Speaking of violating UN Resolutions...

Sava · January 19, 2004, 13:27

Quote:

UN Subcommission condemns DU weapons

The UN Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities passed a resolution condemning the use of Depleted Uranium (DU)and certain other weapons during its 48th session in August 1996:

"On matters concerning international peace and security, the Subcommission:

Affirmed that weapons of mass destruction and, in particular, nuclear weapons should have no role to play in international relations and thus should be eliminated;

Further reaffirmed its support for a total ban on the production, marketing and use of such weapons; urged States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the Convention on Conventional Weapons and Protocols thereto;

Urged all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb production and spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium;

Requested the Secretary-General to collect information from governments and other relevant sources on the use of such weapons and on their consequential and cumulative effects, and to submit a report on the matter to the Subcommission at its forty-ninth session."

from http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/un/960904_du.html

While reading another article about Gulf War Syndrome and Veterans ( http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archiv...4/20030401.php ), I noticed the article mentioned that the use of Depleted Uranium violates UN Resolutions. I searched and found this to be true.

So... we bomb Saddam because he was violating UN resolutions... hmmm once again, the US proves it's utter hypocrisy.

I've also learned that there was a proposed UN resolution against Iraq concerning the presence of DU in the Iraqi arsenal... this was in November 2001... needless to say, the US opposed the resolution.

My Wife Hates CIV · January 19, 2004, 13:33

It's good to be #1!

We do what we want!

DinoDoc · January 19, 2004, 13:34

No one cares unless it's from the UNSC.

Sava · January 19, 2004, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No one cares unless it's from the UNSC.

I thought the Repukes hated the UNSC because the hated FRENCH GerMANS CHinESE and RUSKEIS! OMFG THEY SUCK!

DarkCloud · January 19, 2004, 13:38

Everyone violates UN resolutions... get over it.

some violate more than others

All nations break laws

for example: RUSSIA owes the US millions in unpaid parking fines

-

Bush wanted to invade Iraq, and he could find reasons for doing so- they started an illegal chemical/bio weapons program. and nuclear program. (now of course, the programs had been dismantled by the time Bush invaded- but Bush had reason to fear that they might be started up again- if he was an idiot for trusting Israeli, British, Syrian and Iranian intelligence- then you can blame him for that... but not for directly lying)

do you truly want nuclear proliferation?

Sava · January 19, 2004, 13:40

DarkCloud: That's the dumbest argument I've heard yet... I wonder if I could use that excuse when I get a speeding ticket... or could I use that excuse to commit murder... or steal...

don't we tell kids not to use drugs and to say "if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you?"...

next...

DarkCloud · January 19, 2004, 13:41

There's no reason to get annoyed about something when England, France, etc. all the others are also hypocrites

You obviously didn't read the rest of my statement

DarkCloud · January 19, 2004, 13:43

Everyone in the UN breaks treaties, etc.

It's custom.

Very few nations have the 'moral' right to actually act outraged when another breaks a rule.

because the UN has very little enforcement power.

it's nearly useless

Sava · January 19, 2004, 13:56

I read the rest of your statement... it praddled on about Bush... and I'm not talking about Bush. I'm ashamed you are trying to turn this into a bush bashing topic. It's not. The US's policy of using DU passes through the CLinton and Bush I presidencies.

If anything, you've just given me support on one of my points that the whole "we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam violated UN resolutions" is full of crap.

oh the irony...

MichaeltheGreat · January 19, 2004, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I thought the Repukes hated the UNSC because the hated FRENCH GerMANS CHinESE and RUSKEIS! OMFG THEY SUCK!

Hating is a form of caring. If it's from any UN bureaucracy less than the UNSC, we simply don't even notice.

Sava · January 19, 2004, 14:06

I see

Chaos_BF1942 · January 19, 2004, 14:53

The British are also hypocirts, they use DU rounds too (there is other contries too).

I'm sure over 90% of the contries in the UN had/are violated/violating UN resolutions

Agathon · January 19, 2004, 15:04

Who ever said the British weren't hypocrites, war criminals, soapdogders, crap at football, etc.?

DinoDoc · January 19, 2004, 15:10

Certainly not the sheep abusing New Zealanders.

Al B. Sure! · January 19, 2004, 15:11

nearly every European nation owes us trillions of dollars in loans from the two world wars. in fact, Finland was the only country that paid off the US debts from the First World War.

i think we should formally repudiate the loans on the condition that the US can do whatever we want.

JohnT · January 19, 2004, 15:13

Quote:

utter hypocrisy.

Sava's most favorite phrase, regardless the issue or the participants.

Sava · January 19, 2004, 15:43

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

utter hypocrisy.

Sava's most favorite phrase, regardless the issue or the participants.

well, it's so rampant and it pisses me off... I'm dismayed so many people can accept immorality on such a grand scale.

Urban Ranger · January 20, 2004, 06:01

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
some violate more than others

Yes, that country starts with an "I," but it's not Iraq or Iran.

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
All nations break laws

That does not take away the force of Sava's argument, that the US is a hypocrite.

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Bush wanted to invade Iraq, and he could find reasons for doing so- they started an illegal chemical/bio weapons program.

That's not it. UNSCR 1441 is not about Iraqis starting a weapons program on BCN weapons.

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
do you truly want nuclear proliferation?

Saddam was not found to have an active nuclear weapons program for the last 10 years or so.

DaShi · January 20, 2004, 06:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Yes, that country starts with an "I," but it's not Iraq or Iran.

Ireland isn't that bad.

Quote:

That does not take away the force of Sava's argument, that the US is a hypocrite.

Actually it does take away the force of it.

Quote:

That's not it. UNSCR 1441 is not about Iraqis starting a weapons program on BCN weapons.

True, it doesn't mention the Iraqis specifically.

Quote:

Saddam was not found to have an active nuclear weapons program for the last 10 years or so.

Well, if you posted more than one liners, I'd try to take them out of context too. So I'll just fall back on, "That's completely false.

"

The Mad Monk · January 20, 2004, 10:20

Quote:

The UN Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities

The hell?

DinoDoc · January 20, 2004, 10:22

I think they have a commission on just about everything.

Sava · January 20, 2004, 10:30

Monk: yeah that confused me as well... I guess the UN Subcommission for use of Radioactive Munitions must handle issues involving discrimination and civil rights.

GhengisFarb™ · January 20, 2004, 10:47

Depleted Uranium is a minority. They just aren't recognized as individuals with the right to vote yet.

Patroklos · January 20, 2004, 11:49

There is no not a single modern military that does not use DU in either shells or armor. They might as well ban water as it would make as much sence, be ignored just as universally, be just as impossible, and degrade the worlds faith in the UN by the same degree.

I am sure if we went back through every subcomission in UN history we would all be living in mud huts as everything would have been banned.

The UN has hundreds of these "commissions" were they stash people that make up this crap. Part of the reason the US disregards them so much is becasue they have all these baffoons glossing over whatever good the UN might be able to achieve without them.

Lefty Scaevola · January 20, 2004, 12:09

Only article 7 (is that the correct number, or do I have them flipped in my memory?) resolution of the security council has something like the status of law, the rest a just advice. Note than even in the security council, about half the rsolution are not article 7 and are thus just advice (IIRC all or almost all the many resolution supposedly violate by Israel are in that category, the proposed article 7 one petatining to them well vetoed)