Law of Sea Treaty back on the table.

[GhostValkyrie]

I recently got this in the mail, and started doing some searching to see if they're really doing this...sad news - They are.

GOP in 'sneak move' to pass U.N. treaty
A United Nations treaty is waiting confirmation that would cripple the United States Navy, aid terrorists, and empower enemies including China. At issue is the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST, which has been in the works since the 1970s. Under LOST, a U.N. agency called the International Seabed Authority would control the world's oceans. LOST would deny the United States the right to intercept terrorist vessels or proliferators.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38106

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-12-04.html

WTF are you guys thinking!?!?

 

[Sprafa]

sorry GV, but it's globalization. That's political BS, it'll be better than any other

The treaty is near perfect now, it'll help to make the World Gov. nearer (which you are against, but I am not).

Seas are no ones possesion. Nations can keep the land, now UN keeps the sea. I don't see a problem with it. Now if the USA may lose some of the "high-tech" protection b/c this new agency won't put the USA over any other country, then you should start considering to start policing your shores.....

I do not wish to start a discussion.

 

[Direwolf]

...we already do police our shores, its the entire reason our Coast Guard exist. Whats at issue is the idea that any one organization controls the seas, which is a gigantic power to hold over the world.

 

[Sprafa]

...we already do police our shores, its the entire reason our Coast Guard exist. Whats at issue is the idea that any one organization controls the seas, which is a gigantic power to hold over the world.

shores in land..... beaches....


This "gigantic power" is necessary. Patriotism is outdated, and still causes far too many useless wars. A unified World Sea would prevent anyone from saying - "this peace of Sea is mine!!!". Which IMO, wouldn't be mcuh bad to the US ( but in the case of South America & China, I think they can really get pissed off)

 

[GhostValkyrie]

We do police our Shores. But now the Terrorists will have an upper hand when it comes to the coatline, we will nolonger be able to stop them at as reasonable distances. And now all nations' Submarines are required to be above water and fly their flags, that's not how the enemy plays the game. That means if someone goes rogue and attacks us or a fellow nation, we have to have permission from the UN to submerge before we can even find them, let alone strike back. If we don't ask permission, they'll perform they're "We're the boss of the world." act and try to punish us for striking back. Not only that, but it also defeats the purpose of a submarine's existence.

And you're right, I am opposed to globalization.

Of course China would get pissed off, they still think they own Asia and everything surrounding it.

 

[Sprafa]

We do police our Shores. But now the Terrorists will have an upper hand when it comes to the coatline, we will nolonger be able to stop them at as reasonable distances. And now all nations' Submarines are required to be above water and fly their flags, that's not how the enemy plays the game. That means if someone goes rogue and attacks us or a fellow nation, we have to have permission from the UN to submerge before we can even find them, let alone strike back. If we don't ask permission, they'll perform they're "We're the boss of the world." act and try to punish us for striking back. Not only that, but it also defeats the purpose of a submarine's existence.

And you're right, I am opposed to globalization.

What you accuse the UN of doing here is exactly what they want to prevent the USA to do anymore (since they do it for 10 years now....)

 

[GhostValkyrie]

What you accuse the UN of doing here is exactly what they want to prevent the USA to do anymore (since they do it for 10 years now....)

Dude, the US doesn't go around saying "Hey, give us money or you can't put that oil rig 30 miles beyond your own coatline!", "Hey, those goods are going from England to China - Give us money!", "Hey, you guys are sailing to England independently - Give us money!" The US patrols the Oceans keeping thm Safe. The UN will start taxation for sailing the seas, shipping goods, and suspend the US' right to patrol the oceans. It's like they're going all British Empire up in there.

 

[alehm]

I think the UN has a proven track record of not following up bite with its bark.

 

[A2597]

This just adds one more reason I think the UN is a power hungry bunch of back stabbing jerks.

I'm all in favor of the US pulling out of the UN.

 

[Direwolf]

I think its less a question over whether globalization is a good thing, than whether we want to trust the UN with something like this. This not only effects the countries in the UN, but the entire world, and is literaly the power to control the planet. I don't know if I'd trust the UN with that kind of power.

