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.

SilverMK2 wrote:I'm not saying that some countries are not somewhat... unsuited to certain positions, however, "unsuitable" is just a point of view. Certain folks used to be "unsuitable" to sit at the front of the bus... doesn't mean that it is "right" (another subjective point of view, but hey ).

The hope would be that being in a position to oversee or advise/discuss/etc on such comities, members are exposed to views that are not their own and are moved towards a more... moderate? position. Or you could keep some nations at the back of the bus where they never learn anything other than the people at the front are gits, and that everyone at the back thinks the same, so why don't we just ignore them and do our own thing?

That whole analogy is flawed. You're comparing nations that -deserve- the sanctions they're getting, nations that're being punished for piss-poor behavior, to victims of racism. For that anaolgy to work, you would need to reverse roles and have countries like Iran, NK, China, and Yemen to be the major players, with most of the free world as the small nations that they exert control over. The leaders of these countries crave power. Giving more of it to them won't teach them gak all. It'll just make them try to abuse it, because it's what they're used to doing.

You really should've put more thought into that one.

4M2A wrote:The UN isn't just about making the rest of the world follow our standards. It's about the view of many countires not just a western view.

Yes, and many countries(and not just western countries, either) view countries having nuclear arms(including the US) as a bad thing.

This isn't about making anyone follow "our standards", it's about a country being in charge of a Disarmament Committee, that is currently actively ignoring that committee and what it does.

metallifan wrote:You really should've put more thought into that one.

I would be the first to say that I didn't really put much thought into it. But then this is the internet, you can have the best, well researched position in the world, with facts, studies, references, a PhD in [subject of discussion] and still "I have an opinion and deserve to be heard and am right by the way" internet-goer will stick to their guns. Like most discussions, people only seek to reaffirm their own beliefs.

My post was still pretty crap though - was just the first thing that came into my head

Though the point still stands, treat a country like crap and that country will probably ignore anything you say.

SilverMK2 wrote:

metallifan wrote:You really should've put more thought into that one.

I would be the first to say that I didn't really put much thought into it. But then this is the internet, you can have the best, well researched position in the world, with facts, studies, references, a PhD in [subject of discussion] and still "I have an opinion and deserve to be heard and am right by the way" internet-goer will stick to their guns. Like most discussions, people only seek to reaffirm their own beliefs.

My post was still pretty crap though - was just the first thing that came into my head

All true. But hey, most of the Internet -is- just one giant highschool campus

Though the point still stands, treat a country like crap and that country will probably ignore anything you say.

For the most part, I agree with you. But in NK's case, not treating them like crap will just make them ignore you even further. And then they'll give SK another little bitchslap just because they know you won't do anything about it.

I agree that there -are- nations out there that do bad things, but could improve themselves through example on the part of the major nations. However, NK isn't one of those countries. NK is like the 5 year old kid that plugs his ears and starts screaming at the top of his lungs when he doesn't get what he wants because he knows that if he makes enough of a scene, he'll get what he's after to shut him up.

dogma wrote:
Which tells me that you're not concerned with the legitimacy of the UN anywhere other than where you presently live. Its like me considering the US Congress to be illegitimate because it doesn't serve the interests of Illinois, and only the state of Illinois. Granted, lots of people look at Congress that way, but that doesn't make it rational, acceptable, or even useful considering the articulated purpose of the United States Congress.

Congress purpose is clearly spelled out, and easily identifiable to any American who paid attention in civics class. The UN just has a PR problem. Lots of people (to clarify in the US) just don't get why they exist or misunderstand (We can call it the congress of the world stage). I only got a few pages in my text book about the UN. I know why they exist, but I don't think the "it's a international forum" excuse flies very far with some of the appointments that get made in the UN, western interest or no western interests. Would Nazi Germany (and Godwin's Law is fulfilled we've got that out of the way ) belong anywhere near an international committee on human rights while actively murdering millions in gas chambers? Of course, I think Hitler pulled out of the League of Nations cause he didn't care but that's beside the point.

