It was obvious what I meant by opportunity if you actually read the whole sentence instead of the part you quoted. I don’t know why but for some reason you felt like being snotty and quoting me out of context so you could jump on your soapbox.
Marc
In part one of the first sentence you are correct. In part two of the same sentence you are dead wrong. The UN is not just a forum for international debate. The SDMB might be, or the Op Ed pages in the Herald Tribune, but not the UN. The debate in the UN is carried by official representatives of the member nations who happen to be the near total of all recognized governments on earth. This debate leads to resolutions and declarations that have real and heavy bearing on world politics. I give you: The Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, international intervention in multiple hunger crisis in Africa, the Bay of Pigs, The Cuba Missile Crisis and so on. You as an individual might not take much heed, but I’ll tell you that national governments worldwide listen very carefully indeed when the UN, backed by the international community speaks, often enough it’s a matter of life and death for their citizens (that would be us). Without the UN the world might have looked very different today.
Not that I am saying that the UN is a panacea, but IMHO it is the best way out of all bad ways we have so far conceived to enable consensus action on an international arena.
Sparc
Oh. My. God. The US is involved in the Middle East because of oil. We have another nominee for The Most Obvious Statement of the Week award.
Yes, the overriding reason the US government takes an interest in the Middle East is oil.
Of course, the overriding reason the US protected Europe during the Cold War was that it was in the US’s economic and strategic interests to do so. Ditto entry into WWI and WWII.
Sua
**
Point in fact I didn’t say it was just a place for international debate I said it was a forum for diplomatic exchange.
Marc
Excuse me, but what “kid” was killed here? I believe Beazley was 24 at the time of his execution.
It may be less emotionally satisfying to do so, but stating that you oppose levying the death penalty against minors is a more effective premise than going into a tirade about killing “kids” or “children”, as if American courts were hauling kiddies out of high chairs to fry them. Look again at the facts of the case.
You might also review the case of the Texas 7 before blithely suggesting that the only reason the U.S. has the death penalty is to exact vengeance on behalf of (insert sneer) grieving relatives.
Fine, I retract. Please exchange the two in my post strike the example of the SDMB and the HT Op Eds, for the rest my point remains unchanged.
Sparc
smiling bandit -
I read the OP several times, and the only reference to Afghanistan I found was to instances of American complaints about how women are treated in that country.
I might be missing something, but the OP complained about the US “bending the rules” in its favor. I don’t see that in this instance.
The US isn’t (as far as I can tell) saying “it is OK for us to execute minors, but don’t you try it” to anyone else.
Of course, many other posters have pointed out the hypocrisy of countries like China and many in Africa lecturing the US on human rights. Re-read any of these if I seem to be talking thru my hat.
Nonetheless, I understand from NPR that the aforesaid murdering minor has achieved room temperature. May God have mercy on him - and good riddance.
Regards,
Shodan