 

[Dedalus]

well you say that you don't trust the UN. but equally the UN don't trust the US (UK to a lesser extent). that's why they're doing this, so that no single nation has unchallenged power. parts of it seem overkill but we'll have to hear more about the procedure etc. before we know whether it's good or not.

 

[A2597]

Widrow Wilson had it right with the League of Nations, the UN....bah, frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing all the power of the UN go bye bye.

Yes, we need a place for nations to get together and work out their differences, but the UN seems to love trying to force things down on nations.

*Note to self, Vote for Bush*

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Widrow Wilson had it right with the League of Nations, the UN....bah, frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing all the power of the UN go bye bye.

Yes, we need a place for nations to get together and work out their differences, but the UN seems to love trying to force things down on nations.

*Note to self, Vote for Bush*

A thing to notice is that worse nations are in the UN than the very "rogue" ones it denounces. The only reason the UN originally voted to stop Saddam's weapons plans was because he wasn't a part of the global club, otherwise they wouldn't have cared. He could've slaughtered all the freedom fighters, raped, and silenced all the citizens he wanted without notice from the UN if Iraq was a member.

Another thing to notice, and this is just something I've noted. The US does a lot of UN dirty work, even taking the fall for it's misdeads - The bombing of a hospital in the Somolia Campaign was done by a UN Helicopter, it went virtually un-noted, and the US took the fall for the failed operation because it was the brunt force in the campaign.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

*Note to self, Vote for Bush*

it's funny that you seem to be upset about the legislation that the bush administration is pushing then remind yourself to vote them in again.. are you a masochist?
:dozey:

 

[GhostValkyrie]

it's funny that you seem to be upset about the legislation that the bush administration is pushing then remind yourself to vote them in again..

This is something that has been bothering me a bit. For months I've been noting Bush has been almost covertly giving things to UN, such as our Children's education now taking a part in the UNESCO (United Nations Education Science and Cultural Organization). It's pretty much text books teaching everything through the UN perspective, even sexuality. Some really disturbing stuff. It widely promotes that nations are weak without the UN and other mindless psycho-babble. I don't know whether Bush is just playing up the UN until he thinks we don't need it, or if the GOP is covertly crawling back to them. I knw Bush's father was an advocate of World Govt., but I haven't really heard the same thing coming from Bush.

 

[Sprafa]

Widrow Wilson had it right with the League of Nations, the UN....bah, frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing all the power of the UN go bye bye.

Yes, we need a place for nations to get together and work out their differences, but the UN seems to love trying to force things down on nations.

It's the majority against the minority. If stupid nations hold their interests agaisnt the ones from the World, then of course they have to force things.

A thing to notice is that worse nations are in the UN than the very "rogue" ones it denounces. The only reason the UN originally voted to stop Saddam's weapons plans was because he wasn't a part of the global club, otherwise they wouldn't have cared. He could've slaughtered all the freedom fighters, raped, and silenced all the citizens he wanted without notice from the UN if Iraq was a member.

Another thing to notice, and this is just something I've noted. The US does a lot of UN dirty work, even taking the fall for it's misdeads - The bombing of a hospital in the Somolia Campaign was done by a UN Helicopter, it went virtually un-noted, and the US took the fall for the failed operation because it was the brunt force in the campaign.

You think it wasn't the Americans? That incident was under UN jurisdiction, but Americans did it.

And you tell me that the USA does the UN's dirty work? The USA & Japan use the UN to slay hundreds of artic whales in Patagonia. The USA pass their resolutions in the UN with tons of allies. No one else can control the UN as the USA do. Now finnaly it's becoming a multilateral organization, with other nations gaining power.

I won't do any more posts here, try to refute what I say if you wish, but I will not respond unless you can truly show me a hard fact against the UN other than cold patriotism.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

This is something that has been bothering me a bit. For months I've been noting Bush has been almost covertly giving things to UN, such as our Children's education now taking a part in the UNESCO (United Nations Education Science and Cultural Organization). It's pretty much text books teaching everything through the UN perspective, even sexuality. Some really disturbing stuff. It widely promotes that nations are weak without the UN and other mindless psycho-babble. I don't know whether Bush is just playing up the UN until he thinks we don't need it, or if the GOP is covertly crawling back to them. I knw Bush's father was an advocate of World Govt., but I haven't really heard the same thing coming from Bush.

could you provide me with some links about this UN propaganda stuff you're talking about? also, doesn't little bush's administration have some of the same policy makers as the first bush admin?

