely what we wanted to see. Now we know. We know. We know you.
Jeeze, no wonder Americans don't like Europeans, you've just written 3 paragraphs in support of why the US should take it's toys home and play isolationist.

America helps, a lot, the world generally gives them gripe for not helping MORE. Then they praise how much they're helping, which is considerably less, and what's that called? A DOUBLE STANDARD. Hey, I don't want the world to sing praise for me, I just want a simple thank you. If you can't cough up so much as "hey, that really helped" I don't see why buying your love by helping poor nations is going to make you any better friends than if I do nothing.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 01:49 AM
America helps, a lot, the world generally gives them gripe for not helping MORE. Then they praise how much they're helping, which is considerably less, and what's that called? A DOUBLE STANDARD. Hey, I don't want the world to sing praise for me, I just want a simple thank you. If you can't cough up so much as "hey, that really helped" I don't see why buying your love by helping poor nations is going to make you any better friends than if I do nothing.i dont have any sources for this, but i'm pretty sure other countries gripe because we cause a lot of situations that require humanitarian aid

Web Rider
12-29-2008, 01:56 AM
i dont have any sources for this, but i'm pretty sure other countries gripe because we cause a lot of situations that require humanitarian aid

And that was exactly Tommycat's point. We help even where we screw up. not always, but often. And people, instread of saying "oh, dang you, you screwed it up, but good on you for helping." just say "you idiot, you screwed it up!" and ignore any help we give anywhere. And it's annoying. A little thanks is not hard, and yeah, we do mess things up, just like a laundry list of other nations do.

But what do we want? high praise? Good trade deals? no. A little thanks would be nice, just say "too bad you messed it up, but thanks for helping fix it."

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 02:05 AM
And that was exactly Tommycat's point. We help even where we screw up. not always, but often. And people, instread of saying "oh, dang you, you screwed it up, but good on you for helping." just say "you idiot, you screwed it up!" and ignore any help we give anywhere. And it's annoying. A little thanks is not hard, and yeah, we do mess things up, just like a laundry list of other nations do.

But what do we want? high praise? Good trade deals? no. A little thanks would be nice, just say "too bad you messed it up, but thanks for helping fix it."uhh why should we be praised for kinda sorta cleaning up our own messes?

Web Rider
12-29-2008, 02:30 AM
uhh why should we be praised for kinda sorta cleaning up our own messes?

We shouldnt, which, if you read my post instead of assuming I wrote "bawwwww world hates america!!!" you'd have seen all I wanted was a "thanks".

Friends thank their friends for cleaning up after a party even when they made the mess. It's called "common courtesy". If the US is going to be given flak for messing things up, and then STILL given flak when they clean it up, WHY do we have any incentive to clean it up if nothing has changed and everyone still treats us in the same poor manner?

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 02:43 AM
We shouldnt, which, if you read my post instead of assuming I wrote "bawwwww world hates america!!!" you'd have seen all I wanted was a "thanks".

Friends thank their friends for cleaning up after a party even when they made the mess. It's called "common courtesy". If the US is going to be given flak for messing things up, and then STILL given flak when they clean it up, WHY do we have any incentive to clean it up if nothing has changed and everyone still treats us in the same poor manner?cleaning up a mess after a party isn't really comparable to killing a country or region because of the sheer scale and the fact that we can't bring people back to life or go out to the store and buy new ones.

back on topic though, opposing these measures is deserving of criticism.

Tommycat
12-29-2008, 02:52 AM
Right, wrt comments like the following, it's time to grow up:



Mate, this is pure and whole childishness. Doing good is the minimum acceptable standard of human behaviour. It's normal. It's not supposed to stand out. Get it?

Now going and as good as making an argument of, "pander to me or I'll go do bad," just makes you public enemy number 1 from the very start. It makes you an arrogant, dangerous child who needs to be controlled. And here's the down and dirty, nobody will. It's not democratic to do so.

So you just go do what you want, and we'll go do good like it's normal behaviour. Then at the end you can whinge about how nobody likes you and it's not fair, whilst we're the ones with all the honest friends we can trust with our backs turned.


I mean come on. As far as people liking you goes, what you choose is what you get. Not happy? What on Earth did you choose, feller? Same goes for nations. Argue the finer points, go right ahead. That was precisely what we wanted to see. Now we know. We know. We know you.

Cheers ;)

MALE BOVINE FECAL MATTER!

