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.

 dæl wrote:
The US ratified the UN Charter, so its one of the few international laws that does apply to you guys.

When we choose for it to, sure.

The ICC is supposed to be the punishment, but they don't seem interested in anything outside Africa atm, which is a shame.

And no Seaward, ratifying a treaty means it becomes US law, so you don't just get to pick and choose.

Kind of notice the US military kind of stopped putting themselves under UN control unless its US lead starting like mid 90's?

 dæl wrote:
The ICC is supposed to be the punishment, but they don't seem interested in anything outside Africa atm, which is a shame.

Might have something to do with the US not being an ICC member;

And no Seaward, ratifying a treaty means it becomes US law, so you don't just get to pick and choose.

No country in the world treats treaties this way.

 LordofHats wrote:

Might have something to do with the US not being an ICC member;

By ICC I meant the International Criminal Court, rather than the International Coordinating Committee on Human Rights, which no, the US wouldn't be part of, just as they refuse to ratify the Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Child (just the US and Somalia refuse on that one, so you are in distinguished company).

And no Seaward, ratifying a treaty means it becomes US law, so you don't just get to pick and choose.

No country in the world treats treaties this way.

Hate to be a pedant, but the UK does with regards the European Convention on Human Rights, we (supposedly) aren't allowed to draft any law that might contravene it.

So if the UN means jack why is everybody always telling me about their Agenda 21?

 dæl wrote:

Hate to be a pedant, but the UK does with regards the European Convention on Human Rights, we (supposedly) aren't allowed to draft any law that might contravene it.

And there's no punishment for not doing what the ECHR says except that everyone else shakes their head at you. If you're the US, well everyone just says "stop being so aggressive America" and then gives you a thumbs up and a letter of good luck while we embark on our comic book-esque escapades, so we can pretty much do whatever we want and nothings ever going to happen.

 d-usa wrote:
So if the UN means jack why is everybody always telling me about their Agenda 21?

Because its the trooth

 d-usa wrote:
So if the UN means jack why is everybody always telling me about their Agenda 21?

Because they like to mock the UN as an ineffective body while talking about how they shouldn't be subject to its decisions when the UN is an ineffective body precisely because no one is subject to it's decisions (unless the US declares you part of the Axis of Terror and everyone else is annoyed enough by your behavior that they go along with it)

Mixing it up with drinking age? You do look a bit young.

So Agenda 21 is the Kony of NGOs? And only Facebook posts making us aware will stop it?

 d-usa wrote:
So Agenda 21 is the Kony of NGOs? And only Facebook posts making us aware will stop it?

A June 2012 poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn't have enough information to form an opinion

Murica.

Damn I misunderstood, I thought Agenda 21 was that 'kill off half the world's population' thing that people rave about in the dark corners of the internet. I liked that thing. If it's an actual policy, it loses a lot of its shine.

That's the agenda controlled by the 12 richest men in the world and presided over by Jews (and/or freemasons)? Man, it don't get more truthful than that.

 LordofHats wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Hate to be a pedant, but the UK does with regards the European Convention on Human Rights, we (supposedly) aren't allowed to draft any law that might contravene it.

And there's no punishment for not doing what the ECHR says except that everyone else shakes their head at you.

You're joking right? The European Court has many times heard cases against the UK government, and has awarded damages, and forced a change of statute many times. Also, EU law has supremacy over UK law.

If you're the US, well everyone just says "stop being so aggressive America" and then gives you a thumbs up and a letter of good luck while we embark on our comic book-esque escapades, so we can pretty much do whatever we want and nothings ever going to happen.

I agree that is what happens, but I personally think you might be better off staying your hand once in a while and allowing multinational organisations to do their jobs. For one thing it might let you reduce your military spending to less silly levels, and it will make the world a safer place for everyone if might didn't automatically mean right.

 dæl wrote:

You're joking right?

And if the UK flipped the bird, said screw you, and walked out the door, not much would really happen. There'd be a big fuss, some talk about the UK not caring about human rights violations, but in the end everyone would just shrug and business would continue as usual. What's the EU going to do? Invade you?

Granted, the ECHR was signed in the 1950's, long before the EU existed. Now the UK is economically bound to the EU, and its much harder to walk away from economic ties than it is to walk away from a piece of paper you signed six decades ago. EDIT: I.E. you have reason to care because your economy is now tied to the EU and its bodies and laws. Not because you signed a piece of paper agreeing to some bullet points.

I agree that is what happens, but I personally think you might be better off staying your hand once in a while and allowing multinational organisations to do their jobs.

