Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
OK, lets have another go... I am not sure if this takes the discussion forward, but here goes...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
To quote Churchill "'Jaw jaw' is better than 'war war'"
|
If you honestly think merely talking about human rights abuses, is better than rectifying them, then I am glad you aren't in charge of my human and civil rights. |
So we go from a predictable answer to a Straw Man
How many times have I expressed my views on human and civil rights in these forums? Do you *honestly* think that blatantly misrepresenting my position like that is a way of taking a debate forward?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Because if anything happens that someone (usually the Americans) doesn't like (such as condemning Israel for Human Rights abuses) the Yanks veto it.
|
Because the US vetoed Rwandan resolutions [etc etc] is nothing to do with the situation in Iraq.
|
No, but as Matt has pointed out you were claiming that France would veto *any* second resolution regarding Iraq when actually it was any resolution aimed at triggering war with them.
And what does a sweeping generalisation like "The UN has been thoroughly impotent for years" have to do with Iraq? Does that justify attacking Iraq because the UN have been (according to you) unable to do anything about anyone else's human rights abuses elsewhere in the world?
Quote:
|
I am willing to actually stick my neck out and say what I think would do better. It might not work, but I am trying.
|
And what the UN was doing might not have worked, but they were *also* trying. Of course it's always easy to criticise something and say it didn't work with 20/20 hindsight.