ForumsX

LunarElemental

Zaknafien

Maybe most... if we took away the majority though, it leaves us with the ability to destroy the world several times over. :rolleyes:

Thorn969

last time 99.6% of the population came. this time i think it was only 89% Bad year :)

Well, there was a death penalty for not coming if you were over 18, but that doesn't affect voter turnout, does it?

~Crusader~

Reason why he got 100% of the votes...anyone who said no would be dead in their sleep :p

the 1 eyed fool

wrong how much u wanna bet they gave it a guard and if it had no on it bam bam bam bam bam bam right there on the spot that way if any oenv oted no the vote was disqualifed as it never made it 2 the machine

keeper of the grave

Originally posted by Evil Penguin
Haha, reminds me of Florida.

So why are we attacking him again? I assume the results were very much tampered with, but if you think these ridiculous results are accurate (like Raven seems to), then what are we fighting for? The people have chosen their own government, so its not like we're freeing them from oppression. And sure he's trying to get WoMD, but we already have them, don't we? We have nukes (and we're the only ones ever to have used them), we have chemical and biological weapons (and we've tested them on unknowing human subjects).... what gives us a right and not them? The only legitimate reason for invasion would be to enforce past UN resolutions that Iraq hasn't obeyed, and that would have to be done with a UN taskforce, not some rogue self-proclaimed policeman state forcefully asking permission to attack on its own.

I see little has changed in my absence. The same old favourites Penguin. A UN taskforce, novel!!! It will be just like a EU taskforce that never happened either. I guess those Europeans are not much for projecting power.

But hold on. A taskforce governed by 105 completely non-democratic nations, and 84 democratic to semi-democratic nations, excellent idea!!! Maybe we could lend Saddam a reactor too while we are at it. That is, after we have elected him to the UN human rights comission, and prosecuted Denmark for gross violations. If we were daring and progressive enough, we could even create a world wide welfare infrastructure. What do you peepz think?

That is, after we have dealt with rogue states like the United States, Canada, and Australia. We should perhaps punish France for her infidelity...Or was it INFIDELS? I forget. But you know, blowing up Indonesians and Australian tourists is the most effective resistance to the United States brutal dictatorial hegemony. Gee I think the little kids who died would have thought so too.

Lets not forget Mother Earth is partly to blame, that is why it is perfectly reasonable to blow up Super Tankers. But if you can't blast 'em, you can always kill French technicians in Pakistan. If you can't find a caucasian, just kill any Pakistani Christian.

Down with the rogues, and up with those who won a clear election majority without having to count the chits!!!

Evil Penguin

Bla bla bla. Elect him to a human rights commision? I said we should prosecute him, jackass. You know, credibility? Ever hear of it? I say they should prosecute all the opressive fuckers that rig elections and make kids sew wallets for export. But that wouldn't work cus the nations that are actually powerful enough and free enough to make a difference don't give a damn about international law. And yeah, that does make us a rogue state. That's what "rogue state" means. Iraq's worse, obviously, and there's no question Saddam has a shitload to answer for, but two wrongs don't make a right, which I should hope (in vain) is also obvious. Even the most benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant.

Oh, and has it occured to you that the fact that Europeans (and especially French and Germans) are so reluctant to go to war is a good thing? I mean, shouldn't violence be a last resort? Consider the circumstances. The old know what it means to be at war far better than Americans or Canadians hopefully ever will. They've seen Western Civilization itself nearly toppled in their own homes in a catastophic, unlimited and incredibly brutal war of hatred that spanned an entire continent... twice. The young have grown up in the aftermath, either under the the brutal opression of the Soviet Bloc or its opposite, the reactionary liberalism that trumpets peace above all else yet doesn't give an inch in appeasement. I think they have damn good reasons for not rushing blindly into war. Your ridiculous bigotry is disgusting, and if I thought it made two shits of difference where one's ancestors came from I'd tell you to fuck off for lumping my whole family into some imagined stereotype of "bleeding hearts," those same bleeding hearts who died in the millions at the whims of hawkish, jingoistic powers and faced near-certain death among the Resistance with pathetically heroic defiance rather than live comfortably under an evil regime. You know what? Fuck off anyway.

keeper of the grave

Paranoia will destroy you, and you got a lot, maybe too much for me.

