U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly.

or maybe the problems today's society faces is caused and perpetuated by our synthetic need for agriculture and pastoralism, and if we really want to have any chance of solving it we need to start figuring out some other alternative.

and perhaps it's just a fact of life that we aren't suppose to have 6.7 billion people on the planet?
 
Every country in the UN will say whatever they think is morally right, but the US is the only country who ever does anything. We are a little tied up with the world hating us for Iraq, and when we tried to help the starving in Somalia we caught a bunch of shit for that. The world wants us to help, but only when it's convenient. Maybe Canada should take this one?
 
Synthetic need for agriculture? What do you suggest? Killing off 6 or so billion people in order to revert back to the population that was able to be sustained 10 thousand years ago? The worlds dependence on agriculture is most certainly not synthetic.
 
the current situation is completely synthetic -- man made-- what else would it be? natural?

we don't have to kill off anyone it's something that's just going to happen if we don't change our pace. But you're right it's unfeasible to resort back to a hunter gather society. i'm sure if we sat down and thought hard enough about it, we probably could figure out a way to create some sort of sustainable existence without having food as a commodity/having to play god.

 
i Mean that the world could only support 500 million to 1.5 billion people living like Americans/ Western Europeans.

Im not sure how they calculated it, but at the End of BBCs Planet Earth, they have interviews with 4 or 5 biologists, and they all produce numbers in that range.

 
Maybe it would be prudent to include more information than just the title of a bill and the list of countries who signed it. Moreover, it might also be interesting to examine the volume of food aid provided by the United States in conjunction with the primary source of funds for the UN's aid programs.
 
Quality of aid, not quantity. Sure the US might give the most, but if its ineffective then they are no better then anyone else. Throwing lots of money at a problem isn't the way to fix everything...Sure the U.S. gives money aid out the ass but have you seen the strings that are usually attached to it? They basically force these countries to buy food from the U.S. argibuisness/global market at a higher price when these countries could grow it themselves for much cheaper.

The US forces everyone to play their food system pyramid scheme instead of letting them work on their own accord and its pathetic.
 
If scavenging for food for humans was still a viable choice then why do people generally starve when they cannot access farmed food or animals large enough to hunt? It is because scavenging alone cannot not possibly feed the massive human populations in countries like Nigeria or Bangladesh, the natural resources simply aren't there.

sloths can rely on scavaging because there are not 7 billion of them and their diet is much smaller than that of a humans, their food supplies are also much more plenty full in their environment.
 
It's not the reds, it is fascism from the right (Bush and the Neo Cons) and socialism/marxism on the left, both are forms of totalitarianism that I would like to avoid if at all possible.
 
The UN is basically a legislative body that represents the interest of the globe through representation of all the nations/governing bodies. So basically it is like the united states under the articles of confederation, which was our gov. minus judicial and executive branches. The UN can pass all of the resolutions that it wants, just like we passed a bunch of laws, but we had to create an executive branch to enforce these laws. the international court of justice is the judicial arm of the UN...but we need an executive arm that will ensure that sanctions/ resolutions are actually carried out.
 
wait wait wait..i live in australia, does this mean that if my government does not provide me with food to eat...then i can sue them?

I'd guess i'd ahve the UNs backing if my country didn't...oh and this is hypothetically speaking, not saying i would becasue i can feed myself and all lol
 
Exactly.

Put your money where your mouth is, I'm sure you won't be returning that new G-Suit or those new skis you just got even though the money could feed someone in a very poor nation for a year. Technically, you don't need any of your ski equipment or season pass, since buying those things is infringing upon others' "right" to eat.

The government of India provides its people with the "right to eat". I rest my case.
 
So the US does more than any other country but they do it very poorly. Okay, that I'd believe. You won't have to worry about it too much longer, the messiah is coming. Moreover, in the long term you're going to see a serious pull back in US policy, first through revocation of military deployment, and not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm speaking of a much larger withdrawal concerning the 130 countries in which the US military is currently deployed. Foreign aid will go the same way as the American monolith falls into multipolarity and the American people face the freight train of Entitlements debt. Hey, it looks like Canada is rising--enjoying big profits from oil production--have fun at the head of the class, I'm sure you'll do a better job.
 
hey assfuck. did it ever occur to you that i MIGHT actually do something? before you go running your mouth off, maybe think about that. now the problem is, the majority of people are greedy motherfuckers (see yourself, and several other people in this thread) who dont do jack shit. im not saying everyone needs to throw away everything, but if EVERYONE who could did something, it would make a huge difference.
 
no. YOU are the one that thinks that they have a right to eat. you are denying them that right because you would rather ski. no if, ands, or buts, i don't agree with you.
 
uh oh... did i back you into a corner? you run into trouble when you say it is their RIGHT to eat. That, if you really believe it, should come before your skiing. there's a book that dives into this conundrum you are in,its called cosmopolitanism.
 
it is there right to eat. nowhere did i say that i was single handedly going to support that right to eat. or that anyone was.
 
im not being a prick. your totally missing the point. saying that people have a right to something doesnt mean that others have to throw everything away for it. but your to goddamn narrow minded to see that.
 
