1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Obama puts in Ahmadinejadesque performance at human rights council

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Mathloom, Mar 20, 2014.

  1. Mathloom

    Mathloom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    18,150
    Likes Received:
    17,949
    More at link

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/19/exclusive_us_boycotts_un_drone_talks

    What absurd requests they are making of the United States!!! Transparency into programs that endanger the loves of innocent Americans and non Americans and over which part of the government and all citizens have no control over. Unacceptable. Good thing they walked out of the talks they promised to be a part of.
     
  2. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    53,785
    Likes Received:
    111,469
    MURICA

    FREEDOM!
     
  3. CrazyDave

    CrazyDave Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,027
    Likes Received:
    439
    Whether one might disagree with the policy or not is one thing, but maybe they (pakistan) could have handled certain things differently in the not so distant past and in general, and perhaps then they wouldn't have drones flyin' up their arse the way they do now. Just sayin'.
     
  4. Andre0087

    Andre0087 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,256
    Likes Received:
    11,207
    Obama is a good man I believe, just not a good leader, and definitely not a good president. He ran on "change" the first term, hell I voted for him but all we have is more debt than ever and the opposite of transparency not to mention the loss of global influence. Glad I abstained the 2nd time around...
     
  5. Mathloom

    Mathloom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    18,150
    Likes Received:
    17,949
    That's irrelevant Dave, though I feel it's a direction you prefer this conversation go.

    This is about the hypocrisy of a country claiming to want to shape a human rights council from the inside (a joke of its own if you ask me) and then boycotting the talks when they are asked to show transparency.
     
  6. CrazyDave

    CrazyDave Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,027
    Likes Received:
    439
    I don't prefer anything in terms of direction, I just don't know that they should get what they want just because they say so after the way they've handled the mutual relationship. I agree, more transparency is a good thing, and more scrutiny should be employed in this regard, I'm just not surprised they don't want to hear it from them. That's all.
     
  7. Mathloom

    Mathloom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    18,150
    Likes Received:
    17,949
    This one is a bit Putinesque, Obama putting in an All Star performance while elsewhere having the audacity to bring up Russia's obvious breach of international law:

    Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/world/unhr...aks-draft-1443915.html?utm_source=ref_article
     
  8. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    I don't want to speak for the position but I think if you consider that there is no real consensus in Pakistan to address terroristic organizations, that in fact, government officials are at times complicit with these groups, the US has to maintain an ability to address imminent dangers within their territorial anarchy.
     
  9. Mathloom

    Mathloom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    18,150
    Likes Received:
    17,949
    Sure, I agree. There have been major problems in Pakistan which have allowed legitimate grievances from Islamists and otherwise to be expressed in an unacceptable, illegitimate and violent way sometimes towards Americans.

    But this is not about Pakistan, this is about due process when someone executes a human being. Pakistan is one example. Pakistani government is complicit with terrorists, and also complicit with the American government. Pakistan has been a haven for terrorists due to their horrendous corruption, economy and security infrastructure. Therefore there are people who have trained in Pakistan who have attempted to bypass due process in executing human beings, some of them American, though most of them Muslim or Pakistani.

    This does not allow the US to legally bypass due process. If someone attacks you, then you have the legal right to defend yourself in that instance. You do not have the right to chase someone to their house and kill them after the fact. There is no such thing as pre-emptive self defense.

    This is a matter between the human rights council and the united states regarding drones, and it was brought forward by one of the few countries which have been victims of these attacks. It is disappointing to say the least that the US knew what it was getting into, claimed it was willing to cooperate, and then walked out when asked to submit information to the human rights council on which it relies to make similar judgements through a similar process on a number of matters.

    No matter what anyone does to the United States, it does not make it ok for the United States to go out and murder - for example - the teenage son of a terrorist, that son having had no charges brought or publicised against him and from what we know had no links to terrorist groups other than those incidental to any human being living in Yemen. These types of executions are the major concern, much more so than the guy in a Pakistani tribal territory actually planning to hurt innocent human beings. If a program doesn't differentiate between these two circumstances, then the person applying those programs is obviously going to be asked wtf is going on. In this case, that person just walked out of the room, and walked straight into an interview room to discuss the immorality of largely bloodless breaches of international law by Russia.

    Absurd, to say the least. Nothing new. Nothing I thought many on here would be willing to acknowledge, since it damages their usual narrative and transcends silly party politics while their government goes off increasing the need for security and ultimately the revenues of companies that lobby and fund so-called representatives of American citizens. But the type of thing where I've committed to documenting on here so that we don't have to listen to war mongers bringing up moral issues as a marketing project.
     
  10. NotInMyHouse

    NotInMyHouse Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    3,644
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    A more suitable name for a Hunter/Killer drone might the "The Zimmerman". :eek:
     
  11. Dubious

    Dubious Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,316
    Likes Received:
    5,087
    Morals are a marketing project. Convincing people of any moral set takes advocating....
    like you are doing. Moral sets depend on context, what's moral in warfare is abhorrent in civilian life. The people that run these programs see it as their sacred duty to eliminate a violent cult that threatens other peaceful citizens.

    They do not see any irony in that.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now