I'm not asking for high praise. Just acknowledgement of the good we do. You want to talk about maturity? Lets talk maturity. We do good despite the fact that other countries hate us. THAT is maturity. We don't do it for praise. But it would be nice to at least get a "thank you" once in a while from the global community.

Maybe it's a sign of how I was raised that I was taught that when someone helps, you say thanks.

Oh and our own messes aren't the only ones we help clean up. Sure they get more press, because it is fashionable to bash the US.

Web Rider
12-29-2008, 01:35 PM
back on topic though, opposing these measures is deserving of criticism.

Why? The measures do nothing, and half the nations that signed on are guilty of breaking these measures on a daily basis. Isn't it THEY who should be criticized for being hypocritial, instead of the US for simply objecting to a rule they pretty much already follow or find invasive to their nation?

This law doesn't mean jack. Nations that already follow standards that are as close as humanly possible to it will follow it, nations that have no way of implementing it will still not implment it, and nations with no intention of following it will continue with that intention. Not to mention that there's no way the UN can possibly organize a task force to go to every person in every nation and check if they're having these standards applied to them.

Why should anyone be criticized for not signing on to something that doesn't even have any effect?

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 02:09 PM
Why? The measures do nothing, and half the nations that signed on are guilty of breaking these measures on a daily basis. Isn't it THEY who should be criticized for being hypocritial, instead of the US for simply objecting to a rule they pretty much already follow or find invasive to their nation?

This law doesn't mean jack. Nations that already follow standards that are as close as humanly possible to it will follow it, nations that have no way of implementing it will still not implment it, and nations with no intention of following it will continue with that intention. Not to mention that there's no way the UN can possibly organize a task force to go to every person in every nation and check if they're having these standards applied to them.

Why should anyone be criticized for not signing on to something that doesn't even have any effect?by that logic we should just forget about any u.n. measure and pretty much any other international law regarding the behavior of nations. the fact remains however, that u.n resolutions do matter, and just because they aren't being enforced as strictly as they should be, doesn't mean they should be forgotten about.

as for being deserving of criticism, i'd like to see a reason why people shouldn't have a right to not starve to death and why children shouldn't have the right to not be slaves.

Web Rider
12-29-2008, 02:18 PM
by that logic we should just forget about any u.n. measure and pretty much any other international law regarding the behavior of nations. the fact remains however, that u.n resolutions do matter, and just because they aren't being enforced as strictly as they should be, doesn't mean they should be forgotten about.
Shouldn't laws that CAN be enforced be what we focus on? UN resolutions matter to those who already care. Nations that don't care, they have no effect. And it isn't a matter of the enforcement not being as 'strict" as it should, it's a matter of the enforcement being IMPOSSIBLE.

as for being deserving of criticism, i'd like to see a reason why people shouldn't have a right to not starve to death and why children shouldn't have the right to not be slaves.
As I already said, everyone who cares already knows that people have a right not to die of starvation and children have the right to be free.

But that's not the point. We, the nations the care, already know this. Those nations that might care, but can't control their country, can't do anything about it. The nations that don't care, STILL don't care. Why do we need to pass a law that affirms what We are already doing, and has no effect on They who can't/don't want to do anything about it?

Aren't there better things that everyone can do?

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 02:46 PM
Shouldn't laws that CAN be enforced be what we focus on? UN resolutions matter to those who already care. Nations that don't care, they have no effect. And it isn't a matter of the enforcement not being as 'strict" as it should, it's a matter of the enforcement being IMPOSSIBLE.absolute enforcement would be impossible, as it is with any law, that doesn't mean we should just say **** it and move on.

vanir
12-29-2008, 04:56 PM
MALE BOVINE FECAL MATTER!

I'm not asking for high praise. Just acknowledgement of the good we do. You want to talk about maturity? Lets talk maturity. We do good despite the fact that other countries hate us. THAT is maturity. We don't do it for praise. But it would be nice to at least get a "thank you" once in a while from the global community.

Maybe it's a sign of how I was raised that I was taught that when someone helps, you say thanks.

Oh and our own messes aren't the only ones we help clean up. Sure they get more press, because it is fashionable to bash the US.

Actually maturity is to do what you do without expecting thanks. Self respect is the thanks you get. Once you've got self respect, you'll find others thanking you for that.