I view the majority of mulinational organizations to be ineffective. We're talking about the UN. The body that stands around and says "not our problem" when people are being genocided in Rwanda, and then tells the US to stop being so mean when it invades a Afghanistan for openly supporting terrorist organizations that have killed over thousands around the world throughout the later half of the 20th century.

They suck at their job. If they were effective at it, there'd be an argument to get the US to back off from playing international Batman.

 LordofHats wrote:

 dæl wrote:

You're joking right?

And if the UK flipped the bird, said screw you, and walked out the door, not much would really happen. There'd be a big fuss, some talk about the UK not caring about human rights violations, but in the end everyone would just shrug and business would continue as usual. What's the EU going to do? Invade you?

Granted, the ECHR was signed in the 1950's, long before the EU existed. Now the UK is economically bound to the EU, and its much harder to walk away from economic ties than it is to walk away from a piece of paper you signed six decades ago.

The European Court is nothing to do with the EU, leaving the EU won't absolve us of our responsibilities to the ECHR, neither would it repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 which enshrines the ECHR in English and Welsh Law (unsure on Scotland, they have their own law). But, for arguments sake, lets say we did walk away from the European Court and its Conventoin, that would led to economic ruin as we would not be allowed to stay in the EU and we would not be allowed a Norwegian or Swiss like trading union, and for the sake of what exactly? The ECHR is a perfectly reasonable convention, one that was primarily drafted by British lawyers, it has no detrimental effect on the lives of Brits to have a few, very reasonable, fundamental human rights.

I agree that is what happens, but I personally think you might be better off staying your hand once in a while and allowing multinational organisations to do their jobs.

I view the majority of mulinational organizations to be ineffective.

Agreed, however that need not always be the case.

If you are going to mention Rwanda then perhaps you need to look closer to home, the UNSC was prevented from acting because the Clinton administration's policy was "Let's withdraw altogether. Let's get out of Rwanda. Leave it to its fate." That is before you look at how the US wanting $6.5 to cover transport for peacekeeping forces delayed their deployment.

So by all means claim the UN is toothless, but first look at who keeps vetoing its actions more than anyone else.

 dæl wrote:
The European Court is nothing to do with the EU, leaving the EU won't absolve us of our responsibilities to the ECHR

But leaving the ECHR would make your position in the EU strenuous. Thus, your position in the EU gives a very practical reason to abide by the ECHR, as leaving it presents a danger to your economy and long term political station.

neither would it repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 which enshrines the ECHR in English and Welsh Law (unsure on Scotland, they have their own law).

That you needed to pass a law yourselves to say that you won't violate an international treaty would seem to suggest that the treaty itself wasn't that binding to you.

The ECHR is a perfectly reasonable convention, one that was primarily drafted by British lawyers, it has no detrimental effect on the lives of Brits to have a few, very reasonable, fundamental human rights.

I have nothing against the ECHR, I'm merely citing it as an example of international treaties. Signing a piece of paper is only as binding to a country as they feel the treaty benefits them. If a country feels they are more benefited by not abiding by their treaties, there's not much that stops them from ignoring them. What's the rest of the world going to do?

We're the most powerful economy in the world, and many UN councils have to go through the security council where we have a permanent seat. By the very structure of international politics, we're pretty much immune to everything more potent than a wag of the finger.

The only way a country can suffer for not playing by the rules is if it falls on the bad side of the world's power players, which isn't about the treaty. The treaty simply becomes a mechanism for countries to exert their will over another.

So by all means claim the UN is toothless, but first look at who keeps vetoing its actions more than anyone else.

That's my point. The UN's own structure makes it a toothless body. The fact that five countries have permanent seats on key bodies is but one of many structural problems. All the UN has ever really done is keep the world playing to the Tune of America, Britain, France, Russia, and China. So many decisions go through them, that it's not hard for these five to get what they want.

 LordofHats wrote:

That you needed to pass a law yourselves to say that you won't violate an international treaty would seem to suggest that the treaty itself wasn't that binding to you.

Before 98 people could apply to the European Court for redress, the HRA was passed to prevent laws being passed that would contravene it, this was done to reduce the number of claims there would be.

I have nothing against the ECHR, I'm merely citing it as an example of international treaties. Signing a piece of paper is only as binding to a country as they feel the treaty benefits them. If a country feels they are more benefited by not abiding by their treaties, there's not much that stops them from ignoring them. What's the rest of the world going to do?

Which leaves us with an international anarchy, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

We're the most powerful economy in the world, and many UN councils have to go through the security council where we have a permanent seat. By the very structure of international politics, we're pretty much immune to everything more potent than a wag of the finger.

