US votes against rights for children in UN resolutions

[Phlegmak]

For a few resolutions, the US voted negatively.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3941.doc.htm

Odd looking votes:
[FONT=&quot]
Vote on the Rights of the child
Vote on Right to Development
Vote on Right to Food
[/FONT]

The US was the only nation to vote against those. In fact, the US voted negatively on most of those resolutions, but those three stand out.

I skimmed through the document. The US representatives voted negatively mainly due to a dislike of some wording in some text. However, the wording in question, whatever it was, was good enough for most other representatives from other nations on the planet.

Overall, it makes the US look like the land of a$$holes.

 

[Ecofarm]

Do you believe the title of everything you read?

You do not think there are politics in the UN?

Do you suppose China, Iran and nK signed such things in earnest?

Noone can be this naive.

Anyone who thinks that this makes the US look like buttholes is a real sucker for international propaganda.

 

[philippe]

it is just irrational hate from the US, as expected from a rogue state.

you see what I did there? Just post that it has anything to do with the GRAND AXIS OF EVIL, and suddenly global resolutions are irrelevant, even if it isn't true.

it's a common polemic by some americans here, look above.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Well, the "right to development" and "right to food" are examples of the type of things that the United States has opposed in terms of human rights. See the United States' failure to ratify the International Covenant for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights ("the ICESCR"), for example. Just look around CFC OT -- there are a lot of Americans who would say that you don't have a "right" to stuff like that.

The rights of the child thing is part of that. The article notes that "[a]mong other things, that omnibus text would call upon States to create an environment conducive to the well-being of all children, including by strengthening international cooperation in regard to the eradication of poverty, the right to education, the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, and the right to food." That's just the type of thing the U.S. government votes against -- heck, our President vetoed a bill that provided health coverage for children in the United States!

Cleo

 

[Phlegmak]

Do you believe the title of everything you read?

You do not think there are politics in the UN?

Do you suppose China, Iran and nK signed such things in earnest?

Noone can be this naive.

Anyone who thinks that this makes the US look like buttholes is a real sucker for international propaganda.

Where is the international propaganda or politics, or whatever you want to call it, in this:

By a vote of 180 in favour to 1 against (United States) and no abstentions, the Committee also approved a resolution on the right to food, by which the Assembly would “consider it intolerable” that more than 6 million children still died every year from hunger-related illness before their fifth birthday, and that the number of undernourished people had grown to about 923 million worldwide, at the same time that the planet could produce enough food to feed 12 billion people, or twice the world’s present population. (See Annex III.)

That text above looks pretty harmless to the US. Why vote against it? 180 other representatives from other countries didn't mind signing it.

 

[MobBoss]

That text above looks pretty harmless to the US. Why vote against it? 180 other representatives from other countries didn't mind signing it.

You mean like other countries that allow their citizens to sell their children into arranged marriages to settle debt? Those countries?

But yeah, we get the gist of your thread: The USA hates children. Got it.

 

[philippe]

oh, don't forget, they will never actually clarify why the USA doesn't vote on it, they will refer that other "rogue states" did.

 

[Merkinball]

The rights of the child thing is part of that. The article notes that "[a]mong other things, that omnibus text would call upon States to create an environment conducive to the well-being of all children, including by strengthening international cooperation in regard to the eradication of poverty, the right to education, the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, and the right to food." That's just the type of thing the U.S. government votes against -- heck, our President vetoed a bill that provided health coverage for children in the United States! - Cleo

These are the types of things that Europeans like to sign in international charters, but don't like to do anything about when it comes time for the rubber to meet the pavement. George Bush veto a bill that provided health coverage to the "children" of the United States. He vetoed a bill that would have put the cost of a "childs" healthcare on the tax payers as opposed to the childs parents who owned a $400,000 dollar house, a business, two new SUV's, and made many times the poverty line. George never vetoed medicare or medicaid. He vetoed handouts to people who didn't need them.

Life seems so much clearer when you stop the shinanigans and open your eyes to the reality of the situation isn't it?

 

[LightFang]

The apologists are failing.

 

[Merkinball]

oh, don't forget, they will never actually clarify why the USA doesn't vote on it, they will refer that other "rogue states" did.

In all sincerity Phillipe, what does it matter? What does it really matter? Belgium signed it. Wow. I guess that wipes your hands away, well, not your hands, but your nations hands, your governments hands, and your politicians hands of turning their back to genocide that they had a hand in creating. So again, WTH man? Is this gonna change the fact that the majority of the world suffers? Does this change that Europeans and liberals on this board don't give one flying f--k about what happens to the people in Iraq? Is this gonna stop Darfur? Will it stop the violence in the Congo? Will it make Robert Mugabe dissappear? Perhaps it will put an end to the violent junta in Myanmar, and make Kim Jong Il feed his people. Or maybe it's just another a meaningless piece of paper signed by European elites to feel better about themselves and meaningless do nothing liberals that support them castigate the United States of America.

