[“None of us had arms and we were not able to resist the attack.” One under-armed villager lamented: “I tried to take my spear to protect my family, but they threatened me with a gun, so I stopped. The six Arabs then raped my daughter in front of me, my wife and my other children.”]
Name:
Xel2006-08-22 7:05
"I'm not talking about terror-funding states, I'm talking about tyrannical governments, tyrants, despots, and authoritarian or totalitarian regimes." You are talking about those nations, incidentally. Iran, Syria et al. were not allowed to be a part of the board on human rights, among other things.
"Cuba is an authoritarian communist regime." And America is what nowadays? America does not have the right to use terrorist tactics against civilians (Cuba) because they have the temerity to do things differently, and if it think it does then it needs to be taught many lessons.
"See comment above." You have used terrorist tactics, abstaining from any claim of decency and moral superiority. The endurance of Cuba throughout the decades is comparable to that of Israel.
"Who cares about the Iranian govt funding terrorism? That really has nothing to do with what I'm saying. The U.N. consists of governments from the world over, many of whom have anti-gun attitudes, and contribute monetary aid to organizations like 'IANSA' whose purpose is to undermine our constitution and destroy the right to keep and bear arms here in the USA, and in other countries. For this reason alone, we shouldn't contribute another dime to the U.N.
Furthermore, the U.N. should have no say over the actions we commit - the U.N. should not exist to govern us, and we shouldn't let it. I'm not saying we should just go to war or something, but I am certainly saying that the U.N. should have no say whatsoever in our policies. I firmly oppose and reject any such assault on our national sovereignty."
America has voided its right to complain about sovereignty. Also, IANSA has these objectives: research the health and social impact of guns, educate the public on the risks of firearm ownership,
promote policies to prevent criminal and youth access to guns,
apply consumer product regulations to the gun industry,
support international efforts to curb the proliferation of small arms. These objectives are not anti-gun per se and would have no effect on the average consumer. These proliferated guns reach soldiers in Africa who are doing nothing but taking their chance to rape, extort and pillage everything in sight, destabilizing an entire continent. Just because they have guns and don't own homes doesn't mean they are fighting nasty brits and communists while wearing raccoon hats and writing laissez-faire philosophy under starlight. This is a new millenium, and guns doesn't automatically provide a cornucopia wherever they appear.
"While the U.N. rejected the United States of America from the Human Rights commission, even the Sudan, a country that tolerates -=slavery=- was alowed on it, as well as Socialist China, and Cuba, two more Human rights abusers." A horrible double standard, Agreed. Another double standard is how all the G8 countries do jack shit to slow the export of small arms to human rights-abusing nations (freedom- and liberty-loving America do the most black small arms trading of course, then use the same principle of human-rights abuse to liquify Iraq's public sector and use terrorism against Cuba), where without a doubt inpoverished mothers use them to hunt, learn about freedom and defend their daughters from gang-raping bands of grown men armed with these very same guns, in larger numbers. Because guns automatically do that everywhere all the time, and limiting these exports will harm gun consumers inside the US, without a doubt. I also am pro-2nd amendment, and I think that the US has no business in the UN. G'wan, git.