Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Ah, so you mean the non binding thing that means nothing and makes nothing.
Thats rather different to signing up to something that makes criticism of religion a civil rights violation isn't it.
|
Everything at the UN is non-binding (or effectively non-binding since the only way to enforce is to threaten). They are useless. So "binding" is meaningless. If we ever signed a binding agreement, who would enforce it? Go ahead, invade and try (that applies equally to any country, BTW, the only real enforcement requires the credible threat of being ended as a country (have UN sanctions ever worked? What % of the time?).
What the administration did there was to send a message. THAT is what the UN is really about. Signing on to even a non-binding resolution that harms free expression in the name of appeasing islamic sensibilities (that's what this resolution was really about, and has been about every time it has been done) sends a message that the US is now soft on freedom of expression (at least this admin is).
Sends the wrong message, which is exactly what I meant, and care about WRT the UN.