The only way a country can suffer for not playing by the rules is if it falls on the bad side of the world's power players, which isn't about the treaty. The treaty simply becomes a mechanism for countries to exert their will over another.

But your immunity isn't permanent, international politics will not look the same in a couple of decades, especially if China manage to replace the dollar as the international reserve currency. The US's foreign policy isn't helping them, the constant messing around in Latin America has rather annoyed them, even without the invasions your stock in the Middle East wouldn't be that high due to the unending support of Israel. You can annoy every corner of the world when you are the only superpower, but if you aren't then things get a little more difficult.

The UN's own structure makes it a toothless body. The fact that five countries have permanent seats on key bodies is but one of many structural problems. All the UN has ever really done is keep the world playing to the Tune of America, Britain, France, Russia, and China. So many decisions go through them, that it's not hard for these five to get what they want.

I could not agree more, which is why countries should not be allowed to veto resolutions.

 dæl wrote:

Before 98 people could apply to the European Court for redress, the HRA was passed to prevent laws being passed that would contravene it, this was done to reduce the number of claims there would be.

Then it would seem that until then the ECHR was a treaty you agreed to follow but not law of the land until you decided to make it such.

Which leaves us with an international anarchy, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

International politics are always anarchy. Treaties might be inconvenient or annoying, but usually you follow them anyway to foster trust and to maintain your own credibility. Same thing with your or my personal friends. They might irk us time to time, and we might do things we don't want to, but we go along with it because they're friends and we want them to stay that way. The mutual interest in cooperation is all that really binds international law. Beyond that, it functions a lot like high school cliques (the US is with the jocks )

But your immunity isn't permanent, international politics will not look the same in a couple of decades,

Hence why I find playing batman annoying, especially when we're so very bad at it. Especially our intelligence bodies (which makes the Intelligence part of CIA very ironic). The CIA plays games in Korea and fails, Korean war. They play games in Vietnam and fail, Veitnam war. They play games in Afghanistan and sort of win, 9/11. Even when the win they manage to somehow fail. You'd think that with all the money and experience, we'd at least be marginally better at it than we are.

especially if China manage to replace the dollar as the international reserve currency.

Even if it does happen, in itself it doesn't mean much to the US's world power position.

You can annoy every corner of the world when you are the only superpower, but if you aren't then things get a little more difficult.

You can do it when there's more than one. We already did it with Russia for a few decades.

This attitude given by some Americans where they get to decide what treaties they'll follow at any given point in time is often described as peculiarly American, but really it's just the product of being the biggest fish in the sea right now. In that context its entirely understandable, because telling yourself that you're the biggest and most awesome and you get to do what you want is a nice thing to dream about, so much so it's tempting to pretend that it's actually true.

But the reality is that if the US doesn't accept treaties as binding, then no-one else does either. It might make you feel all manly and big dog to say you aren't going to follow some international law, but that also means no-one else is going to bother following international free trade treaties (or accept international court assigned penalties for breaches), and that means US exports get hammered, and US investments overseas no longer have any protection from nationalisation.

The fantasy falls down, and you quickly realise that despite being oh so super strong, you still have to act like adults. Which of course, the US government does, and in fact leads the world in establishing a solid, legal framework that businesses and individuals can rely on. Well, apart from the ocassional bit of grandstanding childishness from congress (which is the product of the population at large not understanding the above, and thinking they get to act like children).

 LordofHats wrote:
That's my point. The UN's own structure makes it a toothless body. The fact that five countries have permanent seats on key bodies is but one of many structural problems. All the UN has ever really done is keep the world playing to the Tune of America, Britain, France, Russia, and China. So many decisions go through them, that it's not hard for these five to get what they want.

It's worth noting the UN is not merely the General Assembly. There's millions of kids across the planet with access to vaccines who really couldn't give two gaks about what goes on in the General Assembly.

You can do it when there's more than one. We already did it with Russia for a few decades.

Interesting reference. Because note that the US won the Cold War. It was won in large part because trade, especially with other countries willingly entering in to trade negotiations, makes every one of those countries much richer and much more powerful. In contrast the Soviet system of enforcing obedience from a handful of vassal states without offering them anything of mutual benefit... well that system sucked ass, and was a large part of the Soviet system disappearing in to a hole of mutual misery.

Conflict and coercion is just plain not as effective for either party as co-operation.

 dæl wrote:
Fancy trying that again? And this time playing the ball rather than the man? Or is your actual argument that because Chomsky said something it can't be true, regardless of the fact he generally provides sources for his claims?

You mean that pointing out that someone has ideological blinkers is irrelevant? Oh, and I like your time frame for saying that the US and it's clients carried out more terrorism, shame it didn't look at Russia's conduct some decades prior, including the use of famine as a weapon, mass executions, etc.