Wow, things are heating up!!! What a response!!! You completely ignored what I actually wrote, and decided you would dredge up old complaints. What tone!!! Here ladies and gentlemen is a man who can channel raw emotions into each and every post. That was pure art Penguin!!! Never before have I felt such pure anger resonating from a short story, I mean post. Booker Prize? Anyone?

I would not want to speculate on the root causes of Penguin's anger. Maybe it is my blatant Western imperialism, the way I trample all over the rights of Palestinians, the way I "group" people. I don't recall grouping people at all or even mentioning Penguin's family in my post, but now"it's a family affair, and I swear I'm seeing dead bodies everywhere."
One day he is telling me what a worthy opponent I am, the next, he tells me to "screamed expletive" off. What a fickle mind!!!

I could moderate on that post, but I am not a power nazi. I feel no joy when an opponent is so hopelessly beaten he resorts to THAT type of writing. Don't make this personal Penguin.

It is time you recognized Penguin that there is no "international law" only the law of the jungle. In this world, those who neglect to defend themselves citing international law will be overpowered by those who don't give a damn about these so-called "laws." Get used to it.

Penguin, do you know the reason why there was such a horrific war that raged over Europe? I hate to say this, but it is because people like you relied on crutches that were no more than dust. They relied on pieces of paper, on "international agreements," and on THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS. They appeased Hitler when they could have destroyed him.
They reneged on the obligations they had to defend their people. Why? To win elections.

Evil Penguin

You've said numerous times that you hate Europeans. My ancestors were all (as far as I know) Europeans. As your last post didn't really contain any arguments in itself (only smug allusions to stuff you've said before), I figure it's fair game to bring up that which you are apparently alluding to. Yeah, you're a worthy opponent. You're also a hypocrite.

And why did the League of Nations not work? Because people like you ignored it. Why can't there be international law? It's the law of the jungle, you say. Those who obey are at a disadvantage to those who ignore it, you say. Hmmm. Sounds a lot like Federal laws under the Articles of Confederation... or maybe Keeper's Kanada.... how could we ever solve such a dillema?

keeper of the grave

There could not be much of a dilemma if you have already stated it sounds a lot like "keeper's kanada."

I think we have discussed Keeper's Cities already, and found by fairly general consensus that decentralization is not, in fact, a bad idea in many cases. If you want to reargue that, just go back to my posts on it. Otherwize, keep it to yourself.

As for my first post today, I don't see how arguments are any less relevant whether they are a day, a year or a century old. My point is that you have no arguments.

As for my hatred of Europeans, I am sure that is extensively documented. I think I will keep it on my "to do" list.

Ima hypocrite, youz a hypocrite, we all hypocritz. Hypocrite must have Greek roots, what do you think Penguin?

Oh yes, the League of Nations "laws" were certainly flouted...by Japan, by Italy, and by Germany. But, appeasers ignored those gross violations, just as you ignore Iraq's today. America tested syphilis on African Americans, they tested nerve gases right here in Saskatchewan. But, guess what? The deeds of the OTHER SIDE are too foul to mention.(Too numerous too)

Penguin, I have never been one for waging agressive war, but if it is necessary to the well-being of my country, by all means. Your cheap below the belt shots are annoying me.

Evil Penguin

And so we go full circle. I'm not suggesting appeasement by ignoring Saddam's violations. I'm suggesting we do exactly the opposite, enforce them through the organization that imposed them in the first place. What you're (apparently) defending is a kind of vigilantism. Neighbor beating his kids? Don't call the cops; kill him and take his stuff! Justice at its finest!

Oh, and decentralization and anarchy are two entirely different animals, my friend. The former only works if the central government can intervene. The latter is the result if it can't.

keeper of the grave

In case you had not understood my point which was so blatantly obvious in my first post, the UN would never take appropriate action with 105 dictators wondering when they will be next.

The UN is useless, sorry Penguin, your life dream is all a lie.

The organization has not improved one situation in its entire existence.