Hhahahaha i wish Quinny was here..would turn into another funny thread like the Dubai one as it's seeming to right now ahahaha

 
This is retarded. You don't have a right to food. And everyone who hates on the actions that America and the American government make, you most likely aren't much better morally than the govt. You probably sit around and think about yourself and what is gonna make you happy and what you want.
 
while everyone is blaming the US for having inadequate food drops, low donation percentages, etc., people gotta realize that these are partially to blame for the growing population problem in many third world countries. Malthusian theory states that population grows geometrically ( 1, 2, 4, 8,....) while food sources grow arithmetically ( 1,2,3,4,....). Now in an area without many resources, a population will eventually settle upon a birth / death rate that can support those living. However wen we fly our little planes in there and suddenly increase the food sources, the birth rate skyrockets, while the death rate doesn't have time to react accordingly. So in essence the second we stop dropping that level of food, overpopulation leads to starvation in an effort for the death rate to equal birth rate, once again leveling off the population.

if you really want to do some research on the matter look into thomas malthus, and for an opposing view on the matter, william godwin.
 
Draft resolution I on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, approved as orally revised by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 54 abstentions, on 18 November, would have the Assembly express deep concern about the glorification of the Nazi movement and former members of the Waffen SS, including by erecting monuments and memorials and holding public demonstrations in the name of the glorification of the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and neo-Nazism, as well as by declaring or attempting to declare such members and those who collaborated with the Nazi movement as participants of national liberation movements. In turn, it would express concern at attempts to desecrate or demolish monuments erected in remembrance of those who fought against Nazism during the Second World War, as well as to unlawfully exhume or remove the remains of such persons. It would emphasize the need to take measures to end those practices, and reaffirm that States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination were obliged -- among other things -- to declare as a punishable offence the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred.
US for not destroying racism. WTF? Compared to the entire world the US is making me sick. I am moving to Canada americas little bitch to the north. Like the US but not as gay.
 
ns1ty4.jpg

 
first of all, quality, not quantity. second you act like the somalian people deserved to be starving. Aidid (didnt spell that right) was a fucked up dude. starving most of the population
 
The world bank has no military, or rescue workers etc. So it can't donate what it doesn't have. It can only donate money. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuh. So not really sure why you even highlight that they didn't donate military etc..

About somalia, they tried but failed. And somalia is still a lawless place today. They also chose not to go into Rwanda and stop the genocide there because of their failure in Somalia (not saying it's their duty to, but you're making it out as if USA keeps Africa safe at night). Clinton says that not going into Rwanda was his biggest regret.

So get off your high horse please.

 
Would you shut the fuck up with this 'quality not quantity' bullshit. I think feeding 100 people shitty meals is better than feeding 1 person a good meal. Quality or quantity? Quantity wins in this situation.
 
it has nothing to do with the quality of meals dipshit. it has to do with the way the aid is administered, what its spent on, how its delivered etc.
 
you completely misinterpreted what i said. What i meant to show was that America does in fact try to protect and feed the poor and impoverished of other countries, far more than all other countries, probably more than all other countries combined. If you think about the situation in rwanda, think about how big of a pussy the UN was. Also the American redcross is THE red cross. That's not a coincidence as the American redcross donates more than any other agency.

Also my point about the world bank is just that: america not only provides more money than any other nation, in most cases they are the only ones providing any sort of real man power. Nearly half of all navy operations these days are peacekeeping.

You also have to consider all the opponents of "peace keeping." With all the actions the CIA has been involved in, it seems these days most people are opposed to "peace keeping" as it usually only further stirs violence, creates coups, and divides or "builds" nations.

Our vote against world hunger was more of a statement about the hypocrisy, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness of the UN and not that we dont care about the starving.

Global politics is something NONE of you understand so dont be so quick to judge the statements america make on foreign policy.
 
exactly! who do you think provides the best aid?