The problem again, about a puppy dog looking for a pat on the head is that it also needs a good whack when it bites instead.
A combination of events throughout the 20th century served notice on humankind, it cannot be allowed for childish or corrupt governments to rule industrially developed nations even for a single term anymore. That would include, in fact most especially within the United States.

But governments will not grow up, they cannot. The onus of responsibility is upon populations, us, you and me. By the time you get past your early teens you absolutely must become politically developed, moreso than your government, in order for the planet to survive with some semblence of democratic well being.

This would include giving without receiving. Efforts without return. That is what turns the world. What else are you going to do? Create slave classes or just artificially control population growth?

No thanks. Just be good. You're the only one who loses otherwise. Perhaps we should be thankful for corrupt politicians for having exampled it so illustratively for our entire species, that their national reputation pays for each and every choice made and in turn the population is innately responsible. Certainly, apparently simplistic, "religious extremists" the world over seem to have gleaned this piece of enlightenment.

You do good not for any other reason other than threat. It is a very bad thing for you if you do not. And it has nothing to do with anybody else.


-Note that I did forget to add in my previous post that this was not a personal attack of any kind but an examination of the subject material. I sometimes do that due to distractions and apolegise, Tommycat. My rant is not directed at you but generally and includes myself as much as anyone.

Web Rider
12-29-2008, 05:10 PM
The problem again, about a puppy dog looking for a pat on the head is that it also needs a good whack when it bites instead.
A combination of events throughout the 20th century served notice on humankind, it cannot be allowed for childish or corrupt governments to rule industrially developed nations even for a single term anymore. That would include, in fact most especially within the United States.
A lot of corrupt governments have made that argument to support overthrowing governments they don't like. Don't walk around saying "I've got the big stick and you'll behave now." And then condemn others for doing the same.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 05:19 PM
A lot of corrupt governments have made that argument to support overthrowing governments they don't like. Don't walk around saying "I've got the big stick and you'll behave now." And then condemn others for doing the same.this is such a horrible reply to vanir saying people should keep their governments in line by becoming versed in politics and it stinks of desperation. could you perhaps stop posting insults aimed at other countries and using them as the basis for your arguments?

and i hate to use such a cliche phrase, but, "if pakistan jumped off a bridge, would you?"

vanir
12-29-2008, 05:21 PM
Don't confuse a well deserved apolegy to Tommycat with a lack of confidence, Web Rider.


Sorry again Tommycat. I am exceedingly harsh on myself at all times and forget that I cannot go around treating others like that. There's no excuse :(

Jae Onasi
12-29-2008, 07:47 PM
The current resolution contained numerous objectionable provisions, including inaccurate textual descriptions of underlying rights. The United States was the largest food donor in the world of international humanitarian food aid and it would continue to work towards providing food security to all. In the future, he expressed hope that the co-sponsors would work to address his delegation’s concerns, so the United States could join other countries in adopting the draft.


So the US wants to sign the Annexes in principal, but has objections to how it's worded. Many of the other states that signed it should have actually looked at the wording, because it may have inadvertently committed their nations to things they really couldn't do by the laws of their own countries.

A badly written law should not be signed, no matter how good the intentions. Re-write the law in a better manner to address the problems in wording, and I'm sure the US will be happy to sign it.

Web Rider
12-29-2008, 07:49 PM
So the US wants to sign the Annexes in principal, but has objections to how it's worded. Many of the other states that signed it should have actually looked at the wording, because it may have inadvertently committed their nations to things they really couldn't do by the laws of their own countries.

A badly written law should not be signed, no matter how good the intentions. Re-write the law in a better manner to address the problems in wording, and I'm sure the US will be happy to sign it.

Finally, thank you. Laws should not be approved just because they elicit knee-jerk reactions about feeding people and saving the children.

Tommycat
12-29-2008, 09:00 PM
vanir: No need to appologize. We're having a discussion. I don't take any of it personally.

That said...
Actually maturity is to do what you do without expecting thanks. Self respect is the thanks you get. Once you've got self respect, you'll find others thanking you for that.
As I said, We do it without expecting it. However it should be expected of the "mature" ones to thank us for the good, however they are not mature, and don't, but that doesn't and hasn't stopped us from being the top donor. That was the point I was driving home. When they are willing to recognize the ICC for things it HAS NOT done, and refuse to recognize the US for the things it HAS done, that is just plain silly. It's insulting. Even mature people do not appreciate being insulted.

jonathan7
12-29-2008, 09:01 PM
To be honest the whole thing is a joke, how is Zimbabwe(an government, for example) signing up to this?

