Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There is a depressing amount of analogies being used in this thread.

Using an analogy to try and make a persuasive, cogent argument is like making a sandwich using only your penis - sure, it's possible, but would YOU eat it?

I wouldn't.

Well, you are a fussy eater.

reds8n wrote:Well, you are a fussy eater.

I only eat orange foods. Apart from oranges.

ShumaGorath wrote:I like the Didot font, though if you hand write it I'll be especially pleased.

Eh, Didot's ok I suppose. A bit pedestrian but I do like it's numerals. They have a bit more flair than I was expecting after seeing the letters.

Tyyr wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I like the Didot font, though if you hand write it I'll be especially pleased.

Eh, Didot's ok I suppose. A bit pedestrian but I do like it's numerals. They have a bit more flair than I was expecting after seeing the letters.

I prefer Wingdings myself...

ShumaGorath wrote:And if the panel involves promises of reform by it's members?

It doesn't, as Frazzled already pointed out. See, that gets back to the 'I know more than that part'. And even if it did involve such promises, which again it doesn't, it still makes the panel a joke.

Uhuh. Right. Being a member of a panel that includes over 40 countries promising to make women's rights issues a priority makes them the leader of the group and makes the group a mockery.

It makes them one of the leaders of the group, and yes it makes the entire group a joke. "Makes it a mockery" isn't really proper grammar, so I wouldn't say that.

How you people avoid drowning in the rain is beyond me.

You are the one who thinks that putting countries with the worst women's rights records in charge of the panel on improving women's rights makes sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:No, it's really not. You think a panel composed of half of the planets population is some sort of flawless magic judicating body that makes up rules on womens rights just so that it can ignore them since it has a flawless record? The entire point of the panel is for the countries on it to promise to work towards better rights for women the world over. You think thats gonna be accomplished by keeping the offenders out? That would defeat the entire point of it all.

Man you must have drunk a lot of UN brand kool-aid to get this kind of logic. How long will it be until you argue that parole boards must be composed of criminals too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Stormrider wrote:It's like watching a woman get raped, instead of dragging the rapist off of her and gutting him, you stand there and go, "oh dear, I might get in trouble with my clicque of idealistic fools who believe in the goodness of humanity"

Umm, no. There’s a long held idea that it’s best for a nation to look after it’s own affairs. It’s very weird that you wouldn’t understand this, given the US was the champion of this idea through most of the 20th C. The idea that one should invade sovereign powers to prevent human rights abuses is a very recent phenomenon, born out of the growing dominance of power of the

It's interesting that the Brits and others like to needle the US over joining WW2 'late' by not intervening in the fight until Pearl Harbor, and yet whenever a discussion of the UN comes up the idea is treated as some weird idea no one has ever heard of, and that no one should ever possibly do. (It's also always amused me that the Brits completely forget that they did the same thing when Germany invaded Austria and Czeckoslovakia)

sebster wrote:

Stormrider wrote:The UN has a track record of being a bloated, international bureacracy, that ends up doing a circular firing squad in trying to fix problems.

It’s important to remember the General Assembly is just one part of the UN.

Giving Veto power to nations that aren't intertested in cooperating with the west (Russia, China) was a symptom of those nations being on the winning side of WWII. In hind sight, it was a terrible idea, but my objection to the very exsistence of the UN goes far deeper than that.

Umm, no. Just no. The purpose of the UN has never been, and will never be, a club of approved democracies. It works on the idea that you need include every nation in international debate to avoid war.

Second up, China was included because at the time of inclusion it was controlled by the US aligned KMT, and it was felt a powerful China could work as another bloc against the Soviets. Unfortunately, the KMT were grossly corrupt and lost control of China to the communists, which embarrassed the hell out of the US (who’d been backing the KMT), who then continued to argue the KMT was the rightful government of China, despite having fled to Taiwan and having no presence on the mainland.. As a result, for a decade or two Taiwan had veto power in the UN. When they actually used it, this embarrassed the hell out of everyone and forced the US to admit that the communists were really in control of China.

