Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMo~
Just a note, but of the police officers I know, hardly any of them are cowardly.
|
We can have the police man dialogue another time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMo~
Was it the ratio that determines whether it's genocide or not? Or the nationality? It seems to me that if you start killing any of your own race or nationality, then it's genocide.
|
I share something in common with my grand father. The end of world war 2 he had catlogged the corpose of Bergen-Belsen extermination camp.
I had gotten that similar job in 1994. There are some things
that must be seen with a person's very own eyes to have understand.
Genocide is not killing your own race, nationality, etc.
The basic of definition is:
Genocide the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group
The following acts committed, in whole or in part, with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMo~
One country is not the enforcer for the United Nations. It's supposed to be all 192 member countries working together for world peace based upon JUSTICE, human dignity and well-being.
|
Perhaps I am not understanding you but you appear to imply that the UN is the international legal juris. If so, You need to learn and read exactly what the UN is and is not.
So the UN is NOT the creator of International Law nor the unilateral acknowledge impositor of international law.
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues.
The stated aims of the United Nations are to prevent war, to safeguard human rights, to provide a mechanism for international law, and to promote social and economic progress, improve living standards and fight diseases. It gives the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems. Toward these ends it ratified a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
The United Nations faciltates, helps, provides a mechanism, etc etc.
But it does NOT create internation law. And the ability for it to enforce these laws are limited within the memeber states.
Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMo~
With your analogy, since every country is so bad, then no one could make any resolutions, nor laws, because they have broken laws and been bad in the PAST. I'm guessing that all those countries named are the criminals trying to make judgments on the PRESENT day terrorists?
|
Exactly !!!! No one nation or group of nations have the right to render judgements on PRESENT day terrorists. If there was, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, etc. Would be arrested for crimes against humainty. Heck, the Taliban would haved beened removed years ago.
However there is a present day organization that does attempt to do this.
But again... IT IS NOT THE UN. Nor any nation or groupe.
The International Criminal Court (ICC), began operating in 2002 through international discussions initiated by the General Assembly. It is the first permanent international court charged with trying those who commit the most serious crimes under international law, including war crimes and genocide. The ICC is functionally independent of the UN in terms of personnel and financing, but some meetings of the ICC governing body, the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute, are held at the UN. There is a "relationship agreement" between the ICC and the UN that governs how the two institutions regard each other legally
There is a realationship agreement but if you read carefully they are distinct and independant bodies.
One of the main reasons why the UN is not really an International law organization is due to its founding history.
The United Nations was founded in 1945 to replace the League of Nations, in the hope that it would intervene in conflicts between nations and thereby avoid war.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, each of which has veto power on any Security Council resolution, are the main victors of World War II or their successor states (alphabetical order): the People's Republic of China (which replaced the Republic of China in 1971); France; Russia (which replaced the Soviet Union in 1991); the United Kingdom; and the United States.
The organization began with fifty countries signing the United Nations Charter. The organization's structure still reflects in some ways the circumstances of its founding.
The biggest problem with having the UN create and impose international law is that many of the new member. (the current 192 nations) are still suspicious of the axis allies. In short, they might be a member of it but still view it as a tool of the United State and the western nations.
As for commntaire on Iraq by the UN.
The United States asked for UN approval to go to war with Iraq.
They did not get it.
Now Iraq is a disaster and the UN is looking at it from a different perspective.
Helping the civilian popultion because the United States has been completely ineffective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMo~
Good vs. evil is Garbage? Is it the same with right and wrong? Are all ethics situational or just everyone's perception? That sounds like chaos to me.
For understanding, what is your definition of stability? I need to .
|
George Bush sr practiced a philosophy of divorce with good vs evil. He and many other viewed the world from a stand point of stability.
That ment dealing with each entity, situation, person, etc on a case by case
basis.
In short you may not like who or what you are dealing with. But it is far better
to interface with them in a non-confrontationl manner.
Sometimes in order to achive a positive change you may have to
pay off a person
like Sadam. (money, concessions, etc or impose sanctions) And arguable that can be expensive and even distasteful in the short term.
But in the long term that creates a relationship between the parties. It becomes far easier to divert and change an event before happens.
Doing it this way requires far more vigilence and diplomacy than just waiting for something to happens
and trying to fix it. IE: You have to "be there before" problems start.
If this "old fashioned" approach had been applied, how many american soldiers would be alive today.
And how many thousands of Iraqis too .
The "Big Picture" is to be examined.
Before you quote 9/11...
Afghanistan was a failure to apply this formula of stabilty. It was torn apart by the Americans and Russians.
Because they were fighting "good vs evil"
Giving birth to the former Taliban and ultimately creating an Osma Bin Laudin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMo~
I think that was fear of the terrorists. Then a couple of UN members did something and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon that it is an American war against terrorism (or the other argument, for oil) and that it's wrong. IMHO, George Bush has done nothing wrong and has followed a correct path.
Even if the majority of Americans thought President Bush was so bad (which they don't) and they rose up and put him in prison, it would NOT be the end of terrorism, here, nor anywhere else. I guess the next thing that people will suggest is that the U.S. pay terrorists to keep them from reprisals. I think that's called extortion!
"Please Mr. Terrorist, we've put Pres. Bush in jail and here's a million dollars, don't hurt us anymore so history doesn't repeat." Yeah, right. [/sarcasm]
Dave  |
I haved givened you respect and answered your questions in a very thoughtful
method.
But I am not going to indulge a "I win and you loose" approach to a conversation.
Especially when it uses a form of sensationalism as a tool to destort facts and issues and insight emotional response from the reader.
---------
There are:
1) Opinons and everyone is entitled to one.
Personally I think George Bush looks like a monkey.
2) Facts, issues, logic and common sense.
It is a fact we are having dialogue now.
Some of our arguments will obviously be logical.
And common sense will tell us that this is only an Internet converstation and we shouldn't take each other too seriously.
3) Debates.
Each party prepares their arguments with facts, issues, logic and common sense to prove their perspectives, findings and justify how this had formed your opinions on the issue.
It is also noted in a good debate you should be prepared to "let go" of a perspective if a valid argument to counter it has been made.
4) Of best for last. Arguments.
It's not about the issue. It about being right and winning.
I have found that the Internet is filled with Trolls that just want to be right. And this is similar for people like Bill O'riely and Anne coulter. (But I suspect they only act like this for big fat pay cheques)
Not saying you are guilty of this.
We may have language problem because english is not my first language.
I might not haved readed the intended meanings of your last statements wrong.