All that ICC talk reminded me of my favorite piece of legislation in last thirty or so years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

All of the lulz.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Fancy trying that again? And this time playing the ball rather than the man? Or is your actual argument that because Chomsky said something it can't be true, regardless of the fact he generally provides sources for his claims?

You mean that pointing out that someone has ideological blinkers is irrelevant? Oh, and I like your time frame for saying that the US and it's clients carried out more terrorism, shame it didn't look at Russia's conduct some decades prior, including the use of famine as a weapon, mass executions, etc.

Unless you are actually going to back up those assertions then I think I will side with the respected academics I referenced earlier. While the USSR's client states committed some crimes against humanity(Ceausescu being a prime example) I think that the US's client states were worse, how many desaparecidos were there in Chile and Argentina and Guatemala while they were clients. Bear in mind we aren't talking about a governments actions against its own people we are talking about foreign policy being used to sow terror. If you want to look at a countries own citizens then lets, although you would probably refuse to see the indigenous population of your continent as your own citizens, letting you sidestep that genocide.

As for setting time frames, then surely that helps you rather than hinders you, the US has kept going with terrorist policies since the dismantling of the USSR, rendering people worldwide to Black sites with little regard to whether they are guilty of anything.

 sebster wrote:
This attitude given by some Americans where they get to decide what treaties they'll follow at any given point in time is often described as peculiarly American, but really it's just the product of being the biggest fish in the sea right now. In that context its entirely understandable, because telling yourself that you're the biggest and most awesome and you get to do what you want is a nice thing to dream about, so much so it's tempting to pretend that it's actually true.

But the reality is that if the US doesn't accept treaties as binding, then no-one else does either. It might make you feel all manly and big dog to say you aren't going to follow some international law, but that also means no-one else is going to bother following international free trade treaties (or accept international court assigned penalties for breaches), and that means US exports get hammered, and US investments overseas no longer have any protection from nationalisation.

The fantasy falls down, and you quickly realise that despite being oh so super strong, you still have to act like adults. Which of course, the US government does, and in fact leads the world in establishing a solid, legal framework that businesses and individuals can rely on. Well, apart from the ocassional bit of grandstanding childishness from congress (which is the product of the population at large not understanding the above, and thinking they get to act like children).

It's not so much that I advocate ignoring treaties as we please so much as recognize that a treaty is just a piece of paper. You can break it on a whim, and there are no immediate consequences unless your on the wrong side of someone with a lot more clout than you. The US' position is such that it can not only ignore treaties as it pleases, but is able to get other countries to back it ignoring treaties.

I'm not commenting on that being right, merely that it is what it is. That's how countries act when they're in a position to do it. Treaties don't get followed because anyone has to follow them, they're followed because it's generally beneficial to follow them rather than ignore them. The unbinding nature of the UN, imo, turns many of its bodies into a bunch of talking heads, which is basically just normal diplomacy conveniently located in a single building.

It's worth noting the UN is not merely the General Assembly. There's millions of kids across the planet with access to vaccines who really couldn't give two gaks about what goes on in the General Assembly.

The WHO is one of the few bodies attached to the UN that actually works (more or less) Compare it to the International Court of Justice, which basically just exists for a bunch of countries to gang up on another country over some issue while ignoring bigger ones. Or the Human Rights Council, a body that seemingly only exists to condemn a single nation (Israel) for human rights violations, while rarely taking any other incidents (including genocide) very seriously. It's very structure basically prevents any progress on any issue ever being made (unless your Israel, and occasionally, Sri Lanka but no one likes them anyway).

The credibility of the UN isn't that far off from the credibility of the Nobel Prize committees for me. Some of them are okay and mostly work, but as a body I find it mostly ineffective for anything other than grand standing. A problem unlikely to be resolved since the powers that be seem to prefer it that way.

 dæl wrote:
Unless you are actually going to back up those assertions then I think I will side with the respected academics I referenced earlier. While the USSR's client states committed some crimes against humanity(Ceausescu being a prime example) I think that the US's client states were worse, how many desaparecidos were there in Chile and Argentina and Guatemala while they were clients. Bear in mind we aren't talking about a governments actions against its own people we are talking about foreign policy being used to sow terror. If you want to look at a countries own citizens then lets, although you would probably refuse to see the indigenous population of your continent as your own citizens, letting you sidestep that genocide.

As for setting time frames, then surely that helps you rather than hinders you, the US has kept going with terrorist policies since the dismantling of the USSR, rendering people worldwide to Black sites with little regard to whether they are guilty of anything.