It's like watching a woman get raped, instead of dragging the rapist off of her and gutting him, you stand there and go, "oh dear, I might get in trouble with my clicque of idealistic fools who believe in the goodness of humanity"

Umm, no. There’s a long held idea that it’s best for a nation to look after it’s own affairs. It’s very weird that you wouldn’t understand this, given the US was the champion of this idea through most of the 20th C.

The idea that one should invade sovereign powers to prevent human rights abuses is a very recent phenomenon, born out of the growing dominance of power of the

Since we pay 22% of the dues to this sham of an idea, it kind of hacks me off that we have sworn enemies of this nation go the General Assembly to talk down at us on our own soil.

Sworn enemies? Your understanding of international affairs sounds like a fifth rate fantasy novel.

And 22% is an interesting number, as each nation’s dues are based on it’s proportion of world GPD, capped at 22% maximum. The US comes in at around 25% of GDP, and is the only country to exceed the cap. That’s right, the US is the only country to receive a reduced rate on it’s dues to the UN.

You wouldn’t know it from hearing Americans complain, though.

The rampant corruption of the UN should be enough to disband it's exsistence. Not just their chronic bungling of situations that have easy solutions.

This is an almost ridiculous level of generalisation. Do you even know the major branches of the UN?

Iran is a sworn enemy of America, they have said multiple times thatt they want to annihilate the Zionists and the Great Satan the United States. Interperet that how you will.

I am also perfectly aware of the the sub- committess in the UN. Do they actuallty prevent what they are set out to do? The IAEA is toothless (as we witnessed in the 90's concerning Iraq and their weapon programs), haven't done anything to stop North Korea's weapons program (except for those scary "economic sanctions") and has believed the Iranian regime's quest for Enriched Uranium is just for peaceful purposes. Which I could believe, if they weren't working on new delivery systems to drop them on Israel. You can wag your finger at someone only so many times before they don't buy your threats.

The UN is a failed model, it's a failure at it's mission at preventing wars, it doesn't stop human rights violations, it still can't feed the hungry, hasn't stopped nukes from going to rogue regimes in the world. Where's their crowning achievement?

As for my analogy, it's more of a personal matter for me. I can't stand watching someone get hurt (if someone is jumped by a group of muggers, there's a rape,etc...) and I could have helped them. Sorry, I wont sit by and watch a beatdown, I will help out the outnumbered party any way I can. Probably a poor example of international politics, but still somewhat relevant to some nations out there (Kuwait in 1991).

Stormrider wrote:
As for my analogy, it's more of a personal matter for me. I can't stand watching someone get hurt (if someone is jumped by a group of muggers, there's a rape,etc...) and I could have helped them. Sorry, I wont sit by and watch a beatdown, I will help out the outnumbered party any way I can. Probably a poor example of international politics, but still somewhat relevant to some nations out there (Kuwait in 1991).

Iraq in 2003. Just saying.

Stormrider wrote:The UN is a failed model, it's a failure at it's mission at preventing wars, it doesn't stop human rights violations, it still can't feed the hungry, hasn't stopped nukes from going to rogue regimes in the world. Where's their crowning achievement?

To think that it could possibily do as much is laughable. To think that it's a failure because it has not been able to prevent four of the greatest world problems is equally laughable. The number of peace missions, negotiations involved, help around the globe, etc., aren't that famous in the media simply because none of them are "crowning achievements", which I suppose would be ending world hunger.

Stormrider wrote:haven't done anything to stop North Korea's weapons program (except for those scary "economic sanctions") and has believed the Iranian regime's quest for Enriched Uranium is just for peaceful purposes. Which I could believe, if they weren't working on new delivery systems to drop them on Israel. You can wag your finger at someone only so many times before they don't buy your threats.

North Korea is a very tricky subject, but I am curious to hear about your proposed solution. Because economic sanctions are the only thing they can do, short of declaring war. So, negotiations are still on the table.