All of these charters, these resolutions...THEY ARE MEANINGLESS FILTH. They are insult to humanity, and an insult to people that are actually in need. While these asshats are busy in Geneva or whatever uber wealthy European city they are on when they craft this things, there actually people out there suffering who they are essentially doing nothing for.

But hey, pat yourselves on the back a little more. The evil Americans didn't sign your meaningless parchment. Well f--k.

 

[Merkinball]

The apologists are failing.

The irony is lush in this post.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

In all sincerity Phillipe, what does it matter? What does it really matter? Belgium signed it. Wow. I guess that wipes your hands away, well, not your hands, but your nations hands, your governments hands, and your politicians hands of turning their back to genocide that they had a hand in creating. So again, WTH man? Is this gonna change the fact that the majority of the world suffers? Does this change that Europeans and liberals on this board don't give one flying f--k about what happens to the people in Iraq? Is this gonna stop Darfur? Will it stop the violence in the Congo? Will it make Robert Mugabe dissappear? Perhaps it will put an end to the violent junta in Myanmar, and make Kim Jong Il feed his people. Or maybe it's just another a meaningless piece of paper signed by European elites to feel better about themselves and meaningless do nothing liberals that support them castigate the United States of America.

All of these charters, these resolutions...THEY ARE MEANINGLESS FILTH. They are insult to humanity, and an insult to people that are actually in need. While these asshats are busy in Geneva or whatever uber wealthy European city they are on when they craft this things, there actually people out there suffering who they are essentially doing nothing for.

But hey, pat yourselves on the back a little more. The evil Americans didn't sign your meaningless parchment. Well f--k.

Even if the resolutions are meaningless filth, why did US vote against them?

 

[philippe]

In all sincerity Phillipe, what does it matter? What does it really matter? Belgium signed it. Wow. I guess that wipes your hands away, well, not your hands, but your nations hands, your governments hands, and your politicians hands of turning their back to genocide that they had a hand in creating. So again, WTH man? Is this gonna change the fact that the majority of the world suffers? Does this change that Europeans and liberals on this board don't give one flying f--k about what happens to the people in Iraq? Is this gonna stop Darfur? Will it stop the violence in the Congo? Will it make Robert Mugabe dissappear? Perhaps it will put an end to the violent junta in Myanmar, and make Kim Jong Il feed his people. Or maybe it's just another a meaningless piece of paper signed by European elites to feel better about themselves and meaningless do nothing liberals that support them castigate the United States of America.

All of these charters, these resolutions...THEY ARE MEANINGLESS FILTH. They are insult to humanity, and an insult to people that are actually in need. While these asshats are busy in Geneva or whatever uber wealthy European city they are on when they craft this things, there actually people out there suffering who they are essentially doing nothing for.

But hey, pat yourselves on the back a little more. The evil Americans didn't sign your meaningless parchment. Well f--k.

Belgium instigated the Rwandese genocide? It's that why Belgian paras got brutally murdered while evacuating poeple?

I guess you are right, by your logic, the universal treaty of human rights and the constitution of the USA is a peace of meangless filth too, if you see how the USA has regarded it.

 

[Ecofarm]

Even if the resolutions are meaningless filth, why did US vote against them?

Because we are not proponents of meaningless filth, like the Euros are? Seriously, going along with these jokes of "resolutions" is a disgrace. Anyone who would hold hands with China, Iran and nK while signing a document to protect children is an idiot - and they look like one too.

 

[philippe]

Because we are not proponents of meaningless filth, like the Euros are?

yeah, those injuns sure deserved all those broken treaties.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Because we are not proponents of meaningless filth, like the Euros are?

So you think that the USA is better than all the other countries in the world, because USA doesn't sign meaningless filth?

 

[Merkinball]

Stop being naive Phil. You have, on numerous occassions, out of your own volition, been more than vocal about Belguims complicancy and pussyfootedness in regards to the Rwandan genocide and what's taken place in the Congo. I'm not attacking you, because I know how you feel about what your own leaders did in Africa, and how little they've done to assuage their sins. So please, do me a favor and stop playing coy.

 

[Ecofarm]

So you think that the USA is better than all the other countries in the world, because USA doesn't sign meaningless filth?

Well, that's not the only reason.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Well, that's not the only reason.

What are the other reasons?

 

[Merkinball]

So you think that the USA is better than all the other countries in the world, because USA doesn't sign meaningless filth?

Pat yourself on the back some more. Does this mean that you think that Europe is better than the USA for signing some meaningless dictum that the North Koreans and Saudi's signed?

It's amazing how one day on this board, the European turds in this community can condemn despotic regimes with the flick of a wrist, and then the next, claim how much better these despotic regimes are because they signed a charter at the United Nations promising to treat children all super duper and feed them and what not.

When people stop starving in Darfur because Europe summarily decided to actually do something meaningful about it because they signed this charter, let me know.

Otherwise it's meaningless rhetoric.