The war in iraq was "illegal" Annan

sovtek

Sand wrote:

So even if a majority want to introduce Sharia law and restrict the freedoms of others thats not acceptable in a successful democracy. Many failed democracies in places like Africa, South America and Asia have not made that understanding part of the political landscape yet and the predicatable result is chaos, oppression, inter-ethnic strife and civil war.

I know I've heard this somewhere before......
Oh Yeah!

Mr. Kissinger was heard to remark something like, "Why should we stand back and let an irresponsible people elect the wrong party?"

Sand

I know I've heard this somewhere before......
Oh Yeah!

Oh right - so if a party runs on a policy of killing all people who wear glasses, and they get elected then democratically all people who wear glasses should be killed? Its a democracy after all!

I mean youre disagreeing with me when I say parties with illiberal polices should not be allowed to be democratically elected. Unless of course youre disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?

Do you know why Bush and Kerry are the front runners in the US elections? Because given the quality of the debate, thats the quality of candidate required to win.

cleansingfire

Nazi party was the largest single party in germany in both elections of 1932. hitler was appointed chancellor. to establish his tyrrany he got the support of two thirds of teh german parliament in the vote of the enabling act. in august 1934 90% of the german ppl voted in favour of hitler as fuhrer.
What i actually said was
"Old problem; what if someone who wants to destroy democracy seeks election? What if they win? What if they use the legal system to create an extra-legal state? The Hitler scenario."
Note: win election. Hitler won the election of 1932 being the largest party hence offered chancellorship. you glanced at my post and misread it and then misrepresented me as misrepresenting german history. Basically you missed.

Sand has hit the nail on the head.

(soon to be banned and sent to bold corner for answering back)

Sparks

Oh right - so if a party runs on a policy of killing all people who wear glasses, and they get elected then democratically all people who wear glasses should be killed? Its a democracy after all!

I love the way that you ignore the role of a constitution and civil rights in democratic societies Sand. But essentially, you're correct - if everyone wanted to, you could democratically vote to become a society modelled on the Spartans. All you'd have to do is elect one party to power, hold a referendum to throw out the constitution and write a new one, throwing out all civil and human rights in the process, and bob's your uncle, you can start a genocide and so long as you're not a country with any useful resources, the UNSC won't get involved because someone will veto the motion to do anything about it.

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

- if everyone wanted to, you could democratically vote to become a society modelled on the Spartans.

Theres really only one place where that should be encouraged...

Sand

I love the way that you ignore the role of a constitution and civil rights in democratic societies Sand.

Sorry, isnt that *my* point? That successful democracies hold individual liberties higher than democratic principles?

But essentially, you're correct - if everyone wanted to, you could democratically vote to become a society modelled on the Spartans. All you'd have to do is elect one party to power, hold a referendum to throw out the constitution and write a new one, throwing out all civil and human rights in the process, and bob's your uncle, you can start a genocide and so long as you're not a country with any useful resources, the UNSC won't get involved because someone will veto the motion to do anything about it.

Which only serves to validate anti-democratic actions taken to protect liberites. Those one man, one vote, one time parties can take a hike.

LightofDarkness

If you ask me, the UN is a failure. It needs to be dissolved and then re-established, with greater integration in the member states. The only thing is it needs to listen to both sides, not just the left as it has seemingly done for a while now. It's almost powerless too, which is why it needs to be a group who have ultimate judgement on certain things regarding international affairs. Furthermore, the group should act a whole, as most political parties do, with nations acting together in group decisions. It's ridiculous how some nations "take their ball and go home" when things don't go their way in the current UN. This should not be allowed with strict, truly crippling sanctions imposed on nations who take no part in group actions because the decision didn't go their way. I know some of you will disagree, but it's a major part of why the group is powerless and non-functional today, and just a political chat room. Imagine it:
"My country won't partake in this action."
"What? You can't do that! I'll...I'll call your mother and tell her how much of a baby you're being! And other countries will show similar distaste and say bad things about you for a week. We'll see who's laughing then!"

Moriarty

If you impose those sorts of punishments, very few countrys would sign up in the first place lightofdarkness. Most espically the ones you'd try to be 'targetting'.

bonkey

LightofDarkness wrote:

The only thing is it needs to listen to both sides, not just the left as it has seemingly done for a while now.

How, exactly do you make this out?

The UN is an organisation of member-nations. The only way it would be "listening to one side" is if all of the member-nations were of that side.

Not only that, but if you look at the UN's most powerful members - those with a veto on the UNSC - I think you'll be hard-pushed to classify them all as left-leaning, let alone left-dominated.

