Who Did You Vote for? (1 Viewer)

[timrie6]

These people have seen what the governments of the past have done.

yeah, theyve imprisoned children, broken just about every international document we've signed...disobeyed our duties as a un signatory...contributed to the senseless killing of 15,000 people, constantly lied and misled the australian public, added 25% onto University fee.....the list goes on
shit i should have voted liberal! (note sarcasm)

 

[thorrnydevil]

yeah, theyve imprisoned children, broken just about every international document we've signed...disobeyed our duties as a un signatory...contributed to the senseless killing of 15,000 people, constantly lied and misled the australian public, added 25% onto University fee.....the list goes on
shit i should have voted liberal!

every international document we've signed? Get real. Un signatory means we don't have any duties or obligations!

Senseless killing? 1,000,000 people is senseless killing. 15,000 is unfortunate, but in the long run it won't be another 1,000,000. But, you'd probably want that 15,000 to live so another 1,000,000 could die.

 

[Generator]

I thought that you didn't want to discuss the outcome, devil? (A cheap shot, but eh).

 

[thorrnydevil]

I didn't, but this timrie6 is shitting me...so I gotta put her/him in her/his place.

 

[Generator]

Her critical stance is making much more sense than your own.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Her critical stance is making much more sense than your own.

How? Saying FF condones burning lesbians when all the evidence points in the other direction. Mmm...that really makes tonnes of sense.

 

[lengstar]

How about those who chose not to even register to vote?

 

[santaslayer]

hmmm..ALP actually...

 

[timrie6]

every international document we've signed? Get real. Un signatory means we don't have any duties or obligations!

Senseless killing? 1,000,000 people is senseless killing. 15,000 is unfortunate, but in the long run it won't be another 1,000,000. But, you'd probably want that 15,000 to live so another 1,000,000 could die.

hahahaa 'un signatory' is a United Nations signatory not an 'un-signatory' meaning we are bound by the UN Declaration of Human Rights etc and all the treaties we have signed
examples of documents we have breached, to name a few: Convention on the Rights of the Child, The Convention on the status of refugees, The World Heritage convention (jabiluka) not to mention basic, fundamental human rights
such as, the right to life?? those 15,000 people didn't have that
right to freedom - ppl in detention. I could go much further into this but I think you get the point.

killing 15,000 people for no reason is not senseless killing?!
who here agrees with that statement?!

I don't see how killing all these people has prevented the death of a million?

 

[Ziff]

In international law because of state sovereignty we do not have to implement any of these conventions into our domestic law if we don't want to. I mean, they could impose sanctions if they wanted to but pfft unlikely.

For example, we are breaching CROC in regards to children in detention centres, however, there's not much that can be done about it internationally as we can't be forced to adhere to these HR treaties (e.g. by force and they wouldn't use sanctions) and domestically because the provisions of CROC are implemented into various pieces of legislation in a certain way e.g. Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) or the Family Law Act it'll only apply to those procedures/circumstances.

Some international instruments are sort-of in our law but not really. The ICCPR and ICESCR are merely attached as schedules to the HREOC Act (1986) but have no legally-binding force.

We're not legally-bound by any international treaties we sign, of course some treaties e.g. a trade agreement have provisions where in we would be punished in some form by the other nation if we some how reneged on the deal at a later date. Then again, trade deals are a bit different.

 

[timrie6]

In international law because of state sovereignty we do not have to implement any of these conventions into our domestic law if we don't want to. I mean, they could impose sanctions if they wanted to but pfft unlikely.

For example, we are breaching CROC in regards to children in detention centres, however, there's not much that can be done about it internationally as we can't be forced to adhere to these HR treaties (e.g. by force and they wouldn't use sanctions) and domestically because the provisions of CROC are implemented into various pieces of legislation in a certain way e.g. Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) or the Family Law Act it'll only apply to those procedures/circumstances.

Some international instruments are sort-of in our law but not really. The ICCPR and ICESCR are merely attached as schedules to the HREOC Act (1986) but have no legally-binding force.