I just think some countries really don't deserve to have a say. Especially when standard practice is in question by the international community (sometimes the UN) and when the UN itself is placing sanctions on them for the matter at hand. What can NK offer to this committee? And how can it pass recommendations and decisions and be taken seriously? No one is going to accept NK as an authority on disarmament unless its a list of what not to do.

And yeah, I put no stock in the legitimacy of the UN. If all they really did was talk, I'd say let hem go have a blast, but they don't just talk. While their throwing around sanctions for certain actions and saying "we don't approve of what you're doing." Yes. I think they have a legitimacy problem when they put Syria on a committee about human rights and NK on one about disarmament even if those committees are hands reach apart from the UN Security Council.

Actually, a lot of people refuse to take the UN seriously for exactly the opposite reason; ie. it tends to give only token appreciation to the notion that other states might see things in a way which isn't reflected by US interests. Remember, binding UN sanctions are basically the purview of three countries: Britain, France, and the US. The organization is loaded by Western interests from the top down, which is why the various nonbinding Conferences tend to have fairly egalitarian memberships.

I've noticed. That's not why I poke fun at the UN (not in this case). You honestly can't tell me that you don't find it odd for NK to be chair of disarmament anything. This is outside the scope of what the UN actually does. It's just odd when you take it at face value and seems strange.

I think we did this same dance when Syria was appointed to the human rights council while it actively dealing with political protestors with machine guns and tanks.

Either your way or mine, there's a legitimacy issue the UN needs to resolve. Until they do, they're just the butt end of a joke with one UN group throwing around "we don't approve" vouchers and the others appointing those not approved of to their committees.

After all, its a diplomatic forum, not a world government.

"Diplomatic forum" in this case is the same as "a bunch of old guys talking about doing something and then doing nothing" to me. What qualifies as human rights or what should be done about disarmament are questions for academics when you never plan to actually do anything about them. We don't need an international body to talk about these things, let alone one that keeps sending mixed messages. Israel gets to be called inhumane on the international stage, while Syria gets appointed to the Human Rights fan club. When you stack those things side by side all coming from one body which I think hardly ever gets fully understood, it's a legitimacy problem.

LordofHats wrote:
Congress purpose is clearly spelled out, and easily identifiable to any American who paid attention in civics class. The UN just has a PR problem. Lots of people (to clarify in the US) just don't get why they exist or misunderstand (We can call it the congress of the world stage). I only got a few pages in my text book about the UN. I know why they exist, but I don't think the "it's a international forum" excuse flies very far with some of the appointments that get made in the UN, western interest or no western interests.

The purpose of the UN is also clearly delineated, whether or not that purpose is taught in US schools isn't really an issue with the UN so much as the US educational curriculum.

The only reason they wouldn't be able to "fly very far" is because of Western interest, or at the very least Western preferences. Part of having an international forum is recognizing that you aren't going to like everything it does, and as it is the US has a massively disproportionate say over what goes on there. In that light the amount of criticism, from within the US anyway, the body gets seems incredibly silly.

Regardless, I agree that lots of people in the US really don't know anything about the UN, but I'd also go further and suggest that many US voters are unaccustomed to dealing with institutions that they do not have even the illusion of absolute control over; particularly when those institutions do things that they don't like. Just look how much flak Chavez gets despite being, at best, an irrelevant concern in terms of US policy.

LordofHats wrote:
Would Nazi Germany (and Godwin's Law is fulfilled we've got that out of the way ) belong anywhere near an international committee on human rights while actively murdering millions in gas chambers? Of course, I think Hitler pulled out of the League of Nations cause he didn't care but that's beside the point.

Sure, why not? What constitutes "human rights" is far from an agreed concept, even if the UDHR begs to differ. The point I always make here is that no nation recognizes all the elements of the UDHR, and while we can certainly weight principles listed therein differently, the UN doesn't have the ability to do so; or really even an interest in it.

LordofHats wrote:
I just think some countries really don't deserve to have a say.

That's where we're going to disagree then, because I don't consider what someone deserves to be relevant to what is necessary in order to achieve a given goal. Hell, I don't even discuss what is deserved unless its for the purpose of convincing someone to do something.

LordofHats wrote:
Especially when standard practice is in question by the international community (sometimes the UN) and when the UN itself is placing sanctions on them for the matter at hand.