Iran's case is also tricky, and I'll join in with you saying it was a failure. There's a lot of hate going against the west in there, particularly the US. Not because it is a major power within the UN, mind you, but because of it's world policing politics.

Stormrider wrote:As for my analogy, it's more of a personal matter for me. I can't stand watching someone get hurt (if someone is jumped by a group of muggers, there's a rape,etc...) and I could have helped them. Sorry, I wont sit by and watch a beatdown, I will help out the outnumbered party any way I can. Probably a poor example of international politics, but still somewhat relevant to some nations out there (Kuwait in 1991).

Ok, this may be news to you or not, but Kuwait's human rights abuses record was and remains appalling. We were hardly 'helping the little guy out' as the little guy was an equal bastard (who we then reinstated...) but rather ensuring Saddam did not establish a stronger hold of the area's oil.

That war and the subsequent one in that region have been about enforcing Western trade interests and keeping the oil market running.

This notion of benevolently lending a hand to the oppressed would be great if it weren't for the lack of it demonstrated elsewhere in the world. Why, for example, have we not rolled the machine over to Zimbabwe and kicked that repulsive bastard Mugabe out of power?

Why aren't we stamping order and democracy on Rwanda or Somalia or the 'republic' of Congo? No fething oil, that's why.

Why is it we aren't toppling the hateful Monarchy of Saudi Arabia, if as has been cited here, they are such bastards? They got lots of oil and trade it to the West is the reason.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Stormrider wrote:As for my analogy, it's more of a personal matter for me. I can't stand watching someone get hurt (if someone is jumped by a group of muggers, there's a rape,etc...) and I could have helped them. Sorry, I wont sit by and watch a beatdown, I will help out the outnumbered party any way I can. Probably a poor example of international politics, but still somewhat relevant to some nations out there (Kuwait in 1991).

Ok, this may be news to you or not, but Kuwait's human rights abuses record was and remains appalling. We were hardly 'helping the little guy out' as the little guy was an equal bastard (who we then reinstated...) but rather ensuring Saddam did not establish a stronger hold of the area's oil.

That war and the subsequent one in that region have been about enforcing Western trade interests and keeping the oil market running.

This notion of benevolently lending a hand to the oppressed would be great if it weren't for the lack of it demonstrated elsewhere in the world. Why, for example, have we not rolled the machine over to Zimbabwe and kicked that repulsive bastard Mugabe out of power?

Why aren't we stamping order and democracy on Rwanda or Somalia or the 'republic' of Congo? No fething oil, that's why.

Why is it we aren't toppling the hateful Monarchy of Saudi Arabia, if as has been cited here, they are such bastards? They got lots of oil and trade it to the West is the reason.

WEstern interests, Japan, and Asia. At the time, Europe, and Japan were much more dependent on foreign oil than the US.

I don't think dependency has much to do with it.

whatwhat wrote:I don't think dependency has much to do with it.

You bet it does (did). It means you guys would have imploded. Texas would have been fabulously weathy (again).

Oh please, not the "you guys" gak again.

Hear ye, hear ye. It's frazzled's united states vs the m'fethin world. Impartiality is dead in dakkadakka's off topic forum.*

*subject to whether Frazzled agrees with your negative assesment of an issue involving the United States, where that is the case he becomes Texan.

whatwhat wrote:Hear ye, hear ye. It's frazzled's united states vs the m'fethin world. Impartiality is dead in dakkadakka's off topic forum.

Now and forever.

Monster Rain wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Hear ye, hear ye. It's frazzled's united states vs the m'fethin world. Impartiality is dead in dakkadakka's off topic forum.

Now and forever.

And yea did the might of Frazzled stride the known OT like a Colossus. A queso eating Colossus!
See if you adopted some full auto weiner dogs from the local weiner dog rescue you too would be properly armed for OT battle.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You see, I agree with Shuma on this. By including Saudi Arabia on the panel it could be a move to try and encourage a country with a poor women's rights track record to take steps to improve (or at least promise to). GHowever, given that Saudi Arabia was accepted and Iran was denied shows that this a more likely to be political showboating. As you said, the track record may not matter, but whether you're buddies with the US probably does.

