Human Rights Violator!

[Anton]

A glorious triumph need not be slaughtering your enemies. It's far better to find an amicable agreement. I don't care if you call it "pussyfoot", I prefer to think of it as treating others as I would like to be treated.

Of course I'm familiar with the League of Nations, it's the precursor to the U.N. Formed after WWI with the goal of preventing war, it failed to prevent the rise of Hitler and WWII. It did that because it had no no bite. The U.N. at least has some capability to enforce trade sanctions, and call upon member states to enact war. Indeed, the invasion of Iraq was done under U.N. auspices, otherwise it would have been illegal.

Now, I'm not saying the UN should have rights over a sovereign nation. I don't think anyone really is suggesting that. Even the tightest of working groups (e.g. Euro Zone) maintain the absolute right of sovereignity for each nation state. There is, however, an obvious roll for a body like the U.N. to try and facilitate peace between sovereign nations. And to imply that there's no use for the UN is to suggest there's no point to diplomacy.

My two cents. I never knew how much of a libtard I was until I came here, apparently.

H.

That sounds all fine and dandy except that most of the world's dictators throughout history have only used 'amicable agreements' and 'diplomacy' to further their own ends. Much like how Iran and other tinpot dictatorships currently use the UN as a tool to spread their messages.

Its ironic that the areas where the UN has been most effective have always involved using force against sovereign nations (Serbia, Iraq). While the areas where it has been least effective have seen extreme limitations placed on the use force (peacekeeping in general, particularly in Africa...).

[Byte Stryke]

Now, I'm not saying the UN should have rights over a sovereign nation. I don't think anyone really is suggesting that.

H.

-- All these treaties and conventions should be “self-executing,” meaning that no subsequent U.S. government action should be required for them to go into effect—regardless of the U.S. constitutional separation of powers, and the separation of powers between federal and state governments

I think what they are saying is that regardless of the sovereignty of any state or constitutional requirement that treaties and conventions shall be imposed.

So essentially they are saying that if the U.N. ratified a treaty to remove small arms from the populous any and all governments and States "should be required for them to go into effect."

So yeah I think that IS what they are saying

[Hoosier]

I think what they are saying is that regardless of the sovereignty of any state or constitutional requirement that treaties and conventions shall be imposed.

So essentially they are saying that if the U.N. ratified a treaty to remove small arms from the populous any and all governments and States "should be required for them to go into effect."

So yeah I think that IS what they are saying

You're citing Fox, though... the actual document (which Fox links to) says

USHRN indicated that while the
Constitution incorporates ratified international treaties, treaties are non-self-executing. The US issued a declaration that the federal government will only implement the treaties to the extent that it “exercises jurisdiction” over the treaty provision, raising federalism as a
barrier to implementation.

The US Federal government (and every other government) does not permit the UN to pass laws for it. This is spin on the truth to make it appear to be something it just isn't. No nation is going to permit that, not even the commiest of pinko bastards is down for getting on the one world nation train.

The argument I'm hearing generally is, the UN is OK when it's a coalition of ass-kicking, and it sucks when it's a bunch of worthless blue-hats raping entire villages in Africa. I can understand that. Just remember it has it's uses in addition to it's costs, and on the whole has been vastly beneficial to the US for decades.

TL;DR If Kruchev beating his shoe on the podium helped prevent the cold war at all, it's worth it.

H.

[netsecsys]

Dear UN,

Oooooh, suck on my chocolate salty balls..put em in your mouth and suck em!

Love, Chef

[Beprepared]

What infuriates me today with the UN, is who is arguing against the U.S. We have Unions and every far left organization bitching to the UN about our atrocities....please....new world order f-ing commies.

[BPTactical]

I think what they are saying is that regardless of the sovereignty of any state or constitutional requirement that treaties and conventions shall be imposed.

Is there not language within our Constitution or such that states:" No treaty shall usurp the Constitution" or similar?

[Troublco]

Because the greatest con artist of the 20th century lobbied for it,, A man so far to the left, He made Karl Marx look like a money happy capitalist,,, Franklin Deleno Roosevelt...

I once heard that the true test of someone's intelligence is how much they agree with you...Don't know about that, but I'm with you, Marlin.

Otherwise, I have to second the B-52 idea. All in favor?

[jmg8550]

I think the UN needs to shut up, get out of the USA, and let us handle our diplomatic business on our own. Going to war should be our choice. Whether you see it or not, they are about world disarmament. Look at the statues in front of the UN headquarters in New York City. A gun barrel twisted into a pretzel, and a bunch of firearms crushed into a giant cube. Don't tell me they aren't for disarmament.

[Bailey Guns]

Heh, heh...looks like he's been to Bailey.

[BigMat]

It seems like when you get a bunch of "rational” “intelligent” “educated,” and “informed” people together, all they seem to do, ever is come up with good ways to waste money! Honestly! Why are Iran, Cuba, Russia, etc. wasting their breath!

Telling the US and Israel to clean up their act is a waste of money. Paying those stupid diplomats, paying for the building, paying for the paper, etc. Hell, it’s a waste to leave the lights on. Bunch of jerks causing global warming!

Want Israel needs to clean up its human rights! STOP ATTACKING THEM! Don’t waste your time telling me it’s their fault, they have been under attack from day one and how many statements are there about “whipping the great evil off the earth.” I don’t ever recall an Israeli press release about “purging Iran from this earth!”

As to the US, I don’t even have to justify it, that’s non-sense, even Europe can’t say anything, they're a bunch of racists and if they claim they aren’t and they’re so “progressive” ask them about their immigration “problem” from Turkey or Morocco.

As to death penalty, some people shouldn’t live. You do the awful things some people do to women and children and you forfeit your right to breathe, period. I find than people who disagree generally are educated on a few parts of the issue, but totally ignorant to seeing a child killed by child abuse or a woman beaten with a phone and left to die for 3 days tied up in her house. (I saw both of these during my time in EMS) Rehabilitate? You can’t make a man out of an animal that does things like that.



Go ahead, call me a cave man, I’d probably take pride in it.

IMHO