So does that mean that the US shouldn't be given a say? Britain? Or by "international community" do you mean the West?

LordofHats wrote:
What can NK offer to this committee? And how can it pass recommendations and decisions and be taken seriously? No one is going to accept NK as an authority on disarmament unless its a list of what not to do.

The obvious thing is legitimacy outside of the West. The less obvious thing is

LordofHats wrote:
And yeah, I put no stock in the legitimacy of the UN. If all they really did was talk, I'd say let hem go have a blast, but they don't just talk. While their throwing around sanctions for certain actions and saying "we don't approve of what you're doing."

All that the majority of the UN does is talk. Everything material is handled by the Security Council. What you have to understand is that the UN proper is limited to, essentially, the GA and the SC. The remainder of what is called the UN is really just a loose consortium of international Councils and Conferences that are mostly self-regulating.

LordofHats wrote:
Yes. I think they have a legitimacy problem when they put Syria on a committee about human rights and NK on one about disarmament even if those committees are hands reach apart from the UN Security Council.

I approve of both choices. Each committee followed the procedures outlined for Chair succession, and ascension to the council.

LordofHats wrote:
I've noticed. That's not why I poke fun at the UN (not in this case). You honestly can't tell me that you don't find it odd for NK to be chair of disarmament anything. This is outside the scope of what the UN actually does. It's just odd when you take it at face value and seems strange.

Not really, its been done for centuries. In general the most important groups when discussing any given international agreement are going to be the worst offenders with respect to the purpose of that agreement. For example, negotiating START would have been pointless if the two parties were the US and the UK. You cannot make declarations regarding what other nations should do without inviting them to the table, not unless you're prepared to use military force.

LordofHats wrote:
Either your way or mine, there's a legitimacy issue the UN needs to resolve. Until they do, they're just the butt end of a joke with one UN group throwing around "we don't approve" vouchers and the others appointing those not approved of to their committees.

I think they're doing a fairly good job of it, actually, at least excluding SC reform. I think the only problem is that people in the West have a hard time accepting that they aren't the only people that matter anymore.

LordofHats wrote:
"Diplomatic forum" in this case is the same as "a bunch of old guys talking about doing something and then doing nothing" to me.

That's a large part of diplomacy, yes.

LordofHats wrote:
What qualifies as human rights or what should be done about disarmament are questions for academics when you never plan to actually do anything about them. We don't need an international body to talk about these things, let alone one that keeps sending mixed messages. Israel gets to be called inhumane on the international stage, while Syria gets appointed to the Human Rights fan club. When you stack those things side by side all coming from one body which I think hardly ever gets fully understood, it's a legitimacy problem.

Ultimately what the popular perception of the UN happens to be is only relevant in terms of annoying people like me who find the, often seemingly deliberate, misunderstanding of the body's purpose to be annoying. The US has veto power, and it won't forfeit that barring a significant sea-change in international relations, or a massive change in domestic politics. The reason bodies like the UN exist is to communicate the political positions of individual states to one another in an easily accessible forum. On those few occasions it exhibits consensus, or rough consensus, it will further make declarations relevant to the actions of individual member states. Yeah, this will entail a set of mixed messages, that's what happens when you're dealing with an institution that is effectively a massive parliament, but I fail to see why this is a problem.

We don't talk about what the US Congress holds in such simplistic terms, and we shouldn't talk about what the UN holds in that manner either. Well, some people do, but in general they aren't worth paying attention to outside of the extent to which they can be manipulated into voting a particular way. And, funnily enough, that often involves talking about what should be done regarding certain actions by individual political actors, even when you don't intend to do anything about them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
That would be true if North Korea's unsuitability for the position in question was up for debate. To any reasonable objective observer it would be obvious.

Until some countries get their act together I'm afraid they don't deserve an international organization serving their interests, outside of basic humanitarian needs of course.

I think to any objective observer any given thing that turns on subjective issues is up for debate. I also think you're conflating objectivity with your own subjective preferences, but I've already basically responded to this issue through lordofhats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Sending them food and humanitarian resources only props up the dildos in question.

If we weren't sending food to North Korea, do you think that Kim Jong Il would last long in power? My guess is no.