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 09:04 PM
So the US wants to sign the Annexes in principal, but has objections to how it's worded. Many of the other states that signed it should have actually looked at the wording, because it may have inadvertently committed their nations to things they really couldn't do by the laws of their own countries.

A badly written law should not be signed, no matter how good the intentions. Re-write the law in a better manner to address the problems in wording, and I'm sure the US will be happy to sign it.i'd agree with that except the link i provided gives the reasons the u.s. representative gave for opposing the measures:

he United States felt that the attainment of the “right to adequate food” or the “right to be free from hunger” was a goal that should be realized progressively. The current resolution contained numerous objectionable provisions, including inaccurate textual descriptions of underlying rights."whoops sorry about that i'm an english professor now and you didn't go into enough detail get in your revisions before monday for half credit and this whole right to not starve thing is coming up so quick i mean it's getting to be christmas i have **** to buy"

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the United States welcomed the commitment of the United Nations and the Third Committee on issues relating to the rights of the child. The United States was equally committed to the issue and had worked to ensure that the protection of the rights of children was fully integrated into its foreign policy. However, she also expressed disappointment over the failure to make a number of minor changes that would have allowed the United States to support the draft. In particular, she referred to preambular paragraph 2, which stated that the Convention on the Rights of the Child “must constitute” the standard, and in operative paragraph 2, which might have been improved by urging States to “consider” becoming States parties to the Convention, as each State had a sovereign right to make such decisions on their own. Finally, operative paragraph 31, which recognized the contribution of the International Criminal Court in ending impunity for the most serious crimes against children, was not necessarily supported by fact, as it had not yet tried a single case in that regard."woah woah woah this thing doesn't have a loophole where countries can define their own standards for children's rights what the hell man"

those are pretty much the worst reasons ever.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 09:17 PM
Why? The measures do nothing, and half the nations that signed on are guilty of breaking these measures on a daily basis. Isn't it THEY who should be criticized for being hypocritial, instead of the US for simply objecting to a rule they pretty much already follow or find invasive to their nation?

Wow we actually agree on something.


This law doesn't mean jack. Nations that already follow standards that are as close as humanly possible to it will follow it, nations that have no way of implementing it will still not implment it, and nations with no intention of following it will continue with that intention. Not to mention that there's no way the UN can possibly organize a task force to go to every person in every nation and check if they're having these standards applied to them.

To add to it, the only one that would end up paying for this is the United States, because the other countries when push comes to shove won't chip in, heck some of them actually cause the problems.


Why should anyone be criticized for not signing on to something that doesn't even have any effect?

Correction, it would affect the United States in that it would be yet another thing we'd pay for that most of the other countries wouldn't chip in.

Tommycat
12-29-2008, 10:58 PM
Wow 3 times the same thing was quoted... Are people even reading it? And jmac quoted it subtracting the remaining portion which stated that the US wanted to support it, but couldn't at this time because of the language.

Note: I posted this in the very first response.
Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the United States said that, while agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the resolution, his delegation could not support the text as drafted. The United States felt that the attainment of the “right to adequate food” or the “right to be free from hunger” was a goal that should be realized progressively. The current resolution contained numerous objectionable provisions, including inaccurate textual descriptions of underlying rights. The United States was the largest food donor in the world of international humanitarian food aid and it would continue to work towards providing food security to all. In the future, he expressed hope that the co-sponsors would work to address his delegation’s concerns, so the United States could join other countries in adopting the draft.

jmac
shared
Jae

I posted it in it's entirety so that people could judge it IN CONTEXT. Trimming out the second half changes the tone.

Adavardes
12-29-2008, 11:05 PM
Correction, it would affect the United States in that it would be yet another thing we'd pay for that most of the other countries wouldn't chip in.

"From each according to his talent, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

America has a higher percentage of millionare citizens than any other country in the world. Imagine that, we might have to pay more than other countries because WE HAVE MORE MONEY. Heaven forbid we actually have to give what is equitable to our overall gains.

But if we give food away, our fat ***es won't have as much, and we clearly need it, seeing as we have one of the highest obesity ratings in the world. And if kids have rights, who will run our big businesses' overseas sweatshops? Surely that would make things slightly more inconvenient for Mr. Moneybags, and his bedmate, the conservative party.