A private organization like the American red cross, that specializes in aid and philanthropy, plus the addition of the United States Department of the Navy, National Guard, and Coast Guard

versus

A communist, corrupt, or pussy country, (or even worse, a conglemorate of countries with every one vying for oversight ) with little to no experience in distributing aid or implementing infrastructure, directly handing funds to local "relief agencies" (aka mohamed ferrah aidid) and then being too "neutral" (aka pussy) to remain physically in the country requiring aid to see that the food or money gets distributed effectively?

Im pretty sure the USA is still the best here...
 
USA does not give the most foreign aid.

You cannot compare absolute numbers. That would not be fair to smaller, poorer countries. You compare

Development assistance / capita and USA is not the best when it comes to those numbers.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_tar_of_for_aid-economy-targeting-of-foreign-aid
http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_USA.html '

Anywho, USA does a lot of good things in different parts of the world and besides economic aid they act, when the UN is not. Though they too often seem to have an own agenda with economic interests at heart.
 
i knew someone would bring up the per capita issue. You must compare absolute before per capita because per capita in this situation is extremely misleading. You have to factor in everything else the USA does like military and economical operations. You have to consider that the USA is a democracy and it is hard to overcome collective action to assign money to humanitarian aid. You have to consider that the USA often reinvests its own surpluses in order to make advances like going to the moon, setting up the worlds GPS, inventing lasers and the internet, etc and doesnt have a surplus to donate to.

On the other hand, a country such as those in Scandinavia, do nothing for the world, they dont invent the internet, GPS, or space travel, sit tight in their tiny countries with low populations and small geographic span, and can accrue a large surplus perfect for donating. At the same time, due to their low population, their per capita numbers are skewed.
 
Scandinavian countries have offered so much to this world. Nokia is a Finnish company which is a leader in cellular technology. So many shipping companies are based in Scandinavia because of those countries knowledge and love of the seas, and there is such a surplus of experienced Norwegian that guide many of the worlds ships.

Germans first invented the rocket which enabled space travel not the USA (though many german rocket scientists defected here during WWII) and the Russians played just as an important role is early space flight as the US did.

The US doesn't donate as much per capita because this country is not as rich and well off as it seems, there are numerous domestic social issues that require our charity not all Americans live in McMansions many are poor or working class who are living in debt. They can't to donate money to other people in other countries because they're not even sure if they will be able to feed their families (though many of the working class in America give to charities). Rich people in America are greedy but they do donate millions to charity all the time and much of the worlds foreign aid does come from upper middle class and rich Americans through both charitable giving and through taxes paid to the Federal Government (ie army, state department, navy).

You are such a dick though jumister and I give you bad karma all the time for making conservatism seem like it sucks.
 
yes? but did nokia invent the cell phone? no! The first wireless phone was patented in 1908 in where? oh yeah! THE USA!

also we invented the air plane which grew the need for rockets. AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG ABOUT THE MODERN ROCKET.

The first modern rocket, with combustible fuel and a de Laval nozzle was launched in auburn, massachusetts, USA.

Youre thinking of the v2 rocket which is almost no different from the goddard rocket. Before goddard built his rocket, the effieciency of a rocket was 2%. Goddards was 64% efficient.

and im sorry i didnt want to make it sound like scandanavian countries are shit and worhtless but you seemed to imply they were somehow superior to the USA which is simply false.

Let me just list some of the inventions you cant live without that were invented in the USA:

the light bulb

the alternating current

the airplane

the assembly line

the GPS sattelite

the modern supersonic jet engine

the internet

radar

lasers

google

facebook

youtube

 
Eeeh what?

What are you getting at?

"Country such as those in Scandinavia do nothing for the world"

What does that even mean? Are we comparing inventions now since USA "failed" to be the best in the What-country-donates-most-money-per-capita-comptetition?

The countries in Scandinavia, along with most other countries of the world, all contribute. Which country that has contributed the most/capita is extremely hard to say.

"You have to consider that the USA is a democracy and it is hard to overcome collective action to assign money to humanitarian aid."

Aah, USA is a democracy. That explains everything. Or not.

FYI: All the countries of Scandinavia along with the majority of the european countries and Australia + more. are democracies.

"sit tight in their tiny countries with low populations and small geographic span, and can accrue a large surplus perfect for donating. At the same time, due to their low population, their per capita numbers are skewed."

This just proves that you dont understand how things are and that you are probably not older than 13.