The regime was reportedly able to withstand the loos of ~3 million people out of a population of ~23 million over the course of more than a decade, so I'm not sure the revolutionary incentive of starvation is particularly high. When the state monopolizes the entirety of the educated class, and directly ties their lifestyle to its perpetuation its relatively easy to keep control.

Peasants don't revolt, they just die by various means.

dogma wrote:The only reason they wouldn't be able to "fly very far" is because of Western interest, or at the very least Western preferences. Part of having an international forum is recognizing that you aren't going to like everything it does, and as it is the US has a massively disproportionate say over what goes on there. In that light the amount of criticism, from within the US anyway, the body gets seems incredibly silly.

I don't like what Iran does, but generally I don't think they should be banned from the Human Rights council. NK is a whole different level of the problem. Who actually supports North Korea? China does, Russia only when it's convenient for them, Iran because they both want nuclear technology, and who else? Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia? They're credible only to... each other...

Just look how much flak Chavez gets despite being, at best, an irrelevant concern in terms of US policy.

Now now. Chavez is the world foremost comedian! I tune in for every show

Sure, why not? What constitutes "human rights" is far from an agreed concept, even if the UDHR begs to differ. The point I always make here is that no nation recognizes all the elements of the UDHR, and while we can certainly weight principles listed therein differently, the UN doesn't have the ability to do so; or really even an interest in it.

Then why bother having a committee that's stated purpose is to investigate human right's violations? How am I supposed to take their decisions seriously when there's no standard? How am I supposed to take them seriously when half of all the passed statements by the HRC are to condemn Israeli actions in the Palestine conflict, while countries like Libya, and Syria are on it? What standard allows them to condemn Israel while Syria, Sudan, Laos, Cambodia, and North Korea all get a cursory mention or none at all? Do you have to oppress people who aren't your citizens to violate human rights? Heck some of those countries are on the HRC!

That's where we're going to disagree then, because I don't consider what someone deserves to be relevant to what is necessary in order to achieve a given goal. Hell, I don't even discuss what is deserved unless its for the purpose of convincing someone to do something.

If you can't contribute to the goal then you shouldn't be involved. I disagree with France's treatment of its muslims and the US treatment of illegal immigrants, but both nations can contribute to a discussion on human rights and push the goal of it forward. What can Syria offer? Machine guns and tanks? That's not subjective rhetoric or western ignorance. No one in their right mind is going to call using lethal force to suppress protestors a reasonable approach to human rights. The line may be arbitrarily placed based on subjective standards to a large extent, but somethings really are just over the line.

So does that mean that the US shouldn't be given a say? Britain? Or by "international community" do you mean the West?

Europe isn't the only country that looks down on NK. Japan and SK are in the east

Really it boils down to the fact that the UN is just a puppet for everyones geo-political agenda. The only reason anyone would side with NK on any given issue is because they either: want to gain nuclear ability, or they don't like western powers. Whether or not NK actually has the right to pursue nuclear ability (Iran can count in this too) isn't on anyones mind.

Not really, its been done for centuries. In general the most important groups when discussing any given international agreement are going to be the worst offenders with respect to the purpose of that agreement. For example, negotiating START would have been pointless if the two parties were the US and the UK. You cannot make declarations regarding what other nations should do without inviting them to the table, not unless you're prepared to use military force.

Making a decision without the ability and willingness to enforce it is meaningless. As my grandpapi once said If you want to change something you gotta be ready to pull the trigger. Saying you'll actually do it means nothing until you do. As we can see with the UN, people just ignore decisions they don't like when they can get away with it, making such decisions pointless. UN being western dominated (with most of the worlds financial and industrial capital in the west) is the only thing that allows the UN to work. If the rest of the world wasn't dependent in some way on the western economies, no one would give a damn what the UN says.

I think they're doing a fairly good job of it, actually, at least excluding SC reform. I think the only problem is that people in the West have a hard time accepting that they aren't the only people that matter anymore.

It boils down to the age old problem with peace. You only like people who like what you like. If you want the red car, and someone else wants the red car, and there's only one left, you will be opposed to one another. It's not a problem with the west. Were the west not economically dominant it would be the same and the UN I'd argue would collapse.