Therein lies the conundrum, do you continue to include nations because inclusiveness is good for stability, or do you begin to exclude nations who don't meet the standards?

If I say I am beginning to hate weiner dogs is that reflective on the country I live in? Considering I'm supposed to be representing them according to you Frazzled.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:It's interesting that the Brits and others like to needle the US over joining WW2 'late' by not intervening in the fight until Pearl Harbor, and yet whenever a discussion of the UN comes up the idea is treated as some weird idea no one has ever heard of, and that no one should ever possibly do. (It's also always amused me that the Brits completely forget that they did the same thing when Germany invaded Austria and Czeckoslovakia)

Who mentioned the war? Where did that come from?

The US isolationists dominated those arguing that nations should keep to their own business. This is just a fact, and all I was saying. There was no needling over US involvement in any war, don't read things into other people's posts that just aren't there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:Iran is a sworn enemy of America, they have said multiple times thatt they want to annihilate the Zionists and the Great Satan the United States. Interperet that how you will.

And when people say that stuff in gakky fantasy novels, you know the bad guy is going to get thrown off the tower onto the spikes in the last chapter. In real life, it's just crap that people say and it means nothing.

I am also perfectly aware of the the sub- committess in the UN. Do they actuallty prevent what they are set out to do? The IAEA is toothless (as we witnessed in the 90's concerning Iraq and their weapon programs), haven't done anything to stop North Korea's weapons program (except for those scary "economic sanctions") and has believed the Iranian regime's quest for Enriched Uranium is just for peaceful purposes. Which I could believe, if they weren't working on new delivery systems to drop them on Israel. You can wag your finger at someone only so many times before they don't buy your threats.

Given you think I was talking about sub-committees and the IAEA, it appears you don't have any understanding of what the UN actually does. The majority of the UN's operations are in WHO, WIPO, IMF, the World Bank, ICAO, IMO, and a bunch of other organisations that operate to maintain international trade and relations.

The UN is a failed model, it's a failure at it's mission at preventing wars, it doesn't stop human rights violations, it still can't feed the hungry, hasn't stopped nukes from going to rogue regimes in the world. Where's their crowning achievement?

Because success only occurs when it is absolute. Just like capitalism is a failure because there are still people in the world who aren't rich beyond their wildest dreams.

You're being silly.

whatwhat wrote:If I say I am beginning to hate weiner dogs is that reflective on the country I live in? Considering I'm supposed to be representing them according to you Frazzled.

Not only is it reflective, I daresay you are on the hairy edge of consigning all of Britannia to heck for your blespheming. To heck I say!
On the positive, British Bull dogs are epic cool, if also epic drooly. Kiss a bulldog, it just saved your soul!

Pugs are even cooler, because they are low profile bulldogs.

Anyway, the point about putting Saudi Arabia on the panel instead of Iran, is that since Saudi Arabia is a close US ally, there is a much better prospect of influencing Saudi Arabia to influence the rest of the Arab nations to improve their Women's Rights record. (None of them are a shining light.)

SA has actually made some limited changes in recent years, which are the start of normalising the position of women, while Iran has been going backwards compared to when the Shah was in charge.

I am a Brit who has lived in Saudi Arabia for nearly 2 years now so I think I'm qualified to talk (type on this). Lets clear some misconceptions up shall we................

It is NOT illegal for women to drive in KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). It is just not accepted for women to drive in the cities, and there is a big difference there. Indeed, most women in rural areas drive. My Wife when she came over to visit drove my truck once we were out the city, no problems. Driving in KSA in the city is Life and Death, I cannot exaggerate this. It is the worst driving conditions I have driven in and I've driven in plently 3rd world backwater countries. Nudging cars to get out your way is common practice. My wife if given the choice, refused to drive in the city as she felt totally unsafe.

