Mugabe’s Terror Campaign

  • News
  • Thread starter DM
  • Start date
  • #51
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,782
5
The Smoking Man said:
Really!?

When I go through the number of times the Veto has been used in the UN, I see that China has used it 4 times since Beijing assumed her seat in 1972.

America has used it 79 times to interfere with resolutions against Israel primarily.

So tell me how China has interfered with the discussion of Human Rights at the UN since they have no additional power relative to the General Assembly.

Taking a walk from a meeting is like your congress or senate in the USA or the parliament in the UK.

Walking out on a meeting merely means that the person who walks doen't have any input into the process and actually puts them at a disadvantage since you abdicate the right to give any argument or influence on the issue.

See, here we go again. We're talking about Mugabe, and the reason he remains in power and no one is doing anything about it. Kat brings up the stonewalling of China in the UN and you respond by saying "So what? The US has done this hundreds of times!" If it's wrong when the US does it, it's wrong when China does it, and you're again changing the topic to find a reason to criticize the US.
 
  • #52
loseyourname said:
See, here we go again. We're talking about Mugabe, and the reason he remains in power and no one is doing anything about it. Kat brings up the stonewalling of China in the UN and you respond by saying "So what? The US has done this hundreds of times!" If it's wrong when the US does it, it's wrong when China does it, and you're again changing the topic to find a reason to criticize the US.
Here we are in La La Land again. Kat brought up stonewalling by China and I explained why they couldn't. They don't have the power in the General assembly.

I mentioned the 4 times they had used the veto and how that it wasn't China that abused the system but the nation posted by the poster he DOES live in the USA in case you didn't know.

In a previous post you will also find that I mentioned it was not the Chinese who instigated the opinion that UN sanctions that didn't work but American aid workers.
 
  • #53
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,782
5
The Smoking Man said:
Here we are in La La Land again. Kat brought up stonewalling by China and I explained why they couldn't. They don't have the power in the General assembly.

Maybe that's what you brought up initially, but that certainly isn't what you were bringing up in the post I responded to.

I mentioned the 4 times they had used the veto and how that it wasn't China that abused the system but the nation posted by the poster he DOES live in the USA in case you didn't know.

Exactly. How is that a legitimate response to what she said? Are you just trying to say she's a hypocrite? Why? She isn't the US delegate to the UN? Is she somehow responsible for their actions because she is a citizen of the country they represent?

In a previous post you will also find that I mentioned it was not the Chinese who instigated the opinion that UN sanctions that didn't work but American aid workers.

I wasn't complaining about your previous posts. I'm complaining one post and the pattern it shows. You have tendency to respond to any accusation of wrongdoing on the part of any nation other than the US by an American by saying "Oh yeah, well the US has done X, Y, and Z." Again, argumentum ad hominem. Deflecting from the case being made to attack the person making the case, their country, or generally turn it into a discussion of something else.
 
  • #54
loseyourname said:
Maybe that's what you brought up initially, but that certainly isn't what you were bringing up in the post I responded to.
I really suggest you go up and look at the two posts you're talking about then. There is her post, there is my response to you and then there is my response to her.

Welcome to loseyourname lalaland again.
loseyourname said:
Exactly. How is that a legitimate response to what she said? Are you just trying to say she's a hypocrite? Why? She isn't the US delegate to the UN? Is she somehow responsible for their actions because she is a citizen of the country they represent?

I wasn't complaining about your previous posts. I'm complaining one post and the pattern it shows. You have tendency to respond to any accusation of wrongdoing on the part of any nation other than the US by an American by saying "Oh yeah, well the US has done X, Y, and Z." Again, argumentum ad hominem. Deflecting from the case being made to attack the person making the case, their country, or generally turn it into a discussion of something else.
No, if I strictly attacked HER (sorry Kat), then it would be ad hominem. What I did was disprove her argument with a statement of fact ... that the Chinese are unable to 'stonewall' (An American term, I might add) and then stated the only thing that they could eventually do was to use the Veto which they have only used 4 times before contrary to the record of her own country who have circumvented the democratic will of the UN 79 times.

Now I suggest if you Americans do not want to have criticisms hurled in your direction, you clean up your own act. After all, the actual reason there was no discussion of human rights this year was not because the Chinese 'stonewalled' but because the American government slipped into the realm of the violators and found they could NOT deliver the anual criticism of the Chinese record. Well, not without getting laughed off the floor.