This is no USA bashing. I am just trying to point out the stupidity and off topic argumnets of a immature post.

 
SO WHY DONT YOU THINK OF A WAY TO FIX IT INSTEAD OF BITCHING AT EVERYONE ON NS ABOUT BEING GREEDY!!!! seriously, think of something, and then forget about it because its not going to fucking happpen!!! this is such a pointless argument because nothing is going to fucking change.

 
Not their votes...their vetoes. Big key difference there. Everyone on the security council has equal voting however Great Britain, Russia, China, France, and the US can veto whatever the hell they want for bill or resolution.

 
i just wanted to correct some stuff here...

we did not invent the airplane. We were the first to achieve motorized flight, europeans did pretty much all the research leading up to it. And i don't recall correctly, but i remember reading that an austrian man may have actually built/flown a better aircraft before the wrights, but didn't think it was a big deal.

Goddard did launch a rocket in MA...but thats about the US's sole rocketry success. When asked, i honestly believe that no russian or american would have been in space without a german showing him how to get there. The nazi's would have done incredible things for space travel i think. And easily would have had a man in orbit by the early to mid 50s at the rate they advanced. In fact, Nixon actually took the german enginer von braun out of power essentially destroying nasa. I also have no doubt that had he left von braun in charge, we'd either have been, or be much closer to mars.

And i'm not sure about your comparison of the goddard rocket and the v-2. Seeing to it as the only truly significant rocket he made was a tiny but liquid fueled rocket. The v-2 was meant to be mass produced, and intended to hit a target. (though the germans did also have a space rocket in mind secretly when building it.

And the United State's first rocket (built alone...no germans) was Vanguard...which on worldwide television...blew up on the launchpad and collapsed.

oh, and by the way...radar was really made by the French, and first used by the english
 
V I think you made some really good points. Not to "call" you out or anything, but you said the UN was the biggest piece of shit or something. Then you said something about it has done a good job of preventing and helping genocide.

The UN deserves its fair share of critique, that is quite apparent in modern times. Pointing fingers is always easier than finding solutions. However the UN has undergone some major changes in ideological missions and soon may just have a structural change for the better.

On a good note, the UN was pretty much the sole reason Cambodia is nothing like the blood ridden country it was when the Khmer Rouge were around. However, the UN really fucked up in the Balkan peninsula and turned a bit of a blind eye to Rwanda (as already stated).

One of the major problems of the UN is that it simply relies on donations. These are "suggested" donations, meaning if your country doesn't donate enough, you aren't in. The financial structure of the UN needs to be changed. It needs to have a bit of capitalism in it and perpetuate some of its own funding. Without this, there will always be puppeteers behind the scenes. Organization is also fucked. They can never decide what weapons to use and what language to take out military operations in.

Back to the related topic...What happens in the UN sometimes is when one country doesn't get a resolution passed, they become very bitter. You guys have to understand politics to know why the US vetoed the resolution. I haven't read the listing of minutes yet, but countries will vote against something like this sometimes out of pure spite. Sad, yes I know, but all countries will do it at some point (not to the degree of voting against food). Geo-politics will really mess up any sort of "international government" that ever exists.
 
the world bank's president is appointed by the american president. essentially the world bank is an american government organization. americans make up 16% of the world bank board and we hold veto power over any decisions made.

during the 2004 tsunami the world bank gave money on the condition that infrastructure contracts were given to american companies. there were many strings attached when that relief money came and in the end the world bank and constructing/engineering firms such as bechtel corp., parsons corp., kellogs brown & root inc. its just profiteering off of human misery.

if you think the united states and the world bank handed over that money with no strings then you're truly naive.
 
so what if we get a little out of it? then its a win win situation. Why have some other company make the food then the companies located in the country the money is coming from? sounds fair to me...

 
because its not good for local businesses, just a thought? doesn't properly stimulate the economy after a disaster. another thought. i guess you are naive.
 
America tries to protect and feed the poor and impoverished nations as long as its in their interests. And don't try to feed me some BS that that's not true. They have put dictators and totalitarian governments into so many nations which have led to the starvation of many, many people. America is hardly a humanitarian nation. It's people, may be. But this is about the government. So charities and so forth don't even come to question here. After all, we're discussing government donations and not individual donations are we not?

The reason people so oppose American peace intervention is because they fuck it up almost everytime and end up killing civilians. But then again the U.N. peacekeepers just rape children so neither is better.

Also, remember how I said to get off your high horse? How can you say that none of us understand global politics when you don't even understand the Somalia issue. Fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top