If you wish to believe that academics who write with a definitive bias are respected that is entirely your choice.
You seem to be shifting the goalposts somewhat. The conversation started with;

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

And now you seem to be focusing on the client states alone. And yes the time frame is relevant, unless you believe that the US has racked up a greater death toll than the Soviets ever did with their purges, gulags, pogroms against the Jews, war crimes against Germany (rape and murder), illegal annexations, forced deportations, destruction battalions, murders of civilians, rape as a weapon of war, their conduct in Afghanistan, the holdomor, and many examples besides. On death toll alone Russia is leagues ahead of the US. So yes, I object to your willful narrowing of the time frame to suit your argument.

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
You make it to easy Ronin.

50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media

I also remember the two chamber 155/158mm two chamber shells they used thinking they were HE shells that were used as IED's. Talk about when sucking day in 130 heat in MOPP4

Pretty simple as an Interviewer to know by looking. Now, who remembers the convoy's that Iraq had going in to Syria before we invaded

I really got to laugh when you list missiles with a range of 180km. No really a "world threat".

Mustard gas..... hardly a WMD. You list thiodiglycol, which is simply a chemical used in mustard gas.

So..yeah 180km range missiles and some mustard gas....

Hardly a WMD? feth you say...

https://www.google.com/search?q=effects+of+mustard+gas+kurds&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HiSPU7qwBNKNyAThkoKIDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1239&bih=747

Seems very WMD-y to me... o.O


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dæl wrote:
The ICC is supposed to be the punishment, but they don't seem interested in anything outside Africa atm, which is a shame.

And no Seaward, ratifying a treaty means it becomes US law, so you don't just get to pick and choose.

Actually... that's in dispute with the Supreme Court.

See here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bond-v-united-states-2/

We're funny like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So if the UN means jack why is everybody always telling me about their Agenda 21?

Wait... I thought it was the UN taking our gunz?

<--- I'm so confused. o.O

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

If you wish to believe that academics who write with a definitive bias are respected that is entirely your choice.

Can something be considered biased if it provides comprehensive references? Perhaps you might be better off actually reading things rather than writing them off as biased.

You seem to be shifting the goalposts somewhat. The conversation started with;

 dæl wrote:
A lot of countries do, though not one is on par with the US when it comes to state sponsored terrorism, or with US client states carrying out state terrorism themselves.

Sorry I thought it was obvious that state sponsored terrorism, that is using 3rd party terrorist organisations in places where overt action has particular political ramifications, and US client states carrying out state terrorism, which is exactly what it says, that neither of these covered US domestic policy. The US are generally quite nice to their own population, that isn't the issue here.

And now you seem to be focusing on the client states alone. And yes the time frame is relevant, unless you believe that the US has racked up a greater death toll than the Soviets ever did with their purges, gulags, pogroms against the Jews, war crimes against Germany (rape and murder), illegal annexations, forced deportations, destruction battalions, murders of civilians, rape as a weapon of war, their conduct in Afghanistan, the holdomor, and many examples besides. On death toll alone Russia is leagues ahead of the US. So yes, I object to your willful narrowing of the time frame to suit your argument.

I'm not arguing that Stalin wasn't a genocidal maniac, but that was Soviet Russia, an oppressive regime. The US has consistently used terrorism as a means of foreign policy across numerous administrations whilst on the one hand claiming to be a shining light of morality and freedom, and on the other installing people like Pinochet.

 whembly wrote:


Hardly a WMD? feth you say...

https://www.google.com/search?q=effects+of+mustard+gas+kurds&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HiSPU7qwBNKNyAThkoKIDQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1239&bih=747

Seems very WMD-y to me... o.O

Do we need this nonsense?

Sarin, Tabun, VX. They used nerve agents.

 dæl wrote:
Sorry I thought it was obvious that state sponsored terrorism, that is using 3rd party terrorist organisations in places where overt action has particular political ramifications, and US client states carrying out state terrorism, which is exactly what it says, that neither of these covered US domestic policy. The US are generally quite nice to their own population, that isn't the issue here.

 dæl wrote:
I'm not arguing that Stalin wasn't a genocidal maniac, but that was Soviet Russia, an oppressive regime. The US has consistently used terrorism as a means of foreign policy across numerous administrations whilst on the one hand claiming to be a shining light of morality and freedom, and on the other installing people like Pinochet.

I was taking the definition as including the use of terrorism by the state directly (and including elements of asymmetric warfare). So I can see why we arrived at different conclusion. I agree that US actions have not always matched their PR. At least the Russians have never given a crap, and have been brutally honest about it


Numerous edits owing to quote issues