Feh @ this entire sham of an argument.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 11:07 PM
"From each according to his talent, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

America has a higher percentage of millionare citizens than any other country in the world. Imagine that, we might have to pay more than other countries because WE HAVE MORE MONEY. Heaven forbid we actually have to give what is equitable to our overall gains.

But if we give food away, our fat asses won't have as much, and we clearly need it, seeing as we have one of the highest obesity ratings in the world. And if kids have rights, who will run our big businesses' overseas sweatshops? Surely that would make things slightly more inconvenient for Mr. Moneybags, and his bedmate, the conservative party.

Feh @ this entire sham of an argument.

Sorry but this sounds more like welfare and I'm not going to give up what I worked for to someone too lazy to actually work.

There is an old saying: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Adavardes
12-29-2008, 11:19 PM
Sorry but this sounds more like welfare and I'm not going to give up what I worked for to someone too lazy to actually work.

So people starving in Africa just don't want to work, because there are so many jobs there, and they can actually get one, being uneducated and filthy, with little to no energy whatsoever? I mean, sure, they choose not to be enslaved into the diamond mining operations, but that's more of a "I like being free" thing, something I think you'd understand, what with your beloved nation being founded on freedom and everything. Nice try generalising the situation, though, you're a true testament to your political standing, and how very little understanding about living conditions outside of Planet America that comment reflects.

There is an old saying: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Where the hell are the fish?

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 11:33 PM
So people starving in Africa just don't want to work, because there are so many jobs there, and they can actually get one, being uneducated and filthy, with little to no energy whatsoever? I mean, sure, they choose not to be enslaved into the diamond mining operations, but that's more of a "I like being free" thing, something I think you'd understand, what with your beloved nation being founded on freedom and everything. Nice try generalising the situation, though, you're a true testament to your political standing, and how very little understanding about living conditions outside of Planet America that comment reflects.

The problem with your statement concerning countries in Africa is a lot of the aid ends up in the hands of corrupt officials rather than going to the people it was intended to help. I know a lot more about the situation than you realize.



Where the hell are the fish?

It means you teach someone how to do something and they can feed themselves. Whether it is doing a job on their own to make money to pay for food, fishing, etc.

Adavardes
12-29-2008, 11:43 PM
The problem with your statement concerning countries in Africa is a lot of the aid ends up in the hands of corrupt officials rather than going to the people it was intended to help. I know a lot more about the situation than you realize.

And how do you know these officials are corrupt? Have you done research into such a claim? And who said anything about giving them money? I thought this was about food.

It means you teach someone how to do something and they can feed themselves. Whether it is doing a job on their own to make money to pay for food, fishing, etc.

:ugh:

Where is the food? Where are the jobs? Where's this money you're talking about?

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 11:57 PM
And how do you know these officials are corrupt? Have you done research into such a claim? And who said anything about giving them money? I thought this was about food.

They horde the food too rather than giving it to the people. Quit trying to paint the most generous country in the world as a country that doesn't do anything for others. Fact is if we're talking about money go yell at the Saudis, they have plenty of money.

Web Rider
12-30-2008, 02:41 AM
Where is the food? Where are the jobs? Where's this money you're talking about?

While we art this inane process of asking stupid questions, define "is".

It's a bloody metaphor, stop being such a literalist, it means if you support a person, they'll never be able to support themselves, and that if a person learns to support themselves they won't need to depend on the aid of others.


And you're seriously asking how we know these leaders are corrupt? Are you kidding me? There are whole BOOKS on the corruption of various government officials, take 10 minutes to Google "Zimbabwe" and you'll probably find several dozen articles outlining the extent of the corruption.

Tommycat
12-30-2008, 03:50 AM
And how do you know these officials are corrupt? Have you done research into such a claim?
Here Let me google that for you (http://www.letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=corrupt+african+governments) ok, ok I've been waiting to use that one haha
And who said anything about giving them money? I thought this was about food.

These leaders also happen to take the food intended to feed the poor, and feed their already well fed armies.

Adavardes
12-30-2008, 01:41 PM
It's a bloody metaphor, stop being such a literalist, it means if you support a person, they'll never be able to support themselves, and that if a person learns to support themselves they won't need to depend on the aid of others

... I'm not being a literalist. I'm answering his metaphor with another metaphor. How are they supposed to learn how to support themselves when there are no jobs to be found? Who is going to give them food for a hard day's work when there really isn't any food to give? How are they supposed to get an education for a job somewhere else when there are little to no schools available, and almost no way to pay for them to go elsewhere?