Now Kat is NOT the representative of her government and neither am I or you HOWEVER, all of the arguments presented here are the realm of our respective governments and we are expressing our opinions as if we were the representatives which, in terms of this site, we are.

Now as far as ad hominem, you have so far followed me through about 4 or 5 of these threads and not addressed anything in the posts. You, my friend ARE guilty of ad hominem attacks.

You have, in point of fact taken it upon yourself to be my puppydog critic digressing every topic so far.

Maybe I do miss the topic occasionally but the posts ARE at least about the issue or a related issue. I even apologized when I knew I was beginning a digression.

To you, 'I' have become the topic. You've made me your own personal topic.

Now ... back to the topic befor I have to hit your snout with a rolled up newspaper.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
kat
39
0
Oh please...blah blah blah, it'd be so much easier to debate/discuss with you if you'd cut out the hypberbolic rhetoric and stick to factual stataments.
The report on the bulldozing of entire towns by Mugabe was discussed at the U.N. but was the discussion was origionally blocked by China. This has nothing to do with vetoes. It's the blocking of discussion of human rights issues, period.
And quite honestly you can go on and on about American human rights abuses but no country in the world is ever been called upon like the U.S. is when someone needs to go into a country and save people from tyrants like Mugabe. In fact the U.N was just recently crying for the U.S. to go back into Haiti because the U.N. troops are failing to control the gangs.
 
  • #56
Art
kat said:
The report on the bulldozing of entire towns by Mugabe was discussed at the U.N. but was the discussion was origionally blocked by China. This has nothing to do with vetoes. It's the blocking of discussion of human rights issues, period.
Will you please post a link to your source on this please?
kat said:
And quite honestly you can go on and on about American human rights abuses but no country in the world is ever been called upon like the U.S. is when someone needs to go into a country and save people from tyrants like Mugabe.
Will you supply specifics and sources for this also please?
kat said:
In fact the U.N was just recently crying for the U.S. to go back into Haiti because the U.N. troops are failing to control the gangs.
Will you advise your source of this strange history please? If you are interested here is what actually happened....
Haiti
In February 2004, opposition forces staged an armed rebellion against the elected president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The United States and France apparently supported the coup. Since early 2001, Washington had blocked important economic and humanitarian aid to the country. Earlier, it had reneged on police training and on funding for UN human rights and election monitors. The February 2004 rebellion joined together the right-wing Convergence for Democracy, the pro-business Group of 184 and thuggish militia commanders close to former dictators. The rebel military force was small, but the Aristide government had no army and only weak police units. When the rebels captured provincial capitals, regional organizations sought a political solution to the crisis. The Organization of American States (OAS) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) urged the UN Security Council to send a multinational force to restore order, but the US and France blocked any action that would leave the populist president in power.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/haitindex.htm
 
  • #57
kat said:
Oh please...blah blah blah, it'd be so much easier to debate/discuss with you if you'd cut out the hypberbolic rhetoric and stick to factual stataments.
The report on the bulldozing of entire towns by Mugabe was discussed at the U.N. but was the discussion was origionally blocked by China. This has nothing to do with vetoes. It's the blocking of discussion of human rights issues, period.
And quite honestly you can go on and on about American human rights abuses but no country in the world is ever been called upon like the U.S. is when someone needs to go into a country and save people from tyrants like Mugabe. In fact the U.N was just recently crying for the U.S. to go back into Haiti because the U.N. troops are failing to control the gangs.
Kat, can I ask you what news service you subscribe to?

I did a search on Yahoo News for evidence of any of this and got articles regarding additional UN peacekeepers being sent from Jordan:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=988235&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050729/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/haiti_un_troops_1 [Broken]

and Mercinaries arriving from South Africa:

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__national/&articleid=246974 [Broken]

Can you point to something saying the US has been called in to solve this problem?

On the contrary the boston Globe has announced:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/la...group_says/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News

Rights abuses, violence continue, group says

July 28, 2005

PORT-AU-PRINCE -- The presence of UN peacekeepers for more than a year has failed to curb widespread rights abuses and political violence in Haiti, leaving a volatile climate for upcoming elections, a prominent human rights group said in a report yesterday. Amnesty International accused the US-backed interim government and the UN peacekeeping force of showing leniency toward former soldiers and other rebels who toppled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide last year while aggressively combating armed militants loyal to the ousted leader. (AP)
I have even found evidence of a request into the investigation of the removal of the president at gunpoint by US troops by congress and other articles like the SF Bay asking the rhetorical question 'Why do France and the USA hate Haiti'.