 

[Sprafa]

This is something that has been bothering me a bit. For months I've been noting Bush has been almost covertly giving things to UN, such as our Children's education now taking a part in the UNESCO (United Nations Education Science and Cultural Organization). It's pretty much text books teaching everything through the UN perspective, even sexuality. Some really disturbing stuff. It widely promotes that nations are weak without the UN and other mindless psycho-babble. I don't know whether Bush is just playing up the UN until he thinks we don't need it, or if the GOP is covertly crawling back to them. I knw Bush's father was an advocate of World Govt., but I haven't really heard the same thing coming from Bush.

really GV, you need to get patriotism behind you and see reality. UN is good. UNESCO's education was unilaterally approved by all members that applied it after severe revision (in case you don't get it, all the major parties from every member state that uses UNESCO's teachings program have approved it). They don't force anyone. The majority cooperates to make things to turn the World to better. The minority gets enforced with it.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

They don't force anyone. The majority cooperates to make things to turn the World to better. The minority gets enforced with it.

I didn't say the forced the UNESCO on anyone, I said Bush has put the UNESCO back in our schools. Read rather than assume.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

could you provide me with some links about this UN propaganda stuff you're talking about? also, doesn't little bush's administration have some of the same policy makers as the first bush admin?

Sadly, yes.

 

[MaddMexican]

"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."

http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=22896&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

 

[GhostValkyrie]

The UNESCO's brilliant explanation of why there are less females in Scientific fields than men.

"Few young women choose science subjects, and even fewer take science-based degrees and use their degree in a related career.

The reasons for this are varied, including differences in ways boys and girls learn and the organization of the education system including gender-biased curricula, textbooks not related to women's and girls' concerns, and negative attitudes of teachers, as well as influence from the society as such, notably socio-cultural constraints and negative role modeling."

I don't remember reading that Women aren't good at Science in my text books, but whatever you say, UNESCO! I don't remember Male only classes in Science, or even male only models, projects, or texts, but whateer you say, UNESCO! I also remember some of my Highschool and Middleschool Science Teachers being females, but it must have been dream...

 

[Sorze]

The UNESCO's brilliant explanation of why there are less females in Scientific fields than men.

"Few young women choose science subjects, and even fewer take science-based degrees and use their degree in a related career.

The reasons for this are varied, including differences in ways boys and girls learn and the organization of the education system including gender-biased curricula, textbooks not related to women's and girls' concerns, and negative attitudes of teachers, as well as influence from the society as such, notably socio-cultural constraints and negative role modeling."
QUOTE]

Err.. I really don't find anything particularly wrong with this text? Do you really think that there are just as many female scientists as men?
I'm pretty sure it's not 50/50, and the text gives some pretty valid reasons as to why it might have become this way.

and On topic: I think the UN is a great idea theoretically, but like someone said, they need more 'bite'...

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Err.. I really don't find anything particularly wrong with this text? Do you really think that there are just as many female scientists as men?
I'm pretty sure it's not 50/50, and the text gives some pretty valid reasons as to why it might have become this way.

and On topic: I think the UN is a great idea theoretically, but like someone said, they need more 'bite'...

By no means are there as many. But that's simply because less females are interested in science than males. Even the most intelligent girls I know aren't interested, they prefer Govt., teaching, Cullinary, Art, and other fields. Now that's not to say non are interested, and that's not to say all who are interested make it into that field. I've know some who were, like those Female Science teachers I told you about earlier. Also what's needs to be kept in mind is that some cannot make it into that field be cause they may not be able to afford college and/or other reasons.

I was just saying their explanation was rediculous. I don't think there should be female only scientific educational studies, just like there shouldn't be male only scientific educational activities. If the UN is so great about unity, how come it looks like that one piece right there aims at separating and creating friction between males and females who seek the Science path? I mean, how many more of these 1 Gender only programs do you think they have? How many 1 Race only programs do you think they have?

