[Article] Thank God for the death of the UN

dahamsta

"Richard Perle is chairman of the defence policy board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon." Under conflict of interest in the dictionary, it says "see Richard Perle". The link is my commentary by the way.

Thank God for the death of the UN

Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order

Richard Perle
Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.
As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam's rule, let us not forget who held that the moral authority of the international community was enshrined in a plea for more time for inspectors, and who marched against "regime change". In the spirit of postwar reconciliation that diplomats are always eager to engender, we must not reconcile the timid, blighted notion that world order requires us to recoil before rogue states that terrorise their own citizens and menace ours.

A few days ago, Shirley Williams argued on television against a coalition of the willing using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and high-minded, she must surely have been moved into opposition by an argument so convincing that it overpowered the obvious moral case for removing Saddam's regime. For Lady Williams (and many others), the thumb on the scale of judgment about this war is the idea that only the UN security council can legitimise the use of force. It matters not if troops are used only to enforce the UN's own demands. A willing coalition of liberal democracies isn't good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN security council uses force, even as a last resort, "anarchy", rather than international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order.

This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France. When challenged with the argument that if a policy is right with the approbation of the security council, how can it be wrong just because communist China or Russia or France or a gaggle of minor dictatorships withhold their assent, she fell back on the primacy of "order" versus "anarchy".

But is the security council capable of ensuring order and saving us from anarchy? History suggests not. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that the League of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confronting Italy in Abyssinia, much less - had it survived that debacle - to taking on Nazi Germany.

In the heady aftermath of the allied victory, the hope that security could be made collective was embodied in the UN security council - with abject results. During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralysed. The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe liberated, not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, Nato. Apart from minor skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the only case of the security council acting during the cold war was its use of force to halt the invasion of South Korea - and that was only possible because the Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it. It was a mistake they did not make again.

Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN action: their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands.

This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways. We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry the war to the territories from which it is launched. This will sometimes require that we use force against states that harbour terrorists, as we did in destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one, but there are others. Whatever hope there is that they can be persuaded to withdraw support or sanctuary from terrorists rests on the certainty and effectiveness with which they are confronted. The chronic failure of the security council to enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task. We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognise that they are, by default, the best hope for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN.

Richard Perle is chairman of the defence policy board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon.

This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in this week's Spectator.

mike65

At the risk of getting an earful, I tend to agree with the thrust of what Perle is saying. The UN has always been at its worst when "tackling" geo-political matters and at its best mopping up the mess afterwards.

The security council is the product of the era which formulated it, and has seemed less capable as the decades have rolled by. Kosovo was I think the final warning shot which it did'nt hear....but one could cite Rwanda and a number of other crisis where the UN failed such as Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast (which is ongoing as I write).

The structure of the SC needs changing, I think the permenant 5 and the veto they each hold must be ended.

Mike.

Sand

Yeah, he appears to be speaking common sense - keep the parts of the UN that work and dump the stuff that doesnt. The UN is a worthy institution but its involvement - or rather retreat - in srebinica highlighted for me at least how pathetic it truly is.

The UN needs to be reformed and given a more practical brief- its members must be held to certain standards, however loose, in terms of its citizens freedoms and political rights or not be given full representation - certainly it is ludicrous to give "Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France" unquestioned moral superiority in deciding critical issues, especially compared to liberal democracies who are derided because they dont go with the enlightened Chinese view:|

Éomer of Rohan

Can either of you really be serious?? Consider the ramifications of what this man has said.

This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France

I disagree with the power dynamic behind the UNSC but this man is clearly venting his anger that some nations are a)not liberal democracy as is their right, b) not backing America and c) have the upstart cheek to 'withhold assent' to quote the man from nations much more powerful and obviously by his logic therefore, more right.

Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN action: their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands.

This argument for unilateralism FAILS to be based on the failure of the UN; rather he states arguments that the permanent member / veto system should be removed and uses these arguments to draw the wrong conclusions; ie that America is right in all her actions - and even Britain and thus should supersede the UN.

This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways. We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry the war to the territories from which it is launched. This will sometimes require that we use force against states that harbour terrorists, as we did in destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one, but there are others.

Note that America never enters this argument even though that nation fulfils both categories in abundance. How biased is this?#

We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognise that they are, by default, the best hope for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN.

