Fuck you igloo - U.N. Ignores U.S., Approves Council 170-4

[destruction]

By EDITH M. LEDERER

UNITED NATIONS Mar 15, 2006 (AP)— U.N. member states ignored U.S. opposition and overwhelmingly approved a new Human Rights Council on Wednesday, attempting to strengthen the world body's machinery to deal with major human rights offenders.

The vote in the 191-member General Assembly was 170 in favor, 4 against, and 3 abstentions.

The Bush administration refused to back the new council, saying it was not the radical reform Washington wanted to ensure that countries like Cuba, Sudan, Myanmar and Zimbabwe known as rights abusers are barred from membership.

But U.S. officials said Washington nonetheless will give its financial backing and seek a seat on the new council.

A year ago, Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed replacing the widely criticized and highly politicized U.N. Human Rights Commission, which has allowed some of the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect one another from condemnation or to criticize others.

Under the resolution adopted Wednesday, the commission will be abolished June 16 and the new council will convene three days later.

The resolution was drafted by General Assembly President Jan Eliasson after months of contentious negotiations. He said it did not give any country everything it wanted but would strengthen human rights protections and toughen the criteria for council membership.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1728278

Fucking owned!!

[obby]

I take it this new council consist of Countries who do not respect humanitarian rights in the first place and who have gone as far as to show us they are against it. Yet we are supposed to back the UN up on this? Right! Like John Bolton stated, "we are not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and call it a butterfly".

IMO it was a bold a great move my the USA.

[igloo]

I take it this new council consist of Countries who do not respect humanitarian rights in the first place and who have gone as far as to show us they are against it. Yet we are supposed to back the UN up on this? Right! Like John Bolton stated, "we are not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and call it a butterfly".

IMO it was a bold a great move my the USA.

Don't even waste your time responding to destruction posts--he is mentally ill. Just look what he did with that post. Just ignore him.

[igloo]

I take it this new council consist of Countries who do not respect humanitarian rights in the first place and who have gone as far as to show us they are against it. Yet we are supposed to back the UN up on this? Right! Like John Bolton stated, "we are not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and call it a butterfly".

IMO it was a bold a great move my the USA.

It was the correct move by the U.S.---and the sad part is other nations agreed with the U.S., but voted for it anyway out of fear the whole thing would fall apart.

p.s.....looks like the social misfit was owned, with his own post

UN creates new rights council over US objections

Wed Mar 15, 2006

By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday created a new U.N. human rights body by an overwhelming majority, ignoring objections from the United States.

Ambassadors broke out in sustained applause when the vote was announced: 170-4 with 3 abstentions. Joining the United States in a "no" vote were Israel, Marshall Islands, and Palau -- but not American allies in Europe or Canada.

Belarus, Iran and Venezuela abstained.

As the pre-eminent international rights watchdog, the 47-seat U.N. Human Rights Council is to expose human rights abusers and help nations draw up rights legislation.

It would replace the 53-country Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Commission, which in recent years has included some of the world's most notorious rights violators.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told the assembly the rules for the new council were not strong enough to prevent rights violators from getting a seat. But he said the United States would cooperate with the body.

"We did not have sufficient confidence in this text to be able to say that the Human Rights Council will be better than its predecessor," Bolton said. "That said, the United States will work cooperatively with other member states to make the council as strong and effective as it can be."

Cuba, which had distributed four amendments, voted in favor, although it stated many objections and called the council a creation of the West, which would be used to "unjustly condemn Third World countries."

Its ambassador, Rodrigo Malierca, said, "We were never deceived by the loudmouthed objections of the Washington representatives." The text, he said, was "conceived and negotiated behind the scenes to accommodate its demands, sacrificing vital interests of the countries of the South."

U.S. RESPONSE

In response, Bolton told the assembly he could exercise his right of reply, "but on the other hand, why bother."

Many nations, including Canada and members of the European Union, as well as major human rights groups, share American misgivings. But they rejected Bolton's earlier proposal to postpone or renegotiate the council, fearing the final result would doom the entire effort.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan first proposed the new council last year as part of sweeping reforms of the world body. But his blueprint was watered down in the resolution.

Assembly President Jan Eliasson, who negotiated the text over many months, acknowledged his resolution was a compromise. But he called the council "a body that would advance the founding principles that were initiated by the General Assembly with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" of 1948.

"The establishment of the Human Rights Council is a decision whose time has come," he said.

Austrian Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, representing the European Union, pledged that the 25 EU members and associates "commit themselves not to cast their vote for a candidate that is under sanctions imposed by the Security Council for human rights-related reasons." This was one of Bolton's demands that was not included in the text.

Members in the new council will be elected by the 191-member General Assembly by a majority vote of all nations, not just those present and voting. At present they are approved in the smaller Economic and Social Council according to regional slates.

A systematic violator of human rights could be suspended from the council by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly. There is no such review now.

The seats would be distributed among regional groups: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, six for Eastern Europe, eight for Latin America and the Caribbean and seven for a block of mainly Western countries, including the United States and Canada.

[destruction]

Your idea of "human rights" is murdering innocent muslims, blacks and gays so what is your point assmunch?

On another note...

Geez iggy. You shouldn't be posting pictures of yourself in myspace. I thought I point out one of them...

[obby]

Don't even waste your time responding to destruction posts--he is mentally ill. Just look what he did with that post. Just ignore him.

Yeah most here know that. Esp with post wishing truck bombs to be sent to other peoples homes. Talk about mental. I actually feel a little sorry.........for his parents.

[destruction]

I take it this new council consist of Countries who do not respect humanitarian rights in the first place and who have gone as far as to show us they are against it. Yet we are supposed to back the UN up on this? Right! Like John Bolton stated, "we are not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and call it a butterfly".

IMO it was a bold a great move my the USA.

That's because you have no respect for human rights and you believe the USA should be the same way. Thanks for admitting it cockboy. "Bold move" as long as it conforms to your warped agenda. This is also consistant to the FACT that you are a moron with the IQ of cock dribble.

Yeah most here know that. Esp with post wishing truck bombs to be sent to other peoples homes. Talk about mental. I actually feel a little sorry.........for his parents.

But you have no problem with your brother threating people online or igloo telling ppl to kill themselves do you so your point is?????

Oh wait....

Would you, your brother and iggy fancy a glass of Halliburton's finest spirts?

PS. Your mix sucks.

Go sell drugs on the corner with dr logic's kids and don't them each a glass of contaminated water, imported from Iraq by Halliburton.