 

[Sorze]

Your first paragraph, I have no problem with. I follow what you're saying, and I don't really disagree with anything.

Now the second one...
I don't understand where you get the female-only studying part from? To me, that text says the following:

"There aren't as many female scientists as male scientists. Might be because different attitudes towards male and females and other negative influences form society." etc..
They seem to think that it's basically the surroundings fault that there aren't as many female scientists, and thus one would guess that they'd want to change that. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

Where did you get the one-gender-only part from? did I miss something or what? Because if you started talking about it yourself, just from that previous text, I think it's quite the stretch honestly...

 

[Lil' Timmy]

yup, looks like you are misinterpretting the text you quoted GV. it never makes reference to "female only" science education. it's not even implied.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Your first paragraph, I have no problem with. I follow what you're saying, and I don't really disagree with anything.

Now the second one...
I don't understand where you get the female-only studying part from? To me, that text says the following:

"There aren't as many female scientists as male scientists. Might be because different attitudes towards male and females and other negative influences form society." etc..
They seem to think that it's basically the surroundings fault that there aren't as many female scientists, and thus one would guess that they'd want to change that. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

Where did you get the one-gender-only part from? did I miss something or what? Because if you started talking about it yourself, just from that previous text, I think it's quite the stretch honestly...

Bah, I just went back an re-read that. I was misinterpreting it. I was thinking that they were hosting Female only Curricular Activities in Educational Fields.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

yup, looks like you are misinterpretting the text you quoted GV. it never makes reference to "female only" science education.

Hey, I'm Human, and have my faults and times I make mistakes. You're not perfect, in fact - You've misinterpreted things on these forums just as I have.

 

[Sorze]

Hey, I'm Human, and have my faults and times I make mistakes. You're not perfect, in fact - You've misinterpreted things on these forums just as I have.

Heh, no one's accusing you mate, take it easy

On Topic: Like I said before, I think UN would be great if they were more powerful (heh, people disagree with me on this, I bet!). If they really could control the oceans, I think it's a good idea, but otherwise, like what GhostValkyrie said in the first post..

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Hey, I'm Human, and have my faults and times I make mistakes. You're not perfect, in fact - You've misinterpreted things on these forums just as I have.

lol, GV. you know as well as everyone else that i am infact perfect. if i've ever made a perceived "mistake", it was by magnificent design.

anyway, just pointing out a flaw that i saw. you admitted to it, i'd do the same when someone points out where i'm wrong, it's cool
it's all consistent with my glorious designs!!

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Heh, no one's accusing you mate, take it easy

On Topic: Like I said before, I think UN would be great if they were more powerful (heh, people disagree with me on this, I bet!). If they really could control the oceans, I think it's a good idea, but otherwise, like what GhostValkyrie said in the first post..

I'll show you take it easy!!!
ROAR!!! Heh, J/k. Hmmm....well, I think I'm finished with this thread for now, I read about 20 minutes ago al-Sadr threatened US Soldiers, I think I'll make a new topic.

 

[A2597]

It's the majority against the minority. If stupid nations hold their interests agaisnt the ones from the World, then of course they have to force things.

For example....taking command of a nations troops, taking a nations tax money, right down to trying to change a nations constitution?

I remember about a year ago the UN wanted the US to change some of our laws, I can't remember the specifics, but it was rather insane.

Oh, and remember people, Kerry voted to raise the amount of our tax money given to the UN by 800 (Yes, eight hundered) percent, which would of course mean, another tax increase...

 

[GhostValkyrie]

I'm sure there's even more to what we barely hear. It would be funny is Bush is only leading the UN on to get some untold resources for the US, only to turn around and leave once they start pulling their "We are the world" act.

 

[Direwolf]

The problem as I see it is not that either side is right, but rather giving more authority to the UN is taking authority from a slightly cracked system and giving it to a slightly broken one; theres no real improvement.
Specific to this topic: if the UN wants to prevent a party from controlling the seas it shouldn't try and control it by itself, because it kind of defeats the purpose. Once people begin disagreeing with what they have to say the UN's power erodes, which is only bad for them.