Evil Penguin

Tell me how Milosevic is different from Saddam.

keeper of the grave

Quite correct Penguin, Milosevic IS just like Saddam. So why was bombing Milosevic's Serbia more justifiable than bombing Saddam's Iraq?

Gaggin

Milosevic was a much easier target than Saddam. We didn't have to worry about nukes being loaded up on trucks and detonating in Poland, now did we?

I agree that the U.S. shouldn't go attacking countries when there's an international 'police force' that inforces international law. However, I also agree that the current 'police force' isn't very effective at what it does, so maybe it's best that the U.S. do its job for it.

Edit: btw Keeper:
They appeased Hitler when they could have destroyed him.
What exactly did you mean by 'destroying' him. What could they have done?

keeper of the grave

Believe me, I have intimate knowledge of this chapter of history. From 1932-1939, the allies(France, Poland, England-they could have gotten support from Soviets, Czechs, Romania, Hungary, and Italy pre-1935/6) had the capacity to win a war against Nazi Germany. Had they attacked Germany, most accounts, and most believe the Nazi regime would have been completely undermined, and Germany would have surrendered. You just have to read the accounts of Churchill, de Gaulle, and surviving Wermacht generals to know that. During the invasion of Poland, France had 5 times as many divisions on its border with Germany as the Wermacht did. Not only that, the French divisions were better equipped. An unlimited French invasion of Germany would have led to an end to Germany-this could be verified in the memoirs of numerous German generals.

That's the sort of solution I like, and it's what would have happened had there not been men of straw in command positions.

THAT kind of solution would have ultimately save tens of millions of lives.

Just like a well organized invasion of Iraq would, in the end, save lives. Just think of all the people of Iraq who will die if that regime continues to rule. That should be relatively sobering for most.

Gaggin

Hmm... attack Germany? That doesn't sound quite right. I mean, then history would not have recorded the allies destroying the evil fascist regime headed by Hitler, but instead an uncalled for invasion of Germany. That's one of the reasons why the U.S. and Britain and the rest of the world didn't just go in and kick Germany's ass in the first place. Who's to know of Hitler's plot to murder the Jews? Who knows it would've gone so far? Such an invasion would've created a different situation in Europe, but hardly a better one. So they kick down Germany again? It'll get back up again. Then, once Britain is faced with another war with Germany along with Poland and Frace, it'd be pretty hard to convince other nations to help them. What's Britain gonna say to the U.S.? 'Hey, remember when we invaded Germany and started a war based on the fact that Germany might start a war? Well, it wasn't a good idea, but come help us THIS time!'

True, giving Germany the Sudetenland wasn't a bright idea, but it would've been quite hypocritical for them to attack Germany just because Germany MIGHT attack them.

Zaknafien

Doesnt that sound kind of like Iraq?

Gaggin

Aye, it does, except Iraq's been killing Kurds and whatnot for awhile now, and he has nukes, which complicate any situation. Makes you wonder when one part history stops repeating and another starts. I mean, the situation can be compared to Germany, but it can also be comopared to the U.S.S.R.

keeper of the grave

Originally posted by Gaggin
Hmm... attack Germany? That doesn't sound quite right. I mean, then history would not have recorded the allies destroying the evil fascist regime headed by Hitler, but instead an uncalled for invasion of Germany. That's one of the reasons why the U.S. and Britain and the rest of the world didn't just go in and kick Germany's ass in the first place. Who's to know of Hitler's plot to murder the Jews? Who knows it would've gone so far? Such an invasion would've created a different situation in Europe, but hardly a better one. So they kick down Germany again? It'll get back up again. Then, once Britain is faced with another war with Germany along with Poland and Frace, it'd be pretty hard to convince other nations to help them. What's Britain gonna say to the U.S.? 'Hey, remember when we invaded Germany and started a war based on the fact that Germany might start a war? Well, it wasn't a good idea, but come help us THIS time!'

True, giving Germany the Sudetenland wasn't a bright idea, but it would've been quite hypocritical for them to attack Germany just because Germany MIGHT attack them.

NO!!! History is always written by the victors, they didn't have fucking idiots like you back then. They would have recorded a Germany that broke every single section of the Treaty of Versailles, they would have recorded a Germany responsible already for the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Jews and political prisoners. History would have shown a nation already preparing at the highest possible speed for a war of agression.