The UN has not failed; what has failed is the US exploitation of the UN in this matter; Iraq poses no material threat to the US or to the UK or indeed to any member of NATO - especially not Turkey who have vast areas of desert to retreat behind and a massive army to call on - all with the latest equipment courtesy of the US. SO Iraq persecutes her own people. Why haven't the US stopped trading with Indonesia, China, India, Burma, Afghanistan etc etc etc. Because this is not their primary concern perhaps?

Richard Perle is chairman of the defence policy board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon.

Ah now I understand.

Kai

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan


The UN has not failed; what has failed is the US exploitation of the UN in this matter; Iraq poses no material threat to the US or to the UK or indeed to any member of NATO - especially not Turkey who have vast areas of desert to retreat behind and a massive army to call on - all with the latest equipment courtesy of the US. SO Iraq persecutes her own people. Why haven't the US stopped trading with Indonesia, China, India, Burma, Afghanistan etc etc etc. Because this is not their primary concern perhaps?

Good point well argued IMO

PHB

Under the assumption that the security council isnt already powerless,
the removal of the veto would result in nailing the fainl coffin in it making it about as importent as the gerenal assembly.

Course better solutions i have are non however I think maybe we could all pool together, to raise funds for some 3rd party canditate in the next US presidential election.
If it was a worldwide campaign then surly enough money would be made to give a constant broadcast of this person and get him/her elected.

Éomer of Rohan

Under the assumption that the security council isnt already powerless, the removal of the veto would result in nailing the fainl coffin in it making it about as importent as the gerenal assembly.

I disagree; the removal of the veto to be replaced by the willingness to employ sanctions no matter on what country would actually strengthen the UN beyond measure - no one country could abuse the system and if, as I believe should happen, all representative governments were apportioned votes according to population then overnight we have a representative council and a hugely powerful decision making body - not to mention the jump there would be to representative governments in order to secure that peaceful measure of power in the Security Council which would retain the mandate of UN Charter Chapter VII Article 41.

Red Moose

Yeah but that whole idea of "removing" the vetos is basically a non-starter.

How about Kofi Annan just coming right and saying "Okay you rich, western lot with all the cash and armies who are only here because you insisted on having secure seats and vetos: you are now equal in voting power to whoever the hell is running, let's say, Rwanda".

The UN *has* failed. It didn't stop this war happening. The UN gave original provision to the US, the US used it, and basically decided to finger up at the UN. Exactly why should the world's most powerful nation become all Gaia like?

JustHalf

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I disagree with the power dynamic behind the UNSC but this man is clearly venting his anger that some nations are a)not liberal democracy as is their right,

Next from Éomer of Rohan: "Iraq's right to torture, rape and kill its citizens".

Defend that "right".

Defend the "rights" of the Chinese to repress desent by way of execution, and to murder babies.

Go on.

Von

Justhalf, there's quite a few countries on 'our side' that go in for repression, torture, executions and the like. Look at Turkey for example.

"Torture was widespread and practised systematically. There were numerous reports of torture and ill-treatment of men, women and children, mainly from western cities, the southeast and the region around Adana in the south. Many of the victims were political activists including supporters of leftist, pro-Kurdish and Islamist groups. Despite intimidation and fear of reprisals, several allegations of torture were made by people arrested on criminal charges. Other alleged victims of torture and ill-treatment included Kurdish villagers, relatives of political activists and trade unionists. Allegations were also received from people alleged to be leading figures in organized crime. Reports indicated that those suspected of theft and burglary - among them many children - continued to be systematically beaten in detention. In some cases torture appeared to be linked to discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation or ethnicity.

Torture and ill-treatment occurred mainly in police and gendarmerie stations during the days immediately after arrest. The most frequently reported methods included severe beatings, blindfolding, suspension by the arms or wrists, electric shocks, sexual abuse, and food and sleep deprivation."

That sounds like a justice system a few people here would approve of.

JustHalf

Eomer was talking about the right of a state to be whatever it chose to be. I countered with quick notes on Iraq and China, and asked him what right these nations have to be this way.

Turkey's behaviour is pretty dispicable. Don't assume I agree with it.

[edit]Post - riposte insulting removed[/edit]

bonkey

... and I'm telling both of you to stop throwing insults around.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Eomer was talking about the right of a state to be whatever it chose to be. I countered with quick notes on Iraq and China, and asked him what right these nations have to be this way.

What you did was bias the question - and I expect you to admit that in your next post.