That's a large part of diplomacy, yes.

Effective diplomacy usually ends in something meaningful happening. Largely I think nothing ever comes of most of what the UN does on certain matters.

Peasants don't revolt, they just die by various means.

May I suggest my latest book: 1,001 Ways to Die: Peasant Edition

LordofHats wrote:
I don't like what Iran does, but generally I don't think they should be banned from the Human Rights council. NK is a whole different level of the problem. Who actually supports North Korea? China does, Russia only when it's convenient for them, Iran because they both want nuclear technology, and who else? Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia? They're credible only to... each other...

The list is actually pretty long, and includes most of Southeast Asia, most of Eastern Europe, Spain, Pakistan, Portugal, and occasionally Mongolia; plus the aforementioned China and Russia (though they have trended towards neutral lately).

As for the credibility of countires like Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia: all three of those countries have positive relationships outside that particular region, including many states that are not nominally supportive of North Korea. It seems like you're confusing credibility in general with credibility in the United States, or credibility in the majority of the West.

LordofHats wrote:
Then why bother having a committee that's stated purpose is to investigate human right's violations? How am I supposed to take their decisions seriously when there's no standard?How am I supposed to take them seriously when half of all the passed statements by the HRC are to condemn Israeli actions in the Palestine conflict, while countries like Libya, and Syria are on it?

There doesn't need to be an explicit standard in order for a given decision to be taken seriously. Again, just look at Congress, or the Security Council for that matter.

Anyway, I don't see why what any given nation chooses to do domestically has any bearing on their ability to discern similar practices internationally. I can do terrible things to my own people, recognize that they're terrible, and still legitimately point out how what another nation does is also terrible. It might be unwise to do so, given that such an action is likely to draw attention to my own shortcomings, but it doesn't invalidate the criticism I direct at my target.

In any case, the fact that Israel has been condemned in ~50% of resolutions isn't surprising given that many states sitting on the HRC have either negative, or neutral, relations with Israel. It would be foolish to pretend that politics isn't important in what is fundamentally a political body.

LordofHats wrote:
What standard allows them to condemn Israel while Syria, Sudan, Laos, Cambodia, and North Korea all get a cursory mention or none at all? Do you have to oppress people who aren't your citizens to violate human rights? Heck some of those countries are on the HRC!

Some would argue that the answer is yes, others would argue that oppression is a relative state which cannot be determined empirically.

In any case, if you need a standard, then its simply whatever element of any possible set of human rights (and the UDHR covers basically all of them) which the HRC politically determines to enforce, just like every other political body in the world.

LordofHats wrote:
If you can't contribute to the goal then you shouldn't be involved.

The thing is that they can contribute to the goal. The ability to do something isn't the same as the willingness to do so, and certainly not the universal willingness to do so.

LordofHats wrote:
No one in their right mind is going to call using lethal force to suppress protestors a reasonable approach to human rights.

That depends on what they're protesting, and how they're going about their protest. And, really, whether or not we consider the right to life to be sensible under all circumstances.

LordofHats wrote:
The line may be arbitrarily placed based on subjective standards to a large extent, but somethings really are just over the line.

I disagree. I consider the "line" to be entirely the product of subjective consideration under the auspices of human nature (which, mind, includes the propensity for justifiable homicide).

LordofHats wrote:
Really it boils down to the fact that the UN is just a puppet for everyones geo-political agenda. The only reason anyone would side with NK on any given issue is because they either: want to gain nuclear ability, or they don't like western powers. Whether or not NK actually has the right to pursue nuclear ability (Iran can count in this too) isn't on anyones mind.

Well, sort of, there are a number of states (Iran, Pakistan, India, Venezuela) that would like to see NK's nuclear legitimacy recognized, as it would weaken the nonproliferation regime, but that is ultimately still a matter of geopolitics.

But you're right, it is just a a puppet for geopolitical goals, but I don't see why that's problematic. Politics, especially international politics, necessarily involves competing powers seeking to achieve their ends. That said, the UN does have a degree of institutional will, as evidenced by the SC veto, among other things.

