• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

United States dilutes UN rape-in-war resolution

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
68,960
Reaction score
22,530
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the BBC

United States dilutes UN rape-in-war resolution

The Trump administration's opposition to abortion has led to the watering-down of a UN resolution on ending sexual violence in war.

The US removed all references to sexual and reproductive health.

The Security Council resolution, submitted by Germany, dropped all such references. The US, along with China and Russia, had threatened to veto it.

The Trump administration opposed a phrase on the grounds that it implies support for abortion.

COMMENT:-

Isn't it nice to see the US lining up with those progressive states that have such an enviable record with respect to human rights as China and Russia?
 
From the BBC

United States dilutes UN rape-in-war resolution

The Trump administration's opposition to abortion has led to the watering-down of a UN resolution on ending sexual violence in war.

The US removed all references to sexual and reproductive health.

The Security Council resolution, submitted by Germany, dropped all such references. The US, along with China and Russia, had threatened to veto it.

The Trump administration opposed a phrase on the grounds that it implies support for abortion.

COMMENT:-

Isn't it nice to see the US lining up with those progressive states that have such an enviable record with respect to human rights as China and Russia?

If the USA can't stand united with Russia and China on human rights, who can they stand united with?

(Never mind, that was a rhetorical question. :) )

Every day Trump does just a little bit more to make the USA an international pariah. Putin must be lovin' it.
 
Not sure which is worse... Trump injecting domestic views on "reproductive health" (i.e. abortion) onto the international stage, or us actually thinking a "UN Resolution" does all that much.
 
Not sure which is worse... Trump injecting domestic views on "reproductive health" (i.e. abortion) onto the international stage, or us actually thinking a "UN Resolution" does all that much.

Good point.

Of course, since it isn't likely that any views expressed by either the Republicans ("The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party"0 or the Democrats ("The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party") will every find sufficient support to win the next election we should all stop expressing them because the ONLY thing that counts is "gaining power" and moral or ethical positions outside of those approved by the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party should never be expressed.
 
To be fair, UN resolutions really dont mean much unless they are used as justification for armed intervention by either the US or a regional superpower. Thats the only time they ever come into play.
 
Good point.

Of course, since it isn't likely that any views expressed by either the Republicans ("The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party"0 or the Democrats ("The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party") will every find sufficient support to win the next election we should all stop expressing them because the ONLY thing that counts is "gaining power" and moral or ethical positions outside of those approved by the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party should never be expressed.

I honestly am unsure at this point.

It may be a simple as political pandering to their base to simply reject all things that get close to condoning abortion no matter where it may occur, and/or opposing anything that seems supportive of the UN given their general attitude on Israel.

Either way the ultimate concern I have is UN effectiveness, and I question the political motivations of that bureaucracy of squabbling idiots just as much as our own Congress.

Oligarchical capitalism is a concern when it comes to the UN and the US seemingly diluting a UN initiative on addressing the prevalence of rape during war and often times resulting in children that no one seems to care about once they are born. Moral and ethical motivations is what seem diluted anyway when it comes to all things the UN handles these days despite the hype, US position on those matters for their own motivations notwithstanding.
 
To be fair, UN resolutions really dont mean much unless they are used as justification for armed intervention by either the US or a regional superpower. Thats the only time they ever come into play.

And even then the UN Security Council has several nations, almost entirely on their own, that can squash the measure for armed intervention.

The UN really has become a completely worthless organization.
 
French UN ambassador Francois Delattre was scathing of the decision to exclude the reference to sexual health, saying it undermined the dignity of women.
"It is intolerable and incomprehensible that the Security Council is incapable of acknowledging that women and girls who suffered from sexual violence in conflict, and who obviously didn't choose to become pregnant, should have the right to terminate their pregnancy," he said.

Sounds like they're trying to bilk other countries into paying for a ****load of abortions.

And we all know who would wind up paying most of the bill: The United States.
 
Sounds like they're trying to bilk other countries into paying for a ****load of abortions.