If you put the support of the "international community" above lives, you have already compromised the last vestiges of your humanity.

As for me, I think a "better situation" is any one which does not involve 50 million bodies. Can you even imagine that number? All the people, the faces, the dreams, the families.I have lost family, I have lost friends, and I know what it is like. Can you even imagine a thousand corpses Gaggin?

I can't even believe I am hearing this. You make me sick, you disgust me. I actually can't describe the revulsion I feel right now;I am not trying to be theatric, you make me sick.

I'm stunned, I am speachless.

Evil Penguin

Originally posted by keeper of the grave
Quite correct Penguin, Milosevic IS just like Saddam. So why was bombing Milosevic's Serbia more justifiable than bombing Saddam's Iraq?

Why is it less? As I recall you did quite a bit of ranting on that subject. Could it be that your objections are not based on circumstances but rather the fact that the figurehead of that action was your prince of evil, Bill Clinton?

As per your question, it isn't. The question IS over circumstances. Kicking Milosevic out was a movement supported by pretty much everyone but Milosevic himself. Say what you want about Europens, but they have no tolerance whatsoever for even the appearance of genocide. Iraq differs immediately in that the motives for invasion are much more suspicious. The U.S. would have quite a bit to gain by turning Iraq into a puppet government, which is apparently the only reason we insist on going in ourselves, in a conflict between two nations instead of an international mandate against one. I mean, honestly, what if every country behaved that way? Germany sees Sri Lanka as a threat to the stability of the subcontinent so they invade and turn it into a puppet regime. China sees President Bush as an imperialist and world tyrant, so they have hime assassinated. It's just not the way to go about things. By all means, throw out Saddam, but for Allah's sake do it under some kind of credible authority.

keyknowte

Gaggin you are a fool. I will not hesitate in this use of strong language because it is completely justified. Let me ask you something Gaggin: Do you have any knowledge of history besides a few fragments you`ve picked up? If you have ever read Mein Kampf, I hope you will see the stupidity of the post you just read. Hitler`s objective was to gain Lebensraum(as he called it) for Germany. His first action on coming to power was liquidation of opponents, imprisonment of dissidents, and oppression of Jews. Once accomplished, he made laws which turned Germany`s entire economy into a war machine(breaking decrees of the Treaty of Versailles). Then, he invaded the Rhineland in 1935(thus breaking another statute in the Treaty), in 1937 he began the subversion of Austria through the funding of Nazi terrorists in Austria(when this did not work, he invaded Austria, most of his armour broke down of the road to Vienna proof of his weakness at that point), in 1938 Hitler began the year with threats to Czechoslovakia for the "return of the Sudetenland," then came the Munich conference where Hitler bullied a meek France and a credulous England into selling Czechoslovakia for:"Peace in our time," then came threats for the return of Danzig to Germany in 1939, naturally Poland refused so Germany invaded, bombed Warsaw into dust, and opened the Second World War. Do you see anything interesting in this Gaggin? Like maybe a path of German aggression? Just to let you know Gaggin, Hitler had already begun to slaughter Jewish people in the mid 30`s well before the start of the Second World War, he only "refined" the practice in the Second World War. Are you going to tell me that Germany had a reason to invade Russia? They were allies at that point, and Stalin was doing everything in his power not to provoke the Germans. Surprise, surprise Hitler managed to dredge up a lame provocation for invading Russia. When looking back at history, it is fools like you Gaggin who prepare the world for a repeat. Before you "debate" any more on this forum, I suggest you read up on your Pre-World War Two, and World War Two history. Hardly a better europe than the one under Hitler? Somehow I am not surprised. How could a free Europe be better than a one where Hitler was slaughtering hundreds of thousands, and eventually millions of people?:rolleyes: How would it have been hypocritical to attack Germany? They had already warned Germany that if it invaded another country, they would use force to stop Hitler. There is a difference between attacking a country which is wholly innocent, and attacking a country that has already twice invaded countries, and has butchered citizens from those two countries non-stop since the invasion. On another tack, there were capable leaders that existed in Germany who could have replaced Hitler with a democratic and fair government. Replacing Hitler and his cohorts early on would have saved Germany(and Europe) from the pollution it stills suffers from today.(I am using pollution as another word for Nazism) Attacking Germany would also have saved the Eastern European countries from Communism. Attacking Germany before it attacked again would have saved the lives of fifty million people.(a huge proportion of them civilian) That in itself justifies an attack on Germany. I hope you never take a moral standpoint on anything Gaggin, because you seem to the most cold-blooded people I have ever heard. It is evident that you have never had to suffer, and thus you care not for the sufferings of others.