LordofHats wrote:
Making a decision without the ability and willingness to enforce it is meaningless. As my grandpapi once said If you want to change something you gotta be ready to pull the trigger. Saying you'll actually do it means nothing until you do.

The counterargument is that even declaring the willingness to do a thing is step closer to actually doing it when the starting point is simply flat out refusing any compromise of any sort.

Speaking is still an action, and diplomacy is, in large part, about getting others to at least pay lip service to an idea, if only as a start.

LordofHats wrote:
As we can see with the UN, people just ignore decisions they don't like when they can get away with it, making such decisions pointless.

That's how all regulations work. No set of regulatory principles will ever prevent all people from escaping the force of the regulation, but that isn't the point either. The point is to reduce the rate of incidence.

LordofHats wrote:
UN being western dominated (with most of the worlds financial and industrial capital in the west) is the only thing that allows the UN to work. If the rest of the world wasn't dependent in some way on the western economies, no one would give a damn what the UN says.

Actually, the problem at the moment is that the Western dominance of the UN is no longer reflective of the coming economic and political realities of the world. The present structure of the SC made sense 30 years ago, but today not so much. This should illustrate why Western dominance isn't necessary for a successful UN. Because power is zero sum, and the vast majority of global power is represented in the UN, simple economic and political interdependence would render the UN significant. In fact, without overt Western dominance, the UN might actually be more important.

LordofHats wrote:
Effective diplomacy usually ends in something meaningful happening. Largely I think nothing ever comes of most of what the UN does on certain matters.

Effective diplomacy takes years, and often decades, to take shape and most often ends in nothing, or at least nothing related to the initial project. The UN produces fewer tangible results than national diplomacy, but that's to be expected given its broader, and more diffuse, set of interests.

That depends on what they're protesting, and how they're going about their protest. And, really, whether or not we consider the right to life to be sensible under all circumstances.

I might be wrong here and I certainly hope that I am but are you Sir excusing the gunning down of masses of protesters?

Pyriel- wrote:

That depends on what they're protesting, and how they're going about their protest. And, really, whether or not we consider the right to life to be sensible under all circumstances.

I might be wrong here and I certainly hope that I am but are you Sir excusing the gunning down of masses of protesters?

I think he is referencing that not all protest is peaceful. Insurgency could be characterized as a form of armed violent protest. Problem is that to my knowledge Syria's protestors are peaceful (surprisingly the middle east has a very long history of peaceful protest and civil disobedience )

Pyriel- wrote:

That depends on what they're protesting, and how they're going about their protest. And, really, whether or not we consider the right to life to be sensible under all circumstances.

I might be wrong here and I certainly hope that I am but are you Sir excusing the gunning down of masses of protesters?

I'm doing three things. One, pointing out that not all protests are peaceful. Two, pointing out that even peaceful protests can entail the justifiable use of lethal force if they involve, say, blocking an airport runway, or shutting down an emergency medical facility. And three, illustrating that whether or not the use of lethal force is justifiable is contingent on the morality of the individual, or society, regarding the action (of course, there's never going to be agreement here).

Monster Rain wrote:That would be true if North Korea's unsuitability for the position in question was up for debate. To any reasonable objective observer it would be obvious.

Until some countries get their act together I'm afraid they don't deserve an international organization serving their interests, outside of basic humanitarian needs of course.

But it isn't just about their interests being served, it's about forming agreements where both parties can see their needs met.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

metallifan wrote:That whole analogy is flawed. You're comparing nations that -deserve- the sanctions they're getting,

But they still get the sanctions.

That's how it works. You cop sanctions for doing bad stuff. Then you come to the table and everyone talks about arrangements in which you'll stop doing bad stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Congress purpose is clearly spelled out, and easily identifiable to any American who paid attention in civics class. The UN just has a PR problem. Lots of people (to clarify in the US) just don't get why they exist or misunderstand (We can call it the congress of the world stage). I only got a few pages in my text book about the UN.

The UN's role is fairly obvious. I don't think they should be responsible for the wilful ignorance of most people in the world. Especially when they're capable of getting on with the business of international co-operation despite most people in the world failing to understand how they operate.