And we all know who would wind up paying most of the bill: The United States.
Cool dude, so you are for rape and child abuse... Good to know.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
 
Cool dude, so you are for rape and child abuse... Good to know.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

Your country is on the list of freeloaders that don't pay their NATO bill.
 
Your country is on the list of freeloaders that don't pay their NATO bill.

And your president is the clown who thinks it's alright to deny coverage for rape victims when it comes to abortion.

Sickening, and by comparison, your side looks way worse.
 
And your president is the clown who thinks it's alright to deny coverage for rape victims when it comes to abortion.

Sickening, and by comparison, your side looks way worse.

Irrelevant.
 
Sounds like they're trying to bilk other countries into paying for a ****load of abortions.

And we all know who would wind up paying most of the bill: The United States.

I'm so glad to see that you approve of "combat rapes". After all, we all know that you believe that they really are all the women's fault and so the women should be punished for making the choice to allow themselves to be raped.
 
Your country is on the list of freeloaders that don't pay their NATO bill.

And what bill would that be?

Please provide verifiable, third party, statistics on the percentage of GDP per capita that the US spends on defending NATO interests in Europe in comparison with the percentage of GDP per capita that the other NATO members spend on defending NATO interests in Europe.

PLEASE NOTE that amounts that the US spends on defending non-NATO interests in Europe does not count.

PLEASE NOTE that "a speech by Donald Trump does not count as "verifiable, third party, statistics" and neither does a "Tweet".
 
I'm so glad to see that you approve of "combat rapes". After all, we all know that you believe that they really are all the women's fault and so the women should be punished for making the choice to allow themselves to be raped.

This resolution isn't going to prevent rapes. This is about providing abortions to the victims. Did you even read the source?

Most of those rapes are probably committed by UN forces, anyway. :lamo

Child sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers - Wikipedia
 
And what bill would that be?

Please provide verifiable, third party, statistics on the percentage of GDP per capita that the US spends on defending NATO interests in Europe in comparison with the percentage of GDP per capita that the other NATO members spend on defending NATO interests in Europe.

PLEASE NOTE that amounts that the US spends on defending non-NATO interests in Europe does not count.

PLEASE NOTE that "a speech by Donald Trump does not count as "verifiable, third party, statistics" and neither does a "Tweet".

Oh I can't wait to see his proof.
 
And what bill would that be?

Please provide verifiable, third party, statistics on the percentage of GDP per capita that the US spends on defending NATO interests in Europe in comparison with the percentage of GDP per capita that the other NATO members spend on defending NATO interests in Europe.

PLEASE NOTE that amounts that the US spends on defending non-NATO interests in Europe does not count.

PLEASE NOTE that "a speech by Donald Trump does not count as "verifiable, third party, statistics" and neither does a "Tweet".

In 2017, the U.S. accounted for 51.1 percent of NATO's combined GDP and 71.7 percent of its combined defense expenditure. In short, the U.S. contributed more funds to NATO than Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Canada combined.

How much NATO allies spent on defense in 2017

Your country needs to tighten up. :lamo
 
Your country is on the list of freeloaders that don't pay their NATO bill.

LOL we pay what we are suppose too at this time. Now you can call us a freeloader if we have not increased our contribution when the deadline hits in 4 years, but for now we are meeting our obligations. Now of course you listen only to your dear leader and his Russian mafia handlers.
 
In 2017, the U.S. accounted for 51.1 percent of NATO's combined GDP and 71.7 percent of its combined defense expenditure. In short, the U.S. contributed more funds to NATO than Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Canada combined.

How much NATO allies spent on defense in 2017

Your country needs to tighten up. :lamo

And how much of the US spending goes to NATO related stuff? A very small part.
 
And how much of the US spending goes to NATO related stuff? A very small part.

I just told you.

When is Denmark going to start pulling her weight?
 
LOL we pay what we are suppose too at this time. Now you can call us a freeloader if we have not increased our contribution when the deadline hits in 4 years, but for now we are meeting our obligations. Now of course you listen only to your dear leader and his Russian mafia handlers.

No, Denmark pays a little more than half what of what she's supposed to pay.
 
This resolution isn't going to prevent rapes. This is about providing abortions to the victims. Did you even read the source?