It is NOT illegal for a women to walk around without permission or with a guardian. The most popluar past time for women is shopping, and they do that on their own, or in groups of women. Beleive me, I know, no other city I've visited has so many shopping malls!

You need to understand the culture, to understand their perspective. Family is No. 1 importance (after Islam) and is kept very private. People beleive that their wives and daughters are private, not to be leered at by every red blooded male. The West and the Middle East are 2 extremes. In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible, in the East its the opposite. Both are wrong in my opinion and the middle ground should be a happy medium. Yes, making women dress 'conservatively' is wrong, but then so is women in Clubs wearing Bikini tops, belts, and not much else. How many women in the UK feel uneasy walking past a building site only to be 'Wolf Whistled' at? That would never happen here, women are safe, not leered at. That is not to say I agree with having to cover up completly, but there are positives.

Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.

Women can work, its just difficult for women to work. A lot of the traditional western women only jobs (and I'm NOT being sexist when I say this) like cleaning, secreterial work, nursing are deemed to be to low for Saudis to do, so they hire Philipino's or Indians to do this. At the moment, most of the major supermarkets are in a big drive to recruit women cashiers, this is seen as a massive step forward.

There is very little or no crime in KSA. I leave the truck unlocked, as my house. No one steals as it is a 'shamefull' crime. That and the penalties are so high. High penatiles = low crime. In the UK its the opposite, no (or little) deterent = high crime. A pregancy outside of marrage is unheard of in KSA. How does the West compare to that????

Maybe KSA was elected becasue of the huge moves being made by the King to include women??? What isn't reported by the OP...... In Riyadh the biggest university in the Gulf region is being built, for women only. The Muttawa (relegious Police) have been banned from interfering with the course material (again, unheard of) in order to ensure an educational course without Islamic influences. In Damman last year a Science academy was opened, a mixed sex campus where everone is allowed to drive, and women are not required to wear an Abya. Again, the King banned the Muttawa from the campus and additionally stripped one of the more vocal protesting Inams (Priests) of his title and power. In KSA women control most of the money. In marriage, the joint bank account is in the womens name, not the mans.

The problem with KSA is the 2 opposing forces at work. On one side is the King, a reformer, trying to change (and doing so) the culture for the better of all especially women. On the opposite, you have the traditional Islamic view, which see's the change as an invasion of western values. Change is happening, and its changing at an incredible pace, its just that we (the West) think its not. Go back 100 years, how many women worked in the UK? Not many is your answer, they stayed at home to look after the household and family (which is what women here do). Even now there is still many cases of women being paid less than their male counterparts in the same job.

I'm not supporting or defending, but you need to live here or at least understand the culture before casting judgement. The Media only report the bad, not the good.

It doesn't, as Frazzled already pointed out. See, that gets back to the 'I know more than that part'. And even if it did involve such promises, which again it doesn't, it still makes the panel a joke.

Frazzled didn't point anything out, he quoted an article that had no information on what the panels activities are. For reference, here they are, since you don't know.

The Commission's mandate was expanded in 1987 by ECOSOC resolution 1987/22 to include the functions of promoting the objectives of equality, development and peace, monitoring the implementation of measures for the advancement of women, and reviewing and appraising progress made at the national, subregional, regional and global levels. Following the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women, the General Assembly mandated the Commission to integrate into its programme a follow-up process to the Conference, regularly reviewing the critical areas of concern in the Beijing Platform for Action and to develop its catalytic role in mainstreaming a gender perspective in United Nations activities. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) again modified the Commission's terms of reference in 1996, in its resolution 1996/6, to include, inter alia, identifying emerging issues, trends and new approaches to issues affecting equality between women and men.

Looks like part of the mandate for members IS the advancement of women's rights. So.... Having Saudi Arabia on the panel would imply that they are now under this mandate and in theory have to make progress on this issue? Yep. Funny how that works.