"Gotta get my tummy fed,
at one point it was filled with hot lead,
by an entourage"

Evil Penguin

Whoa, he just meant that attacking before they did anything wrong would have been hypocriticaal and history would have considered us the bad guys. It doesn't mean he's a Nazi or he doesn't care the millions of people killed, so there's no need for melodrama. This new policy of "preemptive defense" in my opinion looks suspiciously like the kind of rationale Hitler or Stalin employed, even if it is well-meaning. Basically it means we get to attack whoever we want, meting out punishment for crimes that have not been commited. I don't know about the rest of you, but I find that extremely unnerving, and I'm not even on the potential receiving end.

McLeod

Actually the history has shown that invading Germany while it was rather weak would've spared millions of lives. What hypocricy, who cares? This doesnt mean that preemptive strikes are always justified, what it means is that there is no absolute rule for such situations.

keyknowte

First of all Penguin, I did not call Gaggin a Nazi. Are you sure you really read everything written? Secondly, Iraq is guilty of crimes, please do not ignore them. During the late 80`s and all throughout the 90`s Saddam Hussein has been slaughtering Kurds. He has used chemical weapons, massacres, and the likes against the Kurds. He has started a war without provocation, he has defied the U.N. too many times to count. He continues to starve the people of his country while becoming a billionaire himself. He has duped you into believing so many lies it is unbelievable.
Did I hear someone on this forum call the elections in Iraq democratic? Democracy is where the people have the power to decide who will represent them. An election is un-democratic as soon as the people do not choose for themselves who they elect. When someone is standing with a gun a few feet away, and when if you put an X in the No column you have to go into a special room surrounded by soldiers to say who you want. when the people are not allowed to choose representatives, but have a sole representative chosen for them it is not democratic. When you write No on your ballot, you know you will not be returning home tonight, you know an election is undemocratic. When there is an atmosphere of coercion, the thought of an election being democratic is ridiculous. The "elections" in Iraq do not fit the definition for democratic.
and on and on and on......

Evil Penguin

And maybe you should read my post. Did I mention Iraq? No. Of course he's guilty of crimes. But this new "preemptive defense" policy is hardly limited to Iraq or Saddam. The U.S. has effectively reserved the right to attack whoever we want whenever we want without providing any concrete justification, and that is what I have a problem with. And no, you didn't hear anyone call that "election" democratic.

Gaggin

Originally posted by Evil Penguin
Whoa, he just meant that attacking before they did anything wrong would have been hypocriticaal and history would have considered us the bad guys. It doesn't mean he's a Nazi or he doesn't care the millions of people killed, so there's no need for melodrama. This new policy of "preemptive defense" in my opinion looks suspiciously like the kind of rationale Hitler or Stalin employed, even if it is well-meaning. Basically it means we get to attack whoever we want, meting out punishment for crimes that have not been commited. I don't know about the rest of you, but I find that extremely unnerving, and I'm not even on the potential receiving end.

I'm glad someone understood the point of my post. I'm not saying attacking Germany wouldn't have been the thing to do, I'm just saying that it probably didn't seem like such a great idea 'at the time'. No one can really say what would've happened. Sure, NOW we know it would've saved a bunch of lives, but what about wars after that? We cannot say, can we? We can only speculate. I'm sure attacking Russia seemed seemed like a good idea to alot of people during the Cold War, but it turns out it would've been disastrous. See, there's a difference between what we knew then and what we know now.

I can't even believe I am hearing this. You make me sick, you disgust me. I actually can't describe the revulsion I feel right now;I am not trying to be theatric, you make me sick.

Hmm, that's quite interesting Keeper, especially coming from someone who criticises people for putting emotional outbursts into their argument. Once again, you prove to be even more of a hypocrite.