Did you happen to notice that the word "abortion" does not appear even once in the resolution.

Most of those rapes are probably committed by UN forces, anyway. :lamo

Child sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers - Wikipedia

Since no one is arguing that SOME of the cases of rape have NOT been committed by UN forces, would you please provide the statistics (the availability immediately to your hand I have zero doubt on) that shows the percentages so that we can all see what your definition of the word "most" is.

Of course, should you NOT provide statistics that prove that at least 50%+1 of the relevant cases of rape were committed by UN personnel then shall be forced to conclude that your statement is likely to be "culus extraxerunt tuae" and deal with it accordingly. Should you not provide any actual data whatsoever, then I will, most reluctantly, be forced to conclude that your statement is "quod culus tibi quam e solito".
 
Did you happen to notice that the word "abortion" does not appear even once in the resolution.



Since no one is arguing that SOME of the cases of rape have NOT been committed by UN forces, would you please provide the statistics (the availability immediately to your hand I have zero doubt on) that shows the percentages so that we can all see what your definition of the word "most" is.

Of course, should you NOT provide statistics that prove that at least 50%+1 of the relevant cases of rape were committed by UN personnel then shall be forced to conclude that your statement is likely to be "culus extraxerunt tuae" and deal with it accordingly. Should you not provide any actual data whatsoever, then I will, most reluctantly, be forced to conclude that your statement is "quod culus tibi quam e solito".

Not now, you're right.
 
In 2017, the U.S. accounted for 51.1 percent of NATO's combined GDP and 71.7 percent of its combined defense expenditure.

No one is disputing either of those.

Now, what percentage of the US defence spending went towards NATO defence spending in Europe - which is what you were asked for?

As a hint, since very few defence battles in Europe will utilize Aircraft Carriers, the amount of spending on procuring, operating, and maintaining American aircraft carriers does not count towards NATO defence spending in Europe.

As another example, since no defence battles in Europe are likely to take place in Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Baden, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nassau, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea (South Korea), Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, The Bahamas, The Cayman Islands, The Gambia, The Solomon Islands, The United Arab Emirates, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, or Zimbabwe the portion of the US defence budget that goes towards expenses in those countries doesn't count either.

In short, the U.S. contributed more funds to NATO than Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Canada combined.[/i]

Two minor points with respect to that "answer":

  1. it doesn't actually address the actual question that was actually asked (but you knew that, didn't you), and
  2. it's false.

How much NATO allies spent on defense in 2017

Your country needs to tighten up. :lamo

You might want to note that approximately 22% of the US defence expenditure goes towards NATO and that approximately 95% of Canada's defence expenditure goes towards NATO.

That means that the US spending on NATO is roughly (US$2,325 x 0.22) $511.50 per capita and that Canada's spending on NATO is roughly (US$548 x 0.95) $520.60 per capita. If one were to "normalize" those numbers to take into account the difference in GDP per capita (US GDP/capita = US$59,500 - Canada US$48,300 [figures from the CIA Fact Book]) that would mean that the relative index numbers would be (511.5 x 48.3) 24,705.45 for the US and (520.6 x 59.5) 30,975.70 for Canada.

That means that, according to ACTUAL contributions adjusted to reflect ACTUAL ability to pay, Canada is contributing roughly (30,975.70 / 24,705.45) 25.38% MORE towards NATO than the US is.

Whose NATO socks need pulling up?

The last time I checked, US$520.60 was MORE than US$511.50, but I don't have the advantage of a Louisiana grade five education like you appear to have so I could well be wrong on that.

Feel free to consult the latest (that's the report on 2017) NATO annual report and get back to me once you decide to actually make an attempt to deal with reality.

PS - I didn't bother to include links to the sources of the data above for four reasons:

  1. You already know where to look;
  2. you wouldn't follow them in any event;
  3. you wouldn't believe the official data from the official sources in any event; and
  4. you already get enough spoon feeding from Mr. Trump, FOX News, Breitbart and WND so I shouldn't contribute to your brain atrophying from lack of use.
 
Back
Top Bottom