We're not legally-bound by any international treaties we sign, of course some treaties e.g. a trade agreement have provisions where in we would be punished in some form by the other nation if we some how reneged on the deal at a later date. Then again, trade deals are a bit different.

And this is why we have fucked up International Law and made the United Nations useless- because it is largely based on the goodwill of nations

 

[Ziff]

And this is why we have fucked up International Law and made the United Nations useless- because it is largely based on the goodwill of nations

Let's give the UN military forces!

 

[paper cup]

Let's give the UN military forces!

oohh lets!
I find this amusing....

 

[thorrnydevil]

hahahaa 'un signatory' is a United Nations signatory not an 'un-signatory' meaning we are bound by the UN Declaration of Human Rights etc and all the treaties we have signed
examples of documents we have breached, to name a few: Convention on the Rights of the Child, The Convention on the status of refugees, The World Heritage convention (jabiluka) not to mention basic, fundamental human rights
such as, the right to life?? those 15,000 people didn't have that
right to freedom - ppl in detention. I could go much further into this but I think you get the point.

killing 15,000 people for no reason is not senseless killing?!
who here agrees with that statement?!

I don't see how killing all these people has prevented the death of a million?

So sue us...oh...thats right, THE UN HAS ABSOLUTELY NO POWER AND THEIR RESOLUTIONS AREN"T ENFORCEABLE.

With the 15,000 people I assume we are talking about Iraq. OK, here are the facts:
* Saddam was a murderer.
* He commited mass murder, killing 1,000,000+ (they are just the ones that have been found)
* Used cyanide, anthrax, torture, rape, resin gas and much much more to kill his victims.

Now please, correct me if I'm wrong but our 15,000 is 1.5% of Saddams 1,000,000.

If Saddam was still in power he would still be murdering people. Now please, tell me...what is worse, 15,000 lives or 1,000,000?

lol thorny gets angry when a compassionate lefty comes about

Not angry, just trying to provide facts instead of making shit up.

And this is why we have fucked up International Law and made the United Nations useless- because it is largely based on the goodwill of nations

The UN was fucked when it started. Having pernament members on the SC with the power of veto is what has stuffed it up. Don't get me started on the UN.

 

[Ziff]

lol claiming to be fair and balanced like Bill on Fox?

You really need a dose of international law and international relations...you will probably have to do that at uni if you do law...and you will probably scream 'you communist' at the professor when he or she suggests that war may have not been the best method of regime change

We all know that the use of nuclear weapons is infinitely more effective.

 

[thorrnydevil]

lol claiming to be fair and balanced like Bill on Fox?

You really need a dose of international law and international relations...you will probably have to do that at uni if you do law...and you will probably scream 'you communist' at the professor when he or she suggests that war may have not been the best method of regime change

How was there any other way. Please give me an example THAT WE HADN'T ALREADY TRIED. Negotiations-Nope, he didn't listen...Sanctions-Already tried them, didn't work...War-Worked, unfortunately people died.

I'm awaiting your reply.

 

[thorrnydevil]

We all know that the use of nuclear weapons is infinitely more effective.

Did I condone the use of nuclear weapons?

 

[thorrnydevil]

war worked...we have removed a dictator correct now we have to deal with he results of war... its legacy...

some very cynical people believe saddam should have been assisnated :\


obviously you dont rate national sovereignty very highly

You have to agree, we had to do something.

 

[leetom]

If a certain country wants to invade another country for whatever reasons, it has to seek permission from the U.N in order for the invasion to be legal and to minimise the loss of life.

The problem with the Iraq war thorny, is that your reason for its justification was not the reason for its declaration. That sounds so good, I'm going to use that in a debate.

If the United States put forward the reasons for invading Iraq as "We've gotta go get Saddam, he's a really bad dude. He gases religious minorities and is a general threat to the region", then the case for war would have been much more reasonable.

But it wasn't. The U.S didn't and doesn't give a shit about the welfare of the locals, they just want to exert their dominance in the Middle East. They've even failed in doing that, go Iran.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Watch out if you voted liberal