I defend the right of every state to find it's own path; I personally do not agree with Liberal Democracy - I think it has failed in all bar one respect - that of generating private profit which in my opinion is not an end in itself.

You fail to see that, although one might not agree with the actions taken by certain states, one can still say that if such a situation as exists in Iraq or China or anywhere else, then it is not the part of other nations to decide through what method of government such a nation would be ruled. It is not the place of ANY nation to decide the place of any other nation. Personally I believe the Tyrannic form of government is the one, given the right man or woman, that would result in the best life for all people - though it's fatal weakness is that there is no insurance that one would get the right man and even the people make mistakes - hence I support a system that has many more checks and balances; Soviet Socialist Democracy. There are many more forms of government than these however; monarchy, timocracy (what I believe to be the American form of government), constitutional republic, Imperial Republic, social democracy, theocracy, despotism/dictatorship, communist dictatorship and so forth - how would you feel if the most powerful nation on earth was China, for example, using a communist dictatorial form of government and they decided that Ireland needed a regime change because the ideas of Liberal Democracy was getting out of hand? Same situation, just reversed.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
how would you feel if the most powerful nation on earth was China, for example, using a communist dictatorial form of government and they decided that Ireland needed a regime change because the ideas of Liberal Democracy was getting out of hand? Same situation, just reversed.

Although, you're not asking me, I'd say, we'd have that situation only for the United States role in europe, over the last 50 years.
Indeed, Cork ( regular poster here ) might have had a picture of Breznev instead of Éamon De-Valera above his mantle piece without that influence.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

Although, you're not asking me, I'd say, we'd have that situation only for the United States role in europe, over the last 50 years.

Maybe, maybe not; maybe the USSR would have matured from its Stalinist era policies without the binding weight of military expenditure in response to US nuclear aggression and political rhetoric. Then we would all be a lot better off indeed and have pictures of real statesmen above our mantlepieces. Nonetheless that is not the question; the question is whether or not you would like that situation, naturally you probably wouldn't and I damn well know that Cork wouldn't lol. Thus my point is made; that it is unfair and not right to impose ANY form of government on a given state.

mike65

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I personally do not agree with Liberal Democracy

Now that I will make my signature, dave/Eomer

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
then it is not the part of other nations to decide through what method of government such a nation would be ruled. It is not the place of ANY nation to decide the place of any other nation.

Surely this is somewhat at odds with your belief that the notion of nations and national governments is antiquated or - in different words - not a good model.

In socialistic threads you seem to argue in favour of nations setting aside silly things like national differences, and people simply getting on with people.

Surely now, you are arguing that nations who are beginning to look down that path - looking out for people rather than other nations - have no right to do so?

How else can we move beyond this silly idea of nations if we are to uphold their sanctity and inviolate right to independant self-determination?

I don't necessarily disagree that nations shouldnt interfere, but I cant see how it sits with your own oft-stated philisophies on global socio-political structure?

For example - were there to be a growing global alliance of a working socialist "meganation" along your no-nation ideals, would you argue that these also had no right to interfere in the workings of other countries, even if it were to relieve gross oppression and bring enlightened freedom? Remeber, you were the one who used the extreme of "no nation...for any reason.

I'm not looking for a fight...I just honestly dont see how such an extreme can sit with your other philosphies.

jc

PHB

The point is, once the vetos are gone. The main nations wont give two ****s about what it says and it will become about as importent as the general assembly

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Maybe, maybe not; maybe the USSR would have matured from its Stalinist era policies without the binding weight of military expenditure in response to US nuclear aggression and political rhetoric. Then we would all be a lot better off indeed and have pictures of real statesmen above our mantlepieces. Nonetheless that is not the question; the question is whether or not you would like that situation, naturally you probably wouldn't and I damn well know that Cork wouldn't lol. Thus my point is made; that it is unfair and not right to impose ANY form of government on a given state.

Agreed on Cork:D
But surely,it's not a case of imposing, just say giving democracy a hand?
Fair enough, if the imposition, of a regime change is not wanted then it's unfair.