Would Nazi Germany (and Godwin's Law is fulfilled we've got that out of the way ) belong anywhere near an international committee on human rights while actively murdering millions in gas chambers? Of course, I think Hitler pulled out of the League of Nations cause he didn't care but that's beside the point.

Maybe. When they'd almost certainly be threatened with imminent invasion for their actions, it'd be important to engage them in debate to ensure they stop gassing people as quickly as possible. To the extent that conversation was best held in a committee on international human rights, then they should be part of it.

Being the Chair of a committee doesn't mean that the person gets to make all the rules and decide what things mean. North Korea getting to Chair for a short period doesn't suddenly mean they get to end any embargoes and start gobbling up nuclear materials. It just means they sit at the head of the table for photo ops.

use of lethal force is justifiable is contingent on the morality of the individual, or society, regarding the action (of course, there's never going to be agreement here).

I agree to that. After all 3 billion people on this planet are worshipping a pedophile which isn´t even reflected on unless you happen to be of a different and more modern set of moral frames.
So I agree, normal things in one society might be consider insane in another.

Pyriel- wrote:I agree to that. After all 3 billion people on this planet are worshipping a pedophile...

*sigh*

LordofHats wrote:Europe isn't the only country that looks down on NK.

As much as the politicians in the EU wish it were, Europe is not, and most likely never will be a country.

SilverMK2 wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Europe isn't the only country that looks down on NK.

As much as the politicians in the EU wish it were, Europe is not, and most likely never will be a country.

Huh, grammatically that should have ben "are not the only countries" shouldn't it

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:I agree to that. After all 3 billion people on this planet are worshipping a pedophile...

*sigh*

What exactly is *sigh* about this?
Are you trying to be politically correct just for the hell of it?

This is a fact and I pointed this out to highlite how extreme the different moralities in the world are.

Back in the dark ages sleeping with what is called "kids" today was the norm but today this is considered to be bad (pedophile). That half the planet still lives with a medeval belief set just points out that some things that we here find unacceptable are the norm in other cultures and vice versa.

The same could be said about Hitler and the crimes committed during his reign in his country. Who and what decides what is a bad thing to do other then the culture at that particular time?
And before you go on another PC rant about me defending these things think again.

Pyriel- wrote:What I hope is just trolling.

What exactly are you talking about?

Islam doesn't make up almost 50% of the worlds population. Assuming this is the old chestnut of calling Muhammed a pedophile because of the questionable claims about Kadija's age. If you aren't referring to Islam I would be curious to what religion you are referring to. Michael Jackson fans?

Ahtman wrote:Islam doesn't make up almost 50% of the worlds population. Assuming this is the old chestnut of calling Muhammed a pedophile because of the questionable claims about Kadija's age. If you aren't referring to Islam I would be curious to what religion you are referring to. Michael Jackson fans?

You're thinking of Aisha, not Kadija. Kadija was a widow and Muhammad's first wife.

In my hurry I wrote the wrong wife. In accordance with internet tradition I must now go outside where there will be the tearing of cloth and the gnashing of teeth.

Ahtman wrote:In my hurry I wrote the wrong wife. In accordance with internet tradition I must now go outside where there will be the tearing of cloth and the gnashing of teeth.

At least it beats tearing of teeth and gnashing of cloth.

Ahtman wrote:In my hurry I wrote the wrong wife. In accordance with internet tradition I must now go outside where there will be the tearing of cloth and the gnashing of teeth.

Sigged.

Pyriel- wrote:What exactly is *sigh* about this?
Are you trying to be politically correct just for the hell of it?

This is a fact and I pointed this out to highlite how extreme the different moralities in the world are.

Back in the dark ages sleeping with what is called "kids" today was the norm but today this is considered to be bad (pedophile). That half the planet still lives with a medeval belief set just points out that some things that we here find unacceptable are the norm in other cultures and vice versa.

The same could be said about Hitler and the crimes committed during his reign in his country. Who and what decides what is a bad thing to do other then the culture at that particular time?
And before you go on another PC rant about me defending these things think again.

Why? Why should I even begin to engage with you in what is obviously an attempt to troll and insult a great deal of people with your profound ignorance?