On the other issue, you made the statement that China was 'blocking human rights discussions' and yet the only evidence you gave to support this came from your post #31 where you provided an unattributed quote:
China's deputy U.N. ambassador Zhang Yishan walked out and left a low-ranking diplomat in China's seat. So did Algeria's U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali. The United States and Britain had demanded a council briefing on the U.N. report.
Did I miss something? Where did they 'block human rights discussions'? As far as I can tell, until the US president actually appointed Bolton to the UN, YOU only had a low ranking official sitting in the seat too! Had they walked out without leaving anybody there, then there might have been cause to say 'blocking' but your own quote states there was a Chinese delegate at the meeting.

Further searches on the incident reveal: http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2005/07/27/un_envoy_presents_report_on_zimbabwe/ [Broken]
"Since they all did the same thing, I can only draw the conclusion that it was some kind of political statement," acting U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson said.
Which also raises the point:
Despite opposition from China, Russia and African countries, a U.N. envoy presented her report condemning Zimbabwe's sweeping slum clearance to the Security Council Wednesday and called for urgent assistance to help those who have lost their homes and jobs.
Which indicates that this is not just a 'China' issue having only acheved 'agenda status' by the bare minimum 9 votes. Since it was NOT an international issue, China was perfectly justified in leaving a low ranking official at the briefing no matter what the opinion of the "acting" U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson.

You will also note that this was a BRIEFING and not debate. Briefings are also accompanied by printed transcripts informing all deligates of the contents. AND since this was merely a briefing on a report already filed WITH the UN, we can see that this was a deliberate attempt to 'rub people's noses in it' and served no other usefull purpose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
kat
39
0
The Smoking Man said:
Kat, can I ask you what news service you subscribe to?
I'm a voracious reader SM, I read all of the MSM sources including NYT, WP, WT, the LATimes...my local news. I also read the DailyKos, DU...Instapundint, Belmont club along with spending a lot of time interrogating a Spanish friend of mine (a true leftist...as in supporting of human rights first and foremost..politics not at all) who is currently working for the EU as an election supervisor and has in the past worked for the U.N. in the same capacity. I also read U.N reports, government reports...legal briefs..human rights reports. I enjoy dissecting the news reports versus what the actual text of the document says or what the actual speech, comment, response is/was. Seldom do I find the news service correctly relaying what the actual text or statement is.

In regards to Haiti (Art, SM):
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan asked the United States this week to consider sending troops to Haiti
As for the U.N. events in regards to Mugabe, I'll get back to you with supporting links and arguments. It's 1:30 am here and I'm obligated to work 11 hours tomorrow. :yuck:
 
  • #59
kat said:
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan asked the United States this week to consider sending troops to Haiti
As for the U.N. events in regards to Mugabe, I'll get back to you with supporting links and arguments. It's 1:30 am here and I'm obligated to work 11 hours tomorrow. :yuck:
Sympathies on the heavy day tomorrow.

I did follow the link and it seems the "request" was to contribute troops to a 'rapid reaction force' already staffed by south Americans and is actually a part of a general plan that will later include a "request" to the Canadians and the French.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902918.html

While the article is indeed entitled, "Annan Makes Plea For Troops in Haiti" it certainly seems more like a "request" inside the article. That is the actual word used by the 'senior U.N official'.

Annan told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a meeting at U.N. headquarters Tuesday afternoon that he may have to ask for American "boots on the ground" in the coming months to reinforce more than 6,500 Brazilian, Chilean, Argentine and other peacekeeping forces serving in Haiti, the officials said.

He expressed hope that the United States would participate in a planned U.N. rapid reaction force, authorized by the Security Council earlier this month, that would have the firepower to intimidate armed gangs threatening the country's fragile political transition. Officials said that similar requests are being considered for other countries, including Canada and France. "We want scarier troops," one senior U.N. official said.
 
  • #60
60
0
The Smoking Man said:
Sympathies on the heavy day tomorrow.

I did follow the link and it seems the "request" was to contribute troops to a 'rapid reaction force' already staffed by south Americans and is actually a part of a general plan that will later include a "request" to the Canadians and the French.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902918.html

While the article is indeed entitled, "Annan Makes Plea For Troops in Haiti" it certainly seems more like a "request" inside the article. That is the actual word used by the 'senior U.N official'.

I remember, we burnt american flags in the entrance of our ministery of defence becouse it was sending troops to haiti after america ask them to do it...
 

Related Threads on Mugabe’s Terror Campaign

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
I
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
Top