Regarding whether, the USSR would have matured or not, without crippling military expenditure, I would tend to think, that if the system needed, that to keep it in place, then it wasn't a good system.
You weren't usually shot , for climbing from the west, over the wall into East Berlin, it was the other way round.
Russia, still exists today, it hasn't been over run by the U.S Army or anything....and , Slovenia voted to confirm membership of the E.U and Nato at the week end, by a very convincing majority, something again ultimately wouldn't have happened, if, the U.s hadn't maintained a presence in Europe.
mm

Dotsie~tmp

How can anyone agree with this Perle guy. He believes power in itself is the justification for action and that the UN is an obstacle for US interests. He has stated this openly many times. Side with extremeists like this and we will all be living in taped up rooms eventually. He is also a major lobbyist of Israeli interests in Washington praising the Ariel Sharons escallation pollicies post 9-11 in Palastine as the new approach to fighting terrorism. If your an Arab this guys is the bringer of doom.

Sand

although one might not agree with the actions taken by certain states, one can still say that if such a situation as exists in Iraq or China or anywhere else, then it is not the part of other nations to decide through what method of government such a nation would be ruled. It is not the place of ANY nation to decide the place of any other nation.

So states have complete and utter independance of action, inside their own borders? So long as they bother no one else they shouldnt be bothered?

Your last sentence tends in my opinion to invalidate the whole concept of the UN as well - something you seem keen to defend. No nation has a right to tell other nations what to do, but a bunch of nations ganging up on a nation that doesnt have any ally with a veto willing to use it is fair game?

how would you feel if the most powerful nation on earth was China, for example, using a communist dictatorial form of government and they decided that Ireland needed a regime change because the ideas of Liberal Democracy was getting out of hand? Same situation, just reversed.

Not really, liberal democracy being a basic Good Idea, whilst communism is just tyranny with good PR. Mind you some people think tyrannical governments are best for us - us silly fools who dont do what theyre told.

Maybe, maybe not; maybe the USSR would have matured from its Stalinist era policies without the binding weight of military expenditure in response to US nuclear aggression and political rhetoric.

Doubtful, its entire foundation is absolutely drenched in blood and human suffering. The sysem required oppression of dissent and a vast secret police network to enslave its own population. Im not optimistic such a state could rise above its own nature. Youre asking people if they would be comftable with such a state - hell the Chinese were as bad, still are in many ways, - setting the rules, and then saying that proves they shouldnt be comftable with liberal democracies overthrowing repressive governments - all the time utilising your right to free speech which is an incredibly precious right which is not enjoyed by people living under such repressive governments , and those people have often not been asked whether they want that form of government bar in the most pathetically fixed fashion.

Would I be comftable with China as a world power forcing others to its system of government - Christ no. Am I comftable with the US as a world power toppling repressive governments - its about time they did something positive on that particular front as far as Im concerned. The difference? The Chinese form of government wont let me speak my mind about it afterwards.

Thus my point is made; that it is unfair and not right to impose ANY form of government on a given state.

The failing of so many of the left/ power-to-the-government types - they dont recognise that a state may not be suppported by the people, that its very nature could be oppressive and autocratic.

no one country could abuse the system and if, as I believe should happen, all representative governments were apportioned votes according to population then overnight we have a representative council and a hugely powerful decision making body

Surely as a prequisite it must be demanded that if a government is to receive a vote share based on its population its entire population must be able to vote freely and fairly for representitives of their choosing to form their government so the peoples - not the governments - wishes are best represented? It must also be demanded that gross discrimination and oppression of each nations population cease?

Otherwise all you are doing is handing even more power to unrepresentive governments/dictatorships?

Slutmonkey57b

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I personally do not agree with Liberal Democracy - I think it has failed in all bar one respect - that of generating private profit which in my opinion is not an end in itself.

MY GOD. Do you realise that the very fact that you are able to sit there and write that AT ALL indicates that your comment is entirely without basis?? Nothing makes me more annoyed than people who bemoan the "failures" and "injustices" of liberalism or democracy in the west whilst.. wait for it..

being entirely blind to the life it has bestowed upon them.

You are more free, more liberated, more healthy, more rich and more, dammit criminally more happy than any occupant of any nation, or empire, or regime in the history of man and yet people are still blind to it. Look at the tripe that people in the west have the free time and money and lack of real problems, get worked up about. Read the rants that people post on this website, or that are argued down your local pub, that get treated with the life-or-death sincerity.

It is not the place of ANY nation to decide the place of any other nation. Personally I believe the Tyrannic form of government is the one, given the right man or woman, that would result in the best life for all people - though it's fatal weakness is that there is no insurance that one would get the right man and even the people make mistakes - hence I support a system that has many more checks and balances; Soviet Socialist Democracy.