As for me, I think a "better situation" is any one which does not involve 50 million bodies. Can you even imagine that number? All the people, the faces, the dreams, the families.I have lost family, I have lost friends, and I know what it is like. Can you even imagine a thousand corpses Gaggin?

Oh my, you sound like you've been through alot. Apparently comparaed to your life-long struggle my life must be peaches and cream. Well, did you ever consider that maybe you're not the only one to have lost family and friends? You have no idea what struggles I have been through, and I will not discuss them here, as they are a personal matter that has nothing to do with this thread. Besides, I'm sure both of our struggels are nothing compared to people such as War3_Kicks_Ass and Veegee, so spare me your ranting, I can imagine a thousand corpses as well as you can. Nowhere in my post did I say I was for the extermination of millions of Jews, or that WW2 was a good thing. I'm just saying that not every situation can be solved by killing someone before they kill you, because you never know what the potentials are.

Spliff Smoking Lab Chimp

Originally posted by keyknowte
Gaggin you are a fool. I will not hesitate in this use of strong language because it is completely justified. Let me ask you something Gaggin: Do you have any knowledge of history besides a few fragments you`ve picked up? If you have ever read Mein Kampf, I hope you will see the stupidity of the post you just read. Hitler`s objective was to gain Lebensraum(as he called it) for Germany. His first action on coming to power was liquidation of opponents, imprisonment of dissidents, and oppression of Jews. Once accomplished, he made laws which turned Germany`s entire economy into a war machine(breaking decrees of the Treaty of Versailles). Then, he invaded the Rhineland in 1935(thus breaking another statute in the Treaty), in 1937 he began the subversion of Austria through the funding of Nazi terrorists in Austria(when this did not work, he invaded Austria, most of his armour broke down of the road to Vienna proof of his weakness at that point), in 1938 Hitler began the year with threats to Czechoslovakia for the "return of the Sudetenland," then came the Munich conference where Hitler bullied a meek France and a credulous England into selling Czechoslovakia for:"Peace in our time," then came threats for the return of Danzig to Germany in 1939, naturally Poland refused so Germany invaded, bombed Warsaw into dust, and opened the Second World War. Do you see anything interesting in this Gaggin? Like maybe a path of German aggression? Just to let you know Gaggin, Hitler had already begun to slaughter Jewish people in the mid 30`s well before the start of the Second World War, he only "refined" the practice in the Second World War. Are you going to tell me that Germany had a reason to invade Russia? They were allies at that point, and Stalin was doing everything in his power not to provoke the Germans. Surprise, surprise Hitler managed to dredge up a lame provocation for invading Russia. When looking back at history, it is fools like you Gaggin who prepare the world for a repeat. Before you "debate" any more on this forum, I suggest you read up on your Pre-World War Two, and World War Two history. Hardly a better europe than the one under Hitler? Somehow I am not surprised. How could a free Europe be better than a one where Hitler was slaughtering hundreds of thousands, and eventually millions of people?:rolleyes: How would it have been hypocritical to attack Germany? They had already warned Germany that if it invaded another country, they would use force to stop Hitler. There is a difference between attacking a country which is wholly innocent, and attacking a country that has already twice invaded countries, and has butchered citizens from those two countries non-stop since the invasion. On another tack, there were capable leaders that existed in Germany who could have replaced Hitler with a democratic and fair government. Replacing Hitler and his cohorts early on would have saved Germany(and Europe) from the pollution it stills suffers from today.(I am using pollution as another word for Nazism) Attacking Germany would also have saved the Eastern European countries from Communism. Attacking Germany before it attacked again would have saved the lives of fifty million people.(a huge proportion of them civilian) That in itself justifies an attack on Germany. I hope you never take a moral standpoint on anything Gaggin, because you seem to the most cold-blooded people I have ever heard. It is evident that you have never had to suffer, and thus you care not for the sufferings of others.

"Gotta get my tummy fed,
at one point it was filled with hot lead,
by an entourage"

Hitler didn't slaughter Jews until 1939, at which time it was limited to Eastern European Jews, Western European Jews were only slaughtered starting in 1941 after the American's entered the war do to Hitlers beleifs that the US was controlled by Jews and all though they were "inferior" because Americans (I presume Canadians as well) are a bastard race of mixed heritage, he didn't want them doing any thing.

