(September 18, 2020 at 8:28 am)WinterHold Wrote: Yes. The G20 is in no position to change the culture of any country.
But it is in position to set rules that govern who joins it.

Saudi Arabia should never be allowed to join their meetings before having a clean human rights record.
That -as you see- is not changing of culture: that is enforcing a term for dealing with the kingdom -or any other country-,

You did, right there in the black and white, then quoted yourself. Was that some other asshole posting on your account, or do you have trouble understanding the words that fall from your own mouth?

(September 21, 2020 at 9:54 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(September 18, 2020 at 8:28 am)WinterHold Wrote: Yes. The G20 is in no position to change the culture of any country.
But it is in position to set rules that govern who joins it.

Saudi Arabia should never be allowed to join their meetings before having a clean human rights record.
That -as you see- is not changing of culture: that is enforcing a term for dealing with the kingdom -or any other country-,

You did, right there in the black and white, then quoted yourself.  Was that some other asshole posting on your account, or do you have trouble understanding the words that fall from your own mouth?

Please if you have a problem with what I said earlier -which is the basis of the discussion here-, write your points. This is a [serious] topic, and the OP is quite clear, so as the "elaborations" provided by me which had to be repeated to face your questions.

This isn't a serious thread, it's yet another example of abusing a serious tag.

If you can ever figure out why you insist that the ksa have a clean human rights record as a condition for belonging to a group that doesn't have a clean human rights record itself, you let us know.

(September 22, 2020 at 6:52 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: This isn't a serious thread, it's yet another example of abusing a serious tag.  

If you can ever figure out why you insist that the ksa have a clean human rights record as a condition for belonging to a group that doesn't have a clean human rights record itself, you let us know.

It's not up to you to judge. If you have a problem, report the post.
Second of all, all the g20 countries are not even compared to KSA in terms of human rights ! the Sauds are cutting people in embassies and raping women in prisons without even trying to cover it !

Now you answer me, when did France or the UK have turned their embassies into a slaughter house ?

Such a short memory. Both of those countries fed us gitmo detainees, for starters. Then we have Yemen.

(September 23, 2020 at 3:06 am)WinterHold Wrote:

(September 22, 2020 at 6:52 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: This isn't a serious thread, it's yet another example of abusing a serious tag.  

If you can ever figure out why you insist that the ksa have a clean human rights record as a condition for belonging to a group that doesn't have a clean human rights record itself, you let us know.

It's not up to you to judge. If you have a problem, report the post.
Second of all, all the g20 countries are not even compared to KSA in terms of human rights ! the Sauds are cutting people in embassies and raping women in prisons without even trying to cover it !

Now you answer me, when did France or the UK have turned their embassies into a slaughter house ?

If you’re going to take one or two specific incidents, that’s rather a narrow view. To imply that France, the UK, and the rest of the G20 don’t routinely violate human rights and human  rights agreements to which they are signatory simply because they don’t dismember journalists in consulates is to display a shocking unawareness of the state of things.

This isn’t some sort of contest in which countries with a slightly less graphic record of human rights abuses get to dictate terms to others. Saudi Arabia's record on this issue is nothing short of reprehensible, no argument. But your insistence that they shouldn’t have been let into the G20 because of this and then expecting the G20 to fix it is both ignorant and hypocritical.

This is the same sort of screwy thinking that allows people to imagine that going to celibate priests for marriage advice is a perfectly sensible idea.

Boru

Need we mention China, Indonesia, Russia, and Turkey? Also G20 members. Talk about a bunch of murderous pots calling the amateur kettle black.

No thanks, I'd prefer that the g20 stick to coming up with forward looking financial policies which can help or harm more people than any secret police could ever hope to round up and chop to pieces. Concern trolling each other over human rights abuse is counterproductive. Does that mean that the g20 is stuck dealing with whatever lizard is currently sitting on whatever throne, sure does..but that's the reality of international politics outside of regime change. Tell you what, as a concerned citizen of a g20 country, I would prefer that you guys had a diffeent lizard on the throne, can we get an eta on when you're going to accomplish that, or should we let you and everyone else in the ksa rot on the vine as international pariahs on account of how mohamed bin sawin people up?

A more troubling question...by what mechanism can the g20 effect the outcome you desire? It has no formal ability to enforce any rule. It's not a sovereign entity, it can impose no sanctions, and it has no army. It can only suggest that it's member countries Do Better™ - which it does.