Where do I begin with the stupidity of that statement? It's the sort of statement that only a political theorist could possibly make with a straight face. Socialism is a great THEORY. It failed, and will always fail due to one simple flaw:
It totally fails to account for humanity. Totally. It assumes that humans behave logically, and fairly, and rationally. Nothing could be further from the truth. As to the "checks and balances" of the Soviet system, I suggest you break out your history books (you can find them in your decadent, state-funded, liberal local library). You'll find that the checks and balances of the Soviet system were all in place to ensure that the SYSTEM survived and that the influence of the humans that ran it was essentially nullified. This is true of all large beaurocracies, they become self-sustaining.

... how would you feel if the most powerful nation on earth was China, for example, using a communist dictatorial form of government and they decided that Ireland needed a regime change because the ideas of Liberal Democracy was getting out of hand? Same situation, just reversed.

The idea of liberal democracy is one that is a constant fight - not just against tyrants who would seek to extinguish it but against the complacancy of its own citizens. It is something that is not missed until it is lost, as the occupant of any country that has descended into dictatorship in the 20th century (germany, italy, zimbabwe... take your pick) could have told you. History might also teach you that China has already made several attempts to do just that in the previous century, supporting or causing wars of political dogma in Korea and Vietnam and had to be met with force - with disasterous results for all concerned.

Slutmonkey57b

Originally posted by SandWould I be comftable with China as a world power forcing others to its system of government - Christ no. Am I comftable with the US as a world power toppling repressive governments - its about time they did something positive on that particular front as far as Im concerned. The difference? The Chinese form of government wont let me speak my mind about it afterwards.

Well said. Like Tony Blair or not, the commons debate prior to the sanction of war was a rare, rare, public example of what democracy is and why we should be passionate about defending it. Here was a man who was going against some of his own (religious) convictions, who was prepared to speak to people whose minds he knew would be nigh-on-impossible to change (See Trevor McDonald interview) and prepared to take whatever decision came to him. And as he so eloqantly pointed out, while a televised debate was going on in the house, the same day a man had had his tongue cut out and left hanging in a square in Baghdad for speaking out against the powers that be.

The US/UK invasion of Iraq is of dubious legality. But it is one that was orginally sanctioned by the UN, but not pressed into a specific resolution of its own. The UN was not ignored, it suffered a short-cut in its processes. It is not necessarily dead, but it certainly needs a lot of work.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
What you did was bias the question - and I expect you to admit that in your next post.

What do you mean? I gave examples of the application of your theory, and demanded you defend them.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I defend the right of every state to find it's own path; I personally do not agree with Liberal Democracy - I think it has failed in all bar one respect - that of generating private profit which in my opinion is not an end in itself.

Quite frankly, I am not of the opinion that nations have any right to find it's own path if it is not a democracy of some sort, for the people of the country will have no say in it.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
hence I support a system that has many more checks and balances; Soviet Socialist Democracy.

Soviet Socialist Democracy used as "checks and balances" a huge secret police force, mass extermination of dissenters and some lovely show trials.

Are you a Stalin apologist or something?

Éomer of Rohan

Good Grief was all I could say (within decency) to that rake of posts which as I am going to explain are entirely without foundation in reason or basis. I apologise if I offend anyone during this, and I don't intend to but I do not like my ideas being called stupid when people obviously do not understand what they actually are - something in one case that could be found in any Hellenic period History textbook.

[Begin Rant lol]


Quoted from Sand

Surely as a prequisite it must be demanded that if a government is to receive a vote share based on its population its entire population must be able to vote freely and fairly for representitives of their choosing to form their government so the peoples - not the governments - wishes are best represented? It must also be demanded that gross discrimination and oppression of each nations population cease?

Before you start picking bits and pieces out of my posts, please read them all. The answer to this lies my second post on this thread. For you, I have quoted the relevent passage below...
Quoted from Éomer of Rohan

not to mention the jump there would be to representative governments in order to secure that peaceful measure of power in the Security Council which would retain the mandate of UN Charter

And yes I agree that there should be some sort of representation in all nations (and in answer to an earlier point, I do disagree with the idea of a nation state but tell me, do you think I am deluded enough to believe that it will suddenly disappear? It is a pragmatist p.o.v. to work with what you have - to accept the things you cannot change - to change the things you can) and by that I do not mean liberal democracy for the record.

The failing of so many of the left/ power-to-the-government types - they dont recognise that a state may not be suppported by the people, that its very nature could be oppressive and autocratic.

