Shouldn't look in the mirror when you blame others. Might get ugly that way. Goes both ways.

This, 100%. Anyone of these nations having a go at the other for human rights abuses is like the pot calling the kettle back.

LOL, that's funny and... weak.

Weak in terms of propagandistic effect obviously. If you don't have powerful and  (so to speak)  trusted ideology at hand, your words just would fall on deaf ears (and this was like which report issued by MID? second, or third? why now all of a sudden?). And since Russia doesn't have ideology not on govermental, not on social levels it's just pointless (of course, borrowing someone's other ideology is better than nothing though). US on the other hand have ideology on both levels though it has decreased tremendously on social level, while increased on govermental, still American society very much ideologized, what clueless "the great leader Kim Il-sung" pretty much proves by taking it seriously.

HRW to the rescue! Measure me human rights!

//Let's make this rhetorics old-fashined style (recent quote from Alexander "Bat'ka" Lukashenko aimed at Brits mainly):

"I question you: why you, stronghold of democracy, bombed Iraq? Why? Why you've killed thousands of innocent people? Children have died there! What was their fault? What was Iraq's fault? What democracy you brought there? Almost a million of civilians was killed in there! (it's worse than in Holocaust, lol, numbers are raising rather fast - mai). What for? Just to execute Hussein there? When such special Britain, special in democracy kind of way (literal translation, no idea what he meant here - mai), makes even a single mistake in Iraq - what democracy (you're speaking of)? You are imperialists, that's how you used to be called, nothing has changed, still an imperialists. You are just barbarians! How in the modern world, using airforce, so cowardly?! You're cowards! You, knowing that nor Lybia, nor Hussein don't have weapons to smash your bombers?.. That's terrible! And Afghanistan! We'll exclude that too? And Libya (hmm, that's second time he said Lybia - mai)? You bomb eveywhere!" :D

I tried to preserve style.

I could have said it better, but he's not the brightest person on earth, so that's excusable :D But why me? There's always American patriots, who do it better. No one hates Washington more than they are.

From my collection of propagandistic posters. I like this one very much.

"Human rights" is witten on the glove.

That's what everyone believes about China in America, it seems.  However, that's not true.  

I wonder if we can't cut the bullshit in this discussion right now. The prisoners that the United States holds down in Guantanamo Bay to the best of our knowledge are terrorists. They have chosen to engage in a war without any kind of state backing, and have conducted themselves in a way that is contrary to the laws of civilized warfare. No soldier is permitted to wear civilian dress, and hide within a civilian population. We have a word for that, and they are called spies, and yes under the Geneva Conventions they have no rights. If a nation captures a spy it has a right to execute them without trial, and technically speaking that nation has every right to torture them as much as they want.

If you want to be even more technical about it, or anal about it as the case may be. Terrorists are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. They don't have a legal right to the protections that document affords. Just as they are not obligated to conduct themselves in accordance with them. Which they themselves actively refuse to do. You cannot actively deny something, and hide behind something at the same time. Until they get the sanction of a state. Which cannot only take responsibility but resolve a war. They have no way to be released. They cannot surrender, and obey orders to cease hostilities. Releasing them is just the same as arming them, and putting them back on the battlefield.

The United States has no affirmative obligation to these people. Not that these people have any regard for the way civilized human beings conduct themselves anyway. So they probably don't even appreciate the fact that the United States is actually pretty fair with them given what they have done. From all we have heard these people may have been scared, shamed, or irritated. They haven't however been killed, physically harmed, or in fact been driven to madness. They belong in those cages, because they are dangerous animals.

As for drone strikes, and collateral civilian casualties. Once again the United States isn't hiding active soldiers in the middle of apartment complexes. I hear a lot of bitching, but no real solutions for how to root out people that are actively attacking Americans. Well any ideas beyond surgical strikes. I suppose you want what armed soldiers risking their valuable lives for a person who ain't worth shit. Who are often being shielded by people who know what they are, but either don't care, or fully support what they are doing. I am sorry, but the United States has tried time and again to not have to use drones.

They have tried to use the Pakistani intelligence services which is full of traitors. Who warn the terrorists that they are coming. The United States has handed out fliers. Offered rewards for information. Hell just about everything short of dropping bombs from the stratosphere. Guess what the bombs are the only things that seem to actually work. All I get from complaints about civilian casualties is a desire to surrender.

That all said I am most disturbed by the nihilism on display in this thread. How the United States treats terrorists who murder, cheat, and use children as shields. Is in no way comparable to a state that jails women for singing a song in a church asking for god to kill a petty tyrant. If you can't see the distinction between those two things then you are completely and utterly fucking lost.

^Wow, that's some meltdown over there :D

- Mr. Bortnikov, report. Our recent service A operation was successful.
- Results?
- Dodece went bonkers.
- Good, just as planned.

Relax.

americans need to go out to see the world more instead of listening to the media. we are taught to hate certain countries and political ideologies.

I agree that most of the activities the US is wrong IMO in regards to human rights, but we never get to really see first hand how it is in other places of the wold. most of the people in this country only believe all the Media wants to tell them, even then most Americans don't even see news reports from around the world and only can figure what the hear third hand from friends because that is the only war that a story is presented. By that point the argument for the story is tainted by two points of view. so that the believed perception of the action from the MEDIA is tainted by what the personal bias is for that part of the world. So i believe that there are probably nicer places to live when you think that the US, in regards to our actions in other places of the world, have better Human Rights records, I mean we have been in some type of conflict in most of the years i can remember. (I'm 19) which is sorta ridiculous. Yes there are organizations that hate our country, but if another country occupies your country, you're not going to like it when they restrict freedom or oppress, I mean we did it to Britain. I think when kids grow up in situations where they have another power in their country occupying it,and see their people plights, we can easily be seen as the enemy, so Human Rights wise, we treat ours nicely but the Places our country is occupying have been vilified to a point where we don't treat those people equally with the same rights our citizens enjoy, that is unacceptable.

If we are to Champion Human Rights around the world, we should treat everyone in the world equally, which is a position a leader should take if we shall lead the world in the right direction.

How is it in China with human rights then? do tell!

I know that section from Lukashenko you shared is aim at Britain (my country), but it is really all America that wanted war in Iraq. It's just my government at the time were so spineless, that they followed the USA there, despite MILLIONS of us not wanting to go to war! We are just a puppet state of the USA now, when it comes to foreign policy it seems! Iraq was a pointless war really that achieved nothing more than the deaths of hundreds of thousands (not quite at the holocaust level yet lol), nothing has changed there as terrorist bombing still happen there, killing saddam hussein probably did worse than good. We in the west need to just stop intervening, none of these countries pose a threat to us at all. The last countries that ever did pose a threat were Germany and Japan back in world war 2, ever war since then was not necessary. But he has a fair point, about the way the west does things and how they are not necessarily right.

But back to the topic, how do we define human rights anyway? How America define them, is probably different to that of Russia or China. All i know, is they seem to exist in most countries, but they are just not official acts that were passed in government.

Finally, nice soviet poster :)