It makes them one of the leaders of the group, and yes it makes the entire group a joke. "Makes it a mockery" isn't really proper grammar, so I wouldn't say that.

The list of the leaders is as follows:

H.E. Mr. Garen Nazarian (Armenia) of the Eastern European Group of States, Chair
Ms. Leysa Sow (Senegal) of the African Group, Vice Chair
Mr. Filippo Cinti (Italy) of the Western European and other States Group, Vice Chair
Mr. Tetsuya Kimura (Japan), of the Asian States Group, Vice Chair
Ms. María Luz Melon (Argentina) of the Latin American and Caribbean Group, Vice Chair

Hmm, no Saudi Arabia there. I mean, if everyone with a panel membership is a leader then that makes sense, but since everyone in the organization is a panel member that kinda throws the concept of leadership out the window.

You are the one who thinks that putting countries with the worst women's rights records in charge of the panel on improving women's rights makes sense.

There are clouds outside, I fear for you.

Man you must have drunk a lot of UN brand kool-aid to get this kind of logic. How long will it be until you argue that parole boards must be composed of criminals too?

Because Saudi Arabia is in jail until we say otherwise? Seriously? That half baked analogy is the best defense you had?




This is like a circus, but I'm not laughing.

TheSecretSquig wrote: In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible

What part of 'the West' are you living in because perhaps I should move there. Most women generally wear business casual, or t-shirt and jeans. If it is a hot day perhaps shorts. The majority of women do not go around in mini skirts, or thong bikinis on a regular basis. I'll take T-Shirt and jeans any time over having to cover yourself from top to bottom at all times.

Ahtman wrote:

TheSecretSquig wrote: In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible

What part of 'the West' are you living in because perhaps I should move there. Most women generally wear business casual, or t-shirt and jeans. If it is a hot day perhaps shorts. The majority of women do not go around in mini skirts, or thong bikinis on a regular basis. I'll take T-Shirt and jeans any time over having to cover yourself from top to bottom at all times.

I think he lives in Newcastle Upon Tyne on friday around 11pm.

Ahtman wrote:

TheSecretSquig wrote: In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible

What part of 'the West' are you living in because perhaps I should move there. Most women generally wear business casual, or t-shirt and jeans. If it is a hot day perhaps shorts. The majority of women do not go around in mini skirts, or thong bikinis on a regular basis. I'll take T-Shirt and jeans any time over having to cover yourself from top to bottom at all times.

If you're old enough to drink, go into any bar / club on a Friday night!!!

Seriously, its just 2 extremes. Go to Magaluf (known as MegaMuff) in Majorca, and see what the women wear there! I'm not saying its wrong or right, its just 2 extreme views.

TheSecretSquig wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

TheSecretSquig wrote: In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible

What part of 'the West' are you living in because perhaps I should move there. Most women generally wear business casual, or t-shirt and jeans. If it is a hot day perhaps shorts. The majority of women do not go around in mini skirts, or thong bikinis on a regular basis. I'll take T-Shirt and jeans any time over having to cover yourself from top to bottom at all times.

If you're old enough to drink, go into any bar / club on a Friday night!!!

Seriously, its just 2 extremes. Go to Magaluf (known as MegaMuff) in Majorca, and see what the women wear there! I'm not saying its wrong or right, its just 2 extreme views.

tbh I don't know if American women have the same: 'wear extremely little' attitude that european women do on nights out.

whatwhat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

TheSecretSquig wrote: In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible

What part of 'the West' are you living in because perhaps I should move there. Most women generally wear business casual, or t-shirt and jeans. If it is a hot day perhaps shorts. The majority of women do not go around in mini skirts, or thong bikinis on a regular basis. I'll take T-Shirt and jeans any time over having to cover yourself from top to bottom at all times.

I think he lives in Newcastle Upon Tyne on friday around 11pm.

Wigan actually in Greater Manchester, but very similar dress code to Newcastle!!