Would I pick at this point regularly, no, but if you confess to being a persons superior in History, it is never a very good idea to make blatant mistakes.

keyknowte

Spliff, will you please tell me what happened on Krystalnacht? I`ll let you answer that if you have even heard of it. Then please state the date on which it occurred, so that you may understand. Oh, I`m sorry Spliff, Hitler was only using forced labour, starvation, and shootings before 1941. Spliff, I have visited three concentration camps in Europe already, two of which were in Germany. Germany already had concentration camps in 1935, and you are going to tell me that people didnt die there? Hitler always intended to eliminate the Jews, however after his check in Russia, he put forth a plan for the fastest possible elimination of all the Jews in Europe. Many thousands of Jews in Germany, Austria, And Czechoslovakia were killed before 1941. Are you going to tell me that thousands of deaths dont represent a slaughter? I`m afraid it is you who are very much mistaken. Since killing large numbers of people in generally referred to as slaughter, I used the term. I am not concerned with exact numbers, the proof that many thousands of German Jews perished well before 1941, should be enough. As well, Hitler also started exterminating all people deemed mentally retarded and homosexual in Germany in 1935. Historical proof shows that that was when German families started getting info saying their mentally retarded relatives had died of T.B, Meningitis, Gangrene,etc...AKA Bullets to the head. Do not sit at your computer console and lecture one whos historical knowledge seems to be much more in depth than yours, especially when you attempt to correct something which is in fact right.

keyknowte

Here is a little something for you Spliff.
A tribute to Kristallnacht - November 9, 1938

On that night in Berlin and other cities throughout
Germany and Austria, Jewish businesses were
destroyed and Jewish families were dragged from
their homes and sent to concentration camps.

As the night rang with the terrifying music of
breaking glass, thirty thousand people were sent
to the long slow death of imprisonment at Dachau,
Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen.

I must assume that you know that people were killed for the most minor offenses in concentration camps. If you read my original post, I only said slaughter. As slaughter means mass killing(killing 25 people constitutes a slaughter), I believe I was correct in using it.

Spliff Smoking Lab Chimp

Yes I have heard of the crystal night. You can hardly call that slaughter, and to call the prisons concentration camps hides what the concentration camps really were, they were death factories, not prisons where some people died. Concentrations camps were places where tens of thousands died daily. The idea that any thing that the German Jews had to face prior to '41 could be lumped in with what the Eastern European Jews were facing and what they would be facing after '41 is absurd.

Evil Penguin

I wouldn't be condescending to Spliff if I were you...

Anyway, none of this is the point. What we did or didn't know about what Germany was or wasn't doing at various points is so far from relevant it's actually painful. The point is you can never accurately predict what a person or a nation is going to do in the future, and punishing someone for a crime you think they are probably going to commit sometime in the future is ludicrous, horribly irresponsible, and the perfect springboard justification for the kind of abuse of military power carried out by, yes, Hitler. That's what the Bush foreign policy now dictates, that we reserve the right to attack anyone at any time without even having to pretend that they've actually commited some offense deserving of it, only speculation that they might. If you've really studied history this should sound sickenly familiar.

Not to say that Saddam Hussein hasn't done enough to warrant extreme action against him, and it could very well be that invasion is the only answer. However, we (the United States) are treating invasion as a first resort instead of a last and are doing it by ourselves in a situation that doesn't affect us specifically. That's why there's international outrage - not because they want to protect Saddam but because we're exploiting a very serious international situation for our own goals, at the expense of millions of lives, heedless of potential danger, and refusing to even consider any other plan. The quest for international support is an obvious charade, as it is perfectly clear that we will behave in exactly the same manner whether everyone agrees with us or the entire world is opposed. I'd be pissed off, too.

