Its barely news. Has been going on for years, if I`m not mistaken.
Similar piece of pain in UN is all the stuff about stopping capital punishment to persons who have done their crime while not being adults (damn, i cant phrase tonight) - US just would never give in.

In such cases, most of the allies of US are countries from Axis of Evil and alike, so they cant be all that bad

I think he''s a hippie sympathizer... I mean, I''ve looked for this ""arab countries"" on a map and I can''t find it nowhere...

Farscry, why is the assumption that we have to agree to agree with every choice of each country? Shouldn''t the treaty allow each country to decide for itself, on the principle we use here that states can decide many policies themselves?

Who really thinks that this document will do a damn thing if we do sign it? Since when has the U.N. or any ''international agreement'' done a thing to help human rights? All it does is let people on the left feel good about them selves.

I would rather sanction the hell out of governments that abuse human rights.

I was working under the assumption that, if you''re going to sign a treaty guaranteeing (spelling?) a list of rights, then it would stand to reason that all those rights would then be required to be upheld.

That''s my understanding; I very well could be wrong though.

But... if the treaty is just to say that you want to uphold these rights, but nobody is actually expected to do it, then what''s the point of the treaty?

It sets a standard by which countries can be measured and held to. I don''t know if this one does that, but that''s one use. That''s what''s going on with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and I''m sure others.

That''s the weakest weasel word evasion I''ve seen in a while. If I didn''t know this sort of thing was the kind of fatuous fake ""logic"" that passes for thought on the right, I''d be offended. It''s sole purpose seems to be to ...wait for it... make people on the right (of course I could not mean Republicans or conservatives) feel superior to people they disagree with. Oh yeah, that''s a reasonable statement...isn''t it?

This is the argument of Sowell''s that is truly annoying, that government works are proposed by liberals to make themselves feel good, regardless of effects. What tripe, and offensive too.

Well, that''s a heck of a lot more useful and informative than ""it''s designed to make people on the left feel good."" I can respect what you wrote the second time around; the first one was just vague and insulting.

Your examples of treaties that ""no one"" follows should not include Kyoto, though. That''s one that we are primary non-signatory nation, it''s not actionless at all. Some countries are starting to take steps independently on some of the standards. Even California is instituting tighter emissions standards, independent of leaders who would research the issue for the next 40 years to keep us from spending money on it.

I see that your argument is essentially that diplomacy that is not backed up by the use of force is useless. So basically, your view is we should not try to encourage or even chivvy nations along. Either leave them alone, or use force, otherwise we are in danger of feeling good about ourselves at the expense of the world. I can see why you don''t like UN. Imagine! Trying to talk out the problems of the world! What foolishness!

This is that fake logic, designed to create a false, black and white, us or them dichotomy, so the listener can feel good about ignoring or defunding any problems that don''t impact them, and feel superior to those who would try to fix a situation without employing force. It''s quite a self-congratulatory philosophy, and is currently in some vogue with today''s elite and intelligentsia, I understand.

I once made the mistake of becoming interested in Noam Chomsky''s political stance, because he was the author of the best linguistic theory out there. I confess I wonder how attractive the feel-good-pitying-liberals rambles of Dr. Sowell are to a nascent economist. After all, it''s natural to assume that if he gets the economics right, his social commentary must be good too. Isn''t it?

Doesn''t make it correct, however. Since when did ""taking a stand"" go out of fashion?

Yes. Diplomacy without force is useless. Force doesn''t != bombs but it should equal sanctions and other pressure. I have no problem talking about problems to avoid direct conflict but I do not think meaningless treaties and agreements work. All that does is make you feel good about your self in the short term.

I think if the world said that we wouldn''t do business with governments like Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, and North Korea, they might change their tunes.

I doubt the Bush administration would sign of on this IMHO.

Now is probably is a good time to note that this is a *statement*, not an agreement. It provides a rationale for further action - withholding aid, etc - that is part of a spectrum of diplomatic actions designed to achieve goals and influence countries without the actual use of force. But it''s not a binding treaty that would require us to change our behavior.

So understanding that this underlies our stance towards women''s rights - the very thing you decried in your first set of posts as being ignored - why would you remove a clear statement on where we and other countries stand? Something that we can point to and say ""Get with the program or the foreign aid funds stop dropping from the sky!"" No one doubts we have the force to back it up, so our statements can be presumed to have that force. By your description above, our statements should automatically be more powerful than anyone else''s, and thus have more potential for effectiveness.

This agreement has been used to influence policy in nations that don''t comply with it. How that''s useless, or not backed by our diplomatic force, I don''t know.

What we do instead is to turn off the faucet entirely, removing medical and educational resources to women in China, because we disagree with one aspect of China''s policy. We act unilaterally, thereby actually *weakening* the effects of our actions, since other countries can simply throw in a bit more to the program we formerly supported, and offset our sanction. That''s no way to conduct diplomacy.

I agree with you there. Done judiciously, his might have been a worthy use of $200B, rather than invading Iraq. Imposing AND enforcing sanctions on these countries would quite possibly have the same effect that it did on Iraq (with the exception of Saudi Arabia, I''d think), reducing their governments and infrastructures to shells that threaten no one. I''m surprised to see you recommend it, but it''s good to see you put it on the table.

I apologize for snapping at you before, but it''s hard to get context and intent from a one-liner.

The world court is another thing that just doesn''t work. If I trusted the world to do the right thing and to treat the United States fairly, I would be for something like this. However, my faith in the world isn''t there.

It''s all good.

This is what I find funny, you are not arguing the merits of the agreement. What you are doing is making a political correct ""feel good"" argument that I''m railing against.

I believe that the goal of the agreement is fine but this agreement is not the correct way to do it. I do not believe that we should put on names on things just to be popular and feel good about our selves.

Some points were made above. Your only argument was it is a ''feel good'' measure.

Do you feel we DO NOT need to set examples for the rest of the world?

Nice statement.

Although I do believe our policy of pre-emptive strike will come back to haunt us the first time another country tries to do it.

Karmajay:

Ulairi:

Ulairi, later:

So...Didn''t you just make the same ""feel good"" argument? Except, yours reduces to ""We set an example by doing, well, nothing beyond living well."" Wow...Feels good AND requires no effort at all beyond our ordinary life...That''s quite an exemplar. If, of course, anyone notices.

The statement is not policy. It''s a statement of support for other countries to consider when they set policy. It''s backed by the implicit strength of the US, so it meets your force requirement. It''s not a treaty, so we are not held to standards we disagree with. By virtue of both of these, it''s not ""feel good"", it''s a useful tool for changing other countries behavior. And we are backing out of this because we feel that it does not strongly enough limit other countries behavior.

How does this equate to ""It''s bad policy""? The bad policy is pulling out of something that''s been used to make progress over the last decade, solely because we disagree with how other countries handle themselves internally in one limited area. Weigh that against the loss of education, contraception and medical funding, and you''ll see where the bad policy actually is.