And of course the right wing has never been guilty of this? *cough* Iraq *cough*. And as I am seemingly always stating, there are few governments today that I believe to be properly left wing.

its entire foundation is absolutely drenched in blood and human suffering. The sysem required oppression of dissent and a vast secret police network to enslave its own population. Im not optimistic such a state could rise above its own nature.

It did not generally do that in the beginning. But that is OT - I can discuss it some other time if you want. Naturally I do not agree with..

Not really, liberal democracy being a basic Good Idea, whilst communism is just tyranny with good PR. Mind you some people think tyrannical governments are best for us - us silly fools who dont do what theyre told.

but again OT and we can argue in PM if you wish.

I am ignoring slut until he wises up and stops being insulting.

Soviet Socialist Democracy used as "checks and balances" a huge secret police force, mass extermination of dissenters and some lovely show trials.

Are you a Stalin apologist or something?

No I am not. As I am tired telling people, Soviet Socialist Democracy was not employed in the Soviet Union nor in any supposed communist nation.

Meh

And as I am seemingly always stating, there are few governments today that I believe to be properly left wing.

Yeah, that's an excellent evasive tactic. It distracts attention from the embarrassing little fact that the list of the top ten most oppressive regimes in history includes several left-wing governments. Instead, it turns the thread into a pointless squabble over definitions.

mike65

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As I am tired telling people, Soviet Socialist Democracy was not employed in the Soviet Union nor in any supposed communist nation.

So who if anyone practices Soviet Socialist Democracy
or is it only on paper at this point?

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

So who if anyone practices Soviet Socialist Democracy or is it only on paper at this point?

Oh the sarcasm lol.

It is an idea at present, has always been. Hence my reasoning dictates - as does common sense - that no one can say 'it doesn't work' if it has not being put into practice - in fact, without even a serious attempt to put it into practice. Nonetheless, this discussion has been sort of hijacked - can we get back to the UN please? I will answer any queries to me via PM or in a seperate thread.

As to Meh's snide remarks, you obviously did not participate the last time we dealt with this topic; even look at the left wing divisions within Ireland - assuming you're Irish, naturally - Socialist Workers Party. Socialist Party, IRSP and the Communist Party - there are obviously clear divisions between the so called Left Wing in this country; The Communist party are Stalinists - there is a clear ideological difference between CPI and SP; they call us 'trotskyist revisionists' and so on - but that much is fact whereas we are not Stalinists and our p.o.v. on the USSR and so on has been from the beginning that these were not really communist states and that control from Moscow was a dictatorship, not the government form that Marx envisioned. If that is not clear enough then you need to do some private research.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I will answer any queries to me via PM or in a seperate thread.

Oh your inbox is going to be so full, with all the enthusiasm, that invites going to generate....not!:D
mm

Éomer of Rohan

Do you have anything constructive to add, Man?

Slutmonkey57b

I think you're ignoring me - quite rightly, as you have no response to my points.

You support the Ideal of tyrranical, dictatorial, or communistic government - while admitting that in reality it does not (and never will) exist because it rests on presumptions of behaviour that humans cannot fulfill, eg, that the "ideal" tyrant to run a tyrannical government cannot be guaranteed. I defy you to prove that such a person even exists.

Thus my point is made; that it is unfair and not right to impose ANY form of government on a given state.

The very NATURE of a tyrant, or a dictator, is to IMPOSE a form of government on a population that the dictator is of the opinion they would be best off with. You then contradict this with the above statement. You've posted nothing but rhetorical idiocy (as opposed to personal idocy), and failed to address any of the points that you have been brought up short on.

I would point out that the arguments that bonkey, justhalf, sand and I are attempting to bring up with you are NOT off topic - the nature of fair and representative government is crucial to the UN and if you are going to argue against that notion that you are in effect arguing in FAVOUR of the abolition of the UN and the imposition of Rule-by-tyrannical-default which would result. Guess who would be the only candidate for world superpower and dominant dictator? The US.

I disagree; the removal of the veto to be replaced by the willingness to employ sanctions no matter on what country would actually strengthen the UN beyond measure - no one country could abuse the system and if, as I believe should happen, all representative governments were apportioned votes according to population then overnight we have a representative council and a hugely powerful decision making body

This system is known as DEMOCRACY. You are for it on one hand, and against it philosophically. Make up your mind.