On May 6, 9:07 pm, P=E7teris Cedri=F2=F0 (Peteris Cedrins)
<cedr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 7 Maijs, 06:15, ostap_bender_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > NATO countries consider UN ineffective because UN doesn't go along
> > with their non-stop rapes of little defenceless countires. Hitler and
> > Stalin also considered the League of Nations ineffective.
>
> I would say you boggle the mind, but it's habitual. The UN has been
> effective at times, but unutterably ineffective at others.
>
> One of the conflicts in which the UN was highly effective was the
> Korean War -- but why? Only because the Russians were boycotting the
> Security Council (over Taiwan) and therefore couldn't use their veto.
> Of course, you probably consider North Korea a "little defenseless
> country"...
>
> Hitler and Stalin considered the League ineffective, of course -- but
> don't you think the victims of Hitler and Stalin considered the league
> ineffective... because it _was_ ineffective? Because it was, in fact,
> a near-total failure?
>
> What grew out of the failure of the League that was and is effective
> was NATO, which had the brawn to protect the values the League could
> only banter about.
>
> UN Watch (http://www.unwatch.org/)
re the Human Rights Council:
>
> "It is supposed to objectively and non-selectively promote and protect
> human rights worldwide, yet it has ignored the world's worst abusers
> while repeatedly condemning only one country in the entire world--
> Israel. It is supposed to strengthen the UN's human rights mechanisms,
> yet threatens now to erode the system and eliminate many of the
> independent experts. [...] Our analysis shows that, although slightly
> more than half of the Council's 47 members are free democracies, only
> a minority of these countries--about a dozen--have consistently voted in
> defense of the values and principles that the Council is supposed to
> promote. Instead, the body has been dominated by an increasingly
> brazen alliance of repressive regimes seeking not only to spoil needed
> reforms but to undermine the few meaningful mechanisms of UN human
> rights protection that already exist. Their goal is impunity for
> systematic abuses. Unfortunately, too many democracies have thus far
> gone along with the spoilers, out of loyalty to regional groups and
> other political alliances."
>
> By the way, Finland is one of the countries that "consistently voted
> in defense of the values and principles that the Council is supposed
> to promote."
>
> _The Sunday Times_ (South Africa):
>
> "In January this year, shortly after assuming its two-year seat on the
> Security Council, South Africa joined China and Russia as the sole
> members to oppose a resolution urging Burma to free political
> detainees and end ***ual violence by the military. South Africa has
> often dismissed such initiatives as campaigns by the wealthy North.
> Yet if Ghana, Panama and Peru could sup****t the text -- and Congo,
> Indonesia and Qatar could quietly abstain -- why did Pretoria help
> hardliners Moscow and Beijing to kill the text, ****elding the generals
> of Rangoon?"
>
What is here to debate? Why are you changing the focus? Look, the
international law clearly says:
Country A can wage a war on country B only in 2 cases:
1. Country B has attacked country A first or this attack is inevitable
any minute.
or
2. UN approves such attack, as was the case with Afhganistan and the
1st Iraq war.
In all other cases, aggressions are the worst crimes and country A is
an international criminal.
Thus, in the case of the unprovoked and unapproved aggression against
Yugoslavia, all NATO countires, which contributed to this war, are
international criminals. In the case of the 2nd aggression against
Iraq, USA, Britain and all other countries that participated in the
aggression, are international criminals.
If you don't like the international law or don't like the UN, you are
free to withdraw. And of the day you withdraw from the international
law and UN and officially become a rogue nation, you can rape any
country or even entire continents without breaking any law. But until
you withdraw from these international agreements and organisations,
your signature on these do***ents and agreements remains in force and
all your violations of these agreements and laws is an international
crime of the worst kind.
Can it be more clear and simple than that? if you don't like the UN -
change it or withdraw alltogehter. But if you do neither, you must
obey the UN laws. You cannot selectively invoke the UN laws when other
countries ar ebreaking them and refuse to obey UN laws when you want
to break them. This is a double standard, as is almost eveything else
that US and NATO countries say and do. The US/NATO principle of
"Let's be friends! Let's share: what's yours is mine, and what's mine
is mine!" doesn't look convincing.
|