Where are these fish this fisherman is supposedly learning to catch? I figured people here would get the subtle art of speaking in metaphor. Clearly, I was wrong. Next time, how about you treat me like the English major and author that I am, and not patronise me?

Also, the corruption in the African governments may be true, but there are kids in other countries starving elsewhere. World hunger is more than just Africa, but that continent tends to have the largest surplus of suffering caused by starvation. And it's not like we have to give governments the food. I'm sure there's a possible distribution system that is regulated and controlled by the UN for such matters, and if there isn't, they could surely establish one. But this isn't even about giving the food, it's about giving every human being the right to it, and the only reason America didn't sign is that the laws weren't written so they could get around them if they wanted to?

Whatever, I'm done with this.

EnderWiggin
12-30-2008, 04:42 PM
I know a lot more about the situation than you realize.

:iceburn:

_EW_

Web Rider
12-30-2008, 04:48 PM
... I'm not being a literalist. I'm answering his metaphor with another metaphor. How are they supposed to learn how to support themselves when there are no jobs to be found?
Clearly, they make their own jobs. Homes need to be built, so materials need to be bought in, so connections need to be made with people who provide materials. There's 3 jobs right there, making connections, shipping, and building.

Who is going to give them food for a hard day's work when there really isn't any food to give?
They will grow their own, there's several more jobs right there. Getting seeds, planting seeds, farming crops, shipping crops, selling/trading crops.

How are they supposed to get an education for a job somewhere else when there are little to no schools available, and almost no way to pay for them to go elsewhere?
They will learn through doing. Sure, they may not learn about the sciences and politics and mathematics, but they'll learn, and they'll progress, and as they do, new knoweledge will be brought to them, or they will find it. And there's several more jobs right there, creating more knowledge and teaching it to others, who in turn search for more knoweledge and return it to their people.

Also, the corruption in the African governments may be true, but there are kids in other countries starving elsewhere.
But do you really think that the UN signed a bill to save the starving children in France? Or the US? No. Saving those kids is unpopular because it just looks like we're spoiling a rich nation. Why do people adopt black and asian babies instead of the white ones right next door? Because it's in-style to save kids who aren't white.

World hunger is more than just Africa, but that continent tends to have the largest surplus of suffering caused by starvation. And it's not like we have to give governments the food. I'm sure there's a possible distribution system that is regulated and controlled by the UN for such matters, and if there isn't, they could surely establish one.
Since you are an english major, I suggest you leave the real-world politics to the politics majors like myself. How do you establish a system that works in a nation that doesn't? How do you protect the UN workers from the corrupt military guys with guns? You can't, and they get killed and raped and robbed a lot. The UN does not have the power and the resources to establish such a system. And even if it does, what of the people they supply, when do we say that we have given enough, and it is their turn to stand on their own. If we ignore the corrupt government, and step into their nation, we violate our own laws about respecting the sovereignty of that nation. The solutions are not so simple as "give the food to the people."

But this isn't even about giving the food, it's about giving every human being the right to it, and the only reason America didn't sign is that the laws weren't written so they could get around them if they wanted to?
A "right" is something that you have within yourself to do. To speek freely, to live well, these are things you accomplish in the face of adversity. You do not have a "right to eat". You have a right to work and earn your meal. You do not have a right to "be fed". If you cannot work and earn your meal, then you do not have a right to the food on the tables of others.

Whatever, I'm done with this.
Quitting won't make your point any more valid.

Jae Onasi
12-30-2008, 05:02 PM
OK, the community obviously has mastered the fine art of diatribe. Who knew that discussing UN resolutions encouraging food shipments to Africa could engender this kind of excitement? If you all could turn the heat down, the staff would appreciate it.

Adavardes
12-30-2008, 05:29 PM
Clearly, they make their own jobs. Homes need to be built, so materials need to be bought in, so connections need to be made with people who provide materials. There's 3 jobs right there, making connections, shipping, and building.

Who are they making connections to that will give them supplies for free, because they don't have any money? Who's going to ship the materials to them for free, because they have no way to pay for it? How do they work when they're starving to death and can barely move, because they have no food, because they have no money to create jobs, and thusly make no money from those jobs?