I mean....this is the first time I've heard someone indirectly suggest either that the US is of "the left", or that the UN doesn't listen to the US.

jc

LightofDarkness

Have you seen the UN charter? It is very left leaning, especially on social issues. While I can't recall most of them now, I remember when reading alot of the articles it was quite leftward. Not that there's anything incredibly wrong with these laws, but it's not representing another large number of people. And let's face it, the represenatatives of the member states don't always uphold the wishes,values or opinions of their people, but rather themselves much of the time.
People seem to get the idea that I'm a right winger, but it's not true. I simply believe in fairness and I have noticed that the right or even parts of center right don't get enough representation these days and are often simply slammed with allegations before they get a word out.

Sparks

Not that there's anything incredibly wrong with these laws, but it's not representing another large number of people.

Indeed. Those damn leftie liberals and their "human rights"! Why don't they just understand that people want a good firm hand of leadership, and the right to kick the snot out of anyone who's different from them?

Zulu

If by "left leaning" you mean tolerant, then yes - but would you want to see something else?

bonkey

LightofDarkness wrote:

Have you seen the UN charter?

<sarcasm>
No...I'm opposing your opinion out of nothing more than a complete lack of knowledge of what I'm talking about
</sarcasm>

It is very left leaning, especially on social issues.

Care to give an example, showing how it is in any way "unfair" (seeing as its fairness that you profess to be interested in), or how a right-leaning replacement text would be any fairer?

While I can't recall most of them now, I remember when reading alot of the articles it was quite leftward.

Well isn't that convenient. YOu know it was leftward-leaning, but just not how. And you have the temerity to ask if others have read the Charter???

Not that there's anything incredibly wrong with these laws, but it's not representing another large number of people.

Its not representative of oppressive regimes either, nor religious intolerant ones. Communism doesn't get much of a favourable look-in either. Are you saying that the UN should also cater for these too???

And let's face it, the represenatatives of the member states don't always uphold the wishes,values or opinions of their people, but rather themselves much of the time.

So what? That is not the responsibility nor concern of the UN. It is a forum for national governments. How those governments govern is - by definition - an internal matter which is explicitly outside the remit of the UN.

I simply believe in fairness and I have noticed that the right or even parts of center right don't get enough representation these days and are often simply slammed with allegations before they get a word out.

You didn't get slammed before you got a word out. YOu got a word out, and were challenged on it, at which point you started crying out about how oppressed your opinion was.

Strangely, if you look at the UN, you'll see the same. You're confusing a system who's rules aren't right-leaning with a system who denies the right a voice. The right - and every other classification - have every right to seek to change the UN. or to encourage it to act in certain ways. They aren't denied their voice....its just that said voice may not carry as much weight as they'd like it to.

jc

sceptre

LightofDarkness wrote:

Have you seen the UN charter? It is very left leaning, especially on social issues. While I can't recall most of them now...

Where? Seriously.

UN Charter. Read it (again) and get back to me. Article 55 has a little section about people being able to eat and treating a white bloke the same as a black bloke but that's about as controversial as it gets as far as I can see - it doesn't even include the idea of sending children to school so they can read the Charter.

You're not mixing it up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (including the opening unilateral surrender of the English language paragraph) are you?

LightofDarkness

OK Bonkey, now you're showing your ignorance. Are you so arrogant that you can't even for a second be open minded and think that *shock* you are not the be all and end all of "correct" and "moral" judgement?

You think that all right-wing policies are dictator supporting and evil? That's so amazingly partisan and self-righteous it's sickening. You seriously seem to have a superiority complex, sir. I'm sorry if I offend you with that comment, but it's blatantly obvious to me that you have no tolerance for any non-strictly liberal thinking person.

LightofDarkness

OK Bonkey, now you're showing your ignorance. Are you so arrogant that you can't even for a second be open minded and think that *shock* you are not the be all and end all of "correct" and "moral" judgement?

You think that all right-wing policies are dictator supporting and evil? That's so amazingly partisan and self-righteous it's sickening. You seriously seem to have a superiority complex, sir. I'm sorry if I offend you with that comment, but it's blatantly obvious to me that you have no tolerance for any non-strictly liberal thinking person.

Furthermore, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. People aren't ready to accept alot of what's in the UN and EU charter, especially in this country. You can be tolerant, but only to a certain extent. Imagine the uproar about gay rights in this country when the EU charter starts to seep into official government legislation. The UN and EU charters are very similar. We must be tolerant, yes, but we mustn't allow ourselves to be desensitised.

LightofDarkness

OK Bonkey, now you're showing your ignorance. Are you so arrogant that you can't even for a second be open minded and think that *shock* you are not the be all and end all of "correct" and "moral" judgement?