Spliff Smoking Lab Chimp

I think I can reasonably predict that Iraq will not over run Poland, France, the low countries, then push on Moscow. Then again, Keeper may know differently........

keyknowte

Next time you call those "prisons" in this forum I am going to snap. Read up a little on your pre-war history, before you go around pretending that Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, and Dachau were prisons. Prisons where between them 1.5 million people died? 40 000 in those three before 1940? Prisons where in 1935, they put halters of barbed wire on prisoners and made them pull 1.5 ton bales of barbed wire around? Prisons where you didnt even need a pretext to shoot a "prisoner"? Prisons where people had "scientific" tests done on them? Prisons from which no one was ever released? What does it take to break through your self-assurance and get you to see reality. Tell the families of the murdered that there spouses died in prisons? I visited Sachsenhausen, it was one of the most saddening things I ever did. Dont fucking tell me that concentration camp was a prison. You are annoying. For this research, go a little more in depth. A grade ten general purpose history of the world book wont do. It wasnt just jews who died either, it was Catholic priests, protestant priests, writers, poets,homsexuals, gypsies by the scores, retarded people,.and on and on and on. After 1933, Germans could be sentenced to death for saying anything bad about their leader. Any way you turn it, mass killing is slaughter(i`m sorry if I didnt use the words you wanted me to use, such as "emprisonment to death")

Penguin, please butt out, stop currying favor, and go cook some curry! Spliff chose to be condescending first, I just retaliated.

Spliff, it doesnt matter what country Hussein attacks, it matters that Hussein has already attacked twice. Keeper`s koncern and reasoning is a little deeper than you think(which begs the question:Do you?). The parallel he is drawing between the two are that people like Hitler dont come once in a world, in truth there are lots of them. Hussein happens to be similar to Hitler in that he has a way of breaking promises, pushing until somebody pushes back, and generally being a territory-seeking, mass-murdering, rigged-election holding, country-invading tyrant. Hitler believed England would never go to war with him, because they were in his view "reasonable." Hussein believed the United States wouldnt care who sold oil to it...Ooops, maybe they actually care about more than themselves....Oops, maybe Churchill was looking out for all of Europe`s future, not just his own. Anaylze this:"England did not have to go to war with Hitler, in fact Hitler did not want war with England, he believed that as long as England retained controll of her colonies she would be happy....Oops, Churchill had a conscience..Hitler did not...Ooops, Bush has a conscience...Saddam does not. The problem with Saddam and Hitler is that they did not realise that people do not think solely on the basis of logic, we also take into account humanitarian reasons-thus emotion-concern for our fellow man. Something Hitler couldnt fathom in 1939, and Saddam can not fathom today. Am I wrong? I hope not, but if I am please explain using reason, why I am wrong. Dont say stuff like "Saddam wouldnt have sold oil to the Americans," before the Gulf War America was nominally Saddam`s ally. Why? Because America was choosing what seemed to be at the time the lesser of two evils. Perhaps they were wrong, but they acted in good faith, and as often happens when people act like that they get slighted.......

Please read all of the post, I do so very hate it when people argue with things I never wrote. Or take things out of context.

Well, I`m sure Spliff and Penguin, you will be denigrating my arguments and coming up with ones you think are better soon..alas I do not care..

Evil Penguin

No, I'm ignoring your arguments, because as I already pointed out, they have nothing to do with anything but you and Spliff trying to out-trivialize each other, and it certainly has nothing to do with the topic or current events. I think it's interesting that you would write huge long posts trying to discredit one minor anecdotal argument Gaggin made days ago while completely ignoring the real point he was making, not to mention everything I've said except for one sentence telling you not use completely unnecessary and childish personal attacks.

Gaggin

Originally posted by keyknowte
Next time you call those "prisons" in this forum I am going to snap. Read up a little on your pre-war history, before you go around pretending that Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, and Dachau were prisons. Prisons where between them 1.5 million people died? 40 000 in those three before 1940? Prisons where in 1935, they put halters of barbed wire on prisoners and made them pull 1.5 ton bales of barbed wire around? Prisons where you didnt even need a pretext to shoot a "prisoner"? Prisons where people had "scientific" tests done on them? Prisons from which no one was ever released? What does it take to break through your self-assurance and get you to see reality. Tell the families of the murdered that there spouses died in prisons? I visited Sachsenhausen, it was one of the most saddening things I ever did. Dont fucking tell me that concentration camp was a prison. You are