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

After the vote, the US representative said he was unable to support the text because he believed "the attainment of the right to adequate food was a goal that should be realized progressively." He said that the draft contained "inaccurate textual descriptions of underlying rights."

I'm don't see why he didn't bring this up before the vote, but I can at least see where he's coming from. Basically, his vote was a statement saying, "Since we're the country that will be donating the most food, let's at least be realistic about this and not expect to end hunger immediately."

The fact of the matter is that everybody agrees that starvation is bad, but countries like Uganda simply cannot afford to feed all their citizens. The burden then falls to other countries to stop this "rights violation," and suddenly Uganda's right to food becomes primarily the US's problem to supply food.

There are a lot of countries like Uganda that would need a lot of money from the US. The US is already the vast leader in relief work and donations (regardless of quality vs quantity), so I think it's unreasonable to demand more taxpayer money if there are indeed major inaccuracy issues in the bill.

I feel like inaccuracies in the bill should've been brought up before the vote, but I suppose the UN's power is so limited that none of this really matters anyway.
 
You don't know what jack shit about "global politics" you just assume you do because you've had some classes on it at Syracuse or whatever uni you go to.

Or shit maybe you're even a political science major or something ohhh wow.

I am three years into a degree in International Politics and Economics that covers international relations, foreign policy, international business, economics, and "global politics"

so yeah none of us know anything about "global politics"
 
omg go fuck yourself college boy, "you don't know jack shit just because you took classes, I took them too and I do know"

Once you graduate and realize a vast majority of people you encounter have an undergrad degree we'll see how quick you are to brag.
 
i had a roommate who was an international relations major. he loved the UN like it was the greatest thing ever. i began taking political science courses so i could figure out where all this crap he was coming up with came from. i soon found that most poli sci majors made vast assumptions that left out humanity's constant downfall of greed. and also anyone with a slight knowledge of world history or geography could argue most of them into the ground. i swear just a slight knowledge of the colonial background of a country or something about its natural resources would stop them in their tracks. i had so much fun in taking these classes i got a degree in it. i didn't learn much, just more about the type of people that pursue political careers.

i'm not saying anything about you, just that most poli sci kids lacked "common knowledge" about world history, geography, and science. and any that did were light years ahead of the others.
 
america is so fucking cool, what a rebel badass country. it's like that kid in the class who is always screaming for attention by flicking spitballs at the teacher and saying "fart" during the national anthem.
 
the US voted against the notion of FREE food being a right. Obviously food is a necessity to sustain human life, however having the UN tax or demand funding from countries to pay for food for underprivileged nations is not a right.
 
dude you are completely incapable of making an argument that actually makes sense, i cant even imagine what it must be like being in your head
 
The UN is shit because they have no balls. its not the US's fault for what happened in Rwanda its the UN's for having no sack to stop the genocide which they are obligated to do. Ever problem in the world is not the US's fault. The UN did not stop the violence in the war for Croatian independence and that was not the US's fault either. the US giving up more power would never help any problems like that because even if the US gave up it's power the UN would still be useless.
 
well, the u.s. show these balls and whats the result?

its justa question of how fast can you answer with violence and spend money of poweful member states for a "meaningless" conflict somewhere. the lobbyism in the un is killing the organization not it "havig no balls".

and like rowen said, the us not supporting the un as a very powerful country is destroying most possibilities for it. if we learned something in the past then its that going alone in world politics is not doing anything positive for anyone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top