You think that all right-wing policies are dictator supporting and evil? That's so amazingly partisan and self-righteous it's sickening. You seriously seem to have a superiority complex, sir. I'm sorry if I offend you with that comment, but it's blatantly obvious to me that you have no tolerance for any non-strictly liberal thinking person. I started "crying?" Hardly. It was almost an expected reaction from you all. Most strict liberals can't see how anything but left can be right. Just because you're a self-professed liberal doesn't automatically deem you open-minded, in most cases these people are far from. Not that I can accuse you of that with absolute certainty, I don't know you well enough.

Furthermore, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. People aren't ready to accept alot of what's in the UN and EU charter, especially in this country. You can be tolerant, but only to a certain extent. Imagine the uproar about gay rights in this country when the EU charter starts to seep into official government legislation. The UN and EU charters are very similar. We must be tolerant, yes, but we mustn't allow ourselves to be desensitised.

Sparks

Repitition doesn't make it true, y'know...

Zulu

LightofDarkness wrote:

We must be tolerant, yes, but we mustn't allow ourselves to be desensitised.

Desensitised to what exactly?

bonkey

LightofDarkness wrote:

OK Bonkey, now you're showing your ignorance. Are you so arrogant that you can't even for a second be open minded and think that *shock* you are not the be all and end all of "correct" and "moral" judgement?

Please desist with the personal attacks. They're against the charter and won't be tolerated.

You think that all right-wing policies are dictator supporting and evil?

No, nor did I suggest it. I simply pointed out that saying a group isn't catered for in the rules does not necessarily make it a bad thing in and of itself. Before it becomes a bad thing, you have to show why those people deserve consideration, and why the rules should cater for them - something you have yet to do....you've just insisted that it neglects them and that this is a bad thing.

You argued that the system is wrong just because it doesn't cater for large numbers of people. I mentioned some groups of people that it also doesn't cater for...to highlight that your logic (as presented) says it should support them.

So if I'm likening the right wing to evil dictators and so on through that comment, I'm only doing so using the logic you presented. If its that deplorable a connection, then perhaps you should consider the comment for what it was intended to be - an illustration of the flaws in the argument you presented.

Incidentally, I notice you haven't supplied a single example of why the rules are left-leaning and why the right are somehow wrongly "ignored" by these rules.....care to enlighten us, or is this another case where you can remember that it is so, but not any details of why or how?

You seriously seem to have a superiority complex, sir. I'm sorry if I offend you with that comment, but it's blatantly obvious to me that you have no tolerance for any non-strictly liberal thinking person.

All I've done is refuse to accept your point of view without questioning it and then point out where you have tried to defend your point of view with a flawed (or incomplete) line of reasoning.

Its what I do with every point of view I disagree with on a topic I'm interested i discussing on a discussion forum - seek clarification, further information, and so on.

I'm sorry if you find my trying to encourage discussion to be a superiority complex and/or intolerant, but I will once again point out that no-one has asked you to stop, merely to clarify and expand your points.

I'm ignoring the rest of your post, because not a single comment in it addresses the topic at hand - Its just more pleas for tolerance, making yoruself out to be the poor oppressed poster...again, from what I can see, purely and solely because a handful of posters didn't nod sagely at your comments and go "what a wise man", but rather said "I disagree, now convince me you've a sound argument" (paraphrased).

Maybe I'm slow, but I still can't understand how asking you to respond and clarify is intolerant of your point of view. If I was intolerant, surely I'd be asking you not to respond?

jc

sceptre

Still patiently awaiting a few "very left leaning, especially on social issues" examples from the UN Charter I provided a link to above. If LightofDarkness won't read it, I'll take examples from the audience. Anyone?

Zulu

I just wanna know what it is we are in danger of becoming desensitised to!

LightofDarkness

Sorry about the double post, problem with the school computer.

Well yes Bonkey, I'm afraid I must give you your do. You have proven your point better than I can prove mine ( I sadly lack the time to keep up with current events and politics on a general scale due to music, schoolwork and computing). Fair play. I think I can agree with you now on the subject. Again, sorry for the offensive remarks.

When I said desensitised, I mean if we were to become so tolerant that we would be doormats to any issue and say "while I don't agree, I'll tolerate it." And that could be any issue which isn't exactly progressive, or even detrimental to society.

PS. the UN charter was a mistake on my part. I must've confused it with the EU one or painted them with the same brush. The UN charter doesn't go into much detail on social issues, it was the EU charter (which is based largely on the Finnish government model) that had more depth on social issues. Oh, and please note that my only source of news at home is FOX (gaggingly right-wing) and SKY, who are both owned by Rupert, who is a very right-leaning man. Frankly, no TV news source is very reliable (some will say CNN, but they have Ted Turner's philosophy at heart.)