>
> Skipping ahead, a bit....
> > > Do you think that China (up for re-election in
> 2002)
> > > is more deserving of a spot on the UNHCHR than the
> > > USA?
> >
> > Nope. But I never said that, did I?
>
> Very cute. So, are you going to answer the rest of
> the questions, or are you just going to continue
> playing rhetorical games?
I just answered that question. The word "nope" there clearly indicates that
I don't think that China is deserving of a place on the UNHCR. Are you going
to read my answers, or play rhetorical games?
>
> By what standards do you consider a country worthy of
> a seat on the UNHCHR? Moreover, how does this
> standard disqualify the US, but not, apparently,
> virtually the entire current membership of the UNHCHR?
It doesn't. I don't think any country has any more right than any other to
be on there.
> > So 100% of the representative voted against
> > the treaty. Did 100% of American
> > oppose the treaty? The "World's Largest
> > Democracy" isn't terribly
> > democratic, is it?
>
> Perhaps you've heard of representative government?
Perhaps I have. Perhaps I think it's not actually representavive at all.
After all, you should know, more people in your country wanted the other
guy.
>
> Before you criticize our system of government, why
> don't you examine the flaws in your own.
I do, frequently. I think it stinks. I say so regularly. If you ever ask
anyone else what they actually think instead of berating them for not
agreeing with you, you might learn something.
> Do you
> expect me to find that the percentage votes in
> European legislatures always match the percentages in
> the opinion polls? In fact, let's bring up your
> favorite issue here - do you think that the percentage
> of MP's in most European countries that support the
> death penalty would match the percentage of Europeans
> that favor the death penalty? And if not, why bring
> up these irrelevant straw-man arguments? I'd like to
> think that you're not just gratuitiously insulting
> Americans - but that's what it seems like.
Actually, yes, pretty much, I think it would, because there's a form of PR
used in European government.
> I don't know what your personal InBox is like Charlie,
> but I know that if I said these things about any
> European country, I'd have at least two or three
> messages telling me to back off and respect other
> people's countries. Those comments are simply
> gratuitous, Charlie, and I think that they are
> completely inappropriate.
What comments? I'm not allowed to criticize? Inappropriate? Because you
don't like them? I've only *ever* received two offlist messages criticising
me about something I've said on Brin-L, and you sent one of those.
> > And "I will not do anything to harm America's
> > interests" is a constructive
> > place to start? That leaves a lot of room for
> > manoeuvre doesn't it?
>
> This is, of course, as opposed to other countries
> where the Head of State is routinely expected to harm
> his country's interests.
There's a *HUGE* difference between acting that way (see France and
Germany...) and *saying* it.
> > Oh. Thanks for all the help in the Falklands.
>
> You guys wanted our help????????????????????
You just snipped the relevant part, in your typical fashion. You said
"America always honours her Treaties." As I said, thanks for the help. Nice
to see you helping an ally.
> Back to the top.......
> > > 1) Just a week or two ago, I thought we had
> > > established to everyone's satisfaction that while
> the
> > > UN opposes the death penalty, it does not consider
> the
> > > matter part of "human rights."
> >
> > Down to America and China insisting on that stance.
>
> You are conveniently neglecting, of course, that fully
> half of the writers of the Universal Declaration of
> Human Rights had the death penalty at the time of the
> writing
I'm talking about *NOW*. That is America's attitude now. It is no longer an
excuse.
> BTW, the only two nations to sit continuously on the
> UNHCHR since 1947 are now India and USSR/Russian Fed.,
> both of which retain the death penalty.
I know. If you were Russian, I'd be saying the same thing.
>
> >. The right to life is
> > *the* human right, and nowhere does it say that you
> > can remove that right.
> > Well, nowhere that I'd consider
>
> Well, you aparently seem to think that women (and only
> women) have the right to decide if a particular unborn
> child retains the right to life.
You know my views on that, and you've just lied about them. That is *not* my
view, and you know it.
>
> Nevertheless, despite my position on this issue, I
> have never been so arrogant as to suggest that Cyprus,
> or any EU country, or even the USA under Bill Clinton
> should thus be considered undeserving of a seat on the
> UNHCHR.
I said America is NO MORE deserving than anyone else. You'll waffle on about
founding it and paying for it, but that doesn't make it any different, in my
view.
<snip abortion stuff>
> I have firmly believed for the past several months
> that this discussion has continued that eventually,
> when it comes down to it, that the Europeans on this
> List would eventually agree that the US is a
> fundamental source of good in the world, just as I
> think that the EU is a source of good in the world.
> Unfortunately, I am beginning to despair of that ever
> happening at all - as it seems that many people here
> would just prefer to criticize America at every
> opportunity.
Why should I agree with you, when I don't agree with what you say and how
you say it? You think saying that "we all agreed" when most of us just
actually gave up arguing against a brick wall makes the truth any different?
> And finally...........
> > That stuff
> > about "The Shining City On The Hill" made me want to
> > throw up.
>
> Yeah, everyone keeps saying that, but so far, we have
> had one person pose exactly one substantive
> disagreement with that post - and that was Sonja
> disagreeing on the very narrow issue of the US
> founding the UN.
Because I read it once, was so astounded that you can believe such a bizarre
caricature of the world, and deleted it in disgust.
> Anyhow, in that post, I argued that America was not
> just good, but "great" - that the net benefits of
> "goodness" to the world by America stand out for their
> uniqueness and importance.
To bring this long and winding argument full circle, finally... that's
really rather arrogant. America deserves all these extra bits and pices,
like automatically getting a seat on every international forum, because
America is just better? You wonder why people don't take you seriously with
an attitude like that?
> At this point, I am just ready to throw up my hands
> and concede that the lot of you just have an
> irrational revulsion of America.
Actually, I like America, I like most Americans I've met.
I just hate the right-wing policeman-of-the-world, holier-than-thou
nationalistic self-serving rhetoric that a very few of you not only ram down
our throats, but appear to actually believe.
Charlie