They will grow their own, there's several more jobs right there. Getting seeds, planting seeds, farming crops, shipping crops, selling/trading crops.

Seeds? Tools? Nourishment so the workers don't kill themselves working the crops?

They will learn through doing. Sure, they may not learn about the sciences and politics and mathematics, but they'll learn, and they'll progress, and as they do, new knoweledge will be brought to them, or they will find it. And there's several more jobs right there, creating more knowledge and teaching it to others, who in turn search for more knoweledge and return it to their people.

How will they learn by doing if the above needs are not met?


But do you really think that the UN signed a bill to save the starving children in France? Or the US? No. Saving those kids is unpopular because it just looks like we're spoiling a rich nation. Why do people adopt black and asian babies instead of the white ones right next door? Because it's in-style to save kids who aren't white.

This is an opinion, and a flawed one, at that. You have no evidence to support this.

A "right" is something that you have within yourself to do. To speek freely, to live well, these are things you accomplish in the face of adversity. You do not have a "right to eat". You have a right to work and earn your meal. You do not have a right to "be fed". If you cannot work and earn your meal, then you do not have a right to the food on the tables of others.

:rolleyes: See above statements.

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 05:39 PM
Actually, it more has to do with incidents like:

And, of course, corrupt organisations rarely stop at just one kind. If you don't want to bulk up your pension by skimming the Oil-for-Food programme, don't worry, whatever your bag, the UN can find somewhere that suits - in West Africa, it's Sex-for-Food, with aid workers demanding sexual services from locals as young as four; in Cambodia, it's drug dealing; in Kenya, it's the refugee extortion racket; in the Balkans, sex slaves. -- Telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3614930/UN-forces-andndash-just-a-bunch-of-thugs.html)

And:
The former head of the UN's oil-for-food programme for Iraq has been charged with bribery and conspiracy to commit fraud.


Benon Sevan, 69, who was the programme's executive director, has been charged by US prosecutors. Ephraim Nadler, 79, of Manhattan, faces the same charges, issued by a New York court. Mr Nadler is a brother-in-law of the former UN secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
-- UN Oil for Food Chief on Corruption Charge (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-oilforfood-chief-on-corruption-charge-432453.html)

Tommycat
12-31-2008, 09:34 PM
Also, the corruption in the African governments may be true, but there are kids in other countries starving elsewhere. World hunger is more than just Africa, but that continent tends to have the largest surplus of suffering caused by starvation. And it's not like we have to give governments the food. I'm sure there's a possible distribution system that is regulated and controlled by the UN for such matters, and if there isn't, they could surely establish one.
Oi, so you want me to google corrupt governments around the world... It just might crash google lol.

Fact is that many of the nations receiving food aid also have a poor record on government corruption(possible correlation?). And the UN does distribute to an extent. However they are not a military power in and of themselves, so if the trucks get taken by the government, they can do little about it except cut off aid to that country.... Oops guess they have to starve the people, or start a war... Aren't those supposed to be bad?

But this isn't even about giving the food, it's about giving every human being the right to it, and the only reason America didn't sign is that the laws weren't written so they could get around them if they wanted to?

No, this measure does nothing. Did you even look at the countries that signed on? Chances are they didn't even read it. I haven't read the full Annexes. I think maybe we need to see what language is in them before we pass judgement. I mean what if there is a paragraph or section that demands the US give even more. I would think the US being the largest donor by double the next closest member(that being the EC which includes several countries) kinda gives them a reason to have concerns about the language of a "right to food" initiative.

mur'phon
01-04-2009, 08:45 AM
Normal is acting in self interest.

Agreed, though I tend to believe that most rich countries stand to gain from helping out the poor/opressed people of the world.

Many countries helps, a lot, the world generally gives them gripe for not helping MORE.

Fixed:D

Then they praise how much they're helping, which is considerably less

Disagreed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_development_assistance), unless you mean in raw numbers.

If you can't cough up so much as "hey, that really helped" I don't see why buying your love by helping poor nations is going to make you any better friends than if I do nothing.

Actually, you often get a thank you, at least from SSAfricans. Still, I agree that you seem to be the scapegoat in many places of the world, despite not deserving it. As for how it helps you, well, as it helps some places and others not, the rational thing would be to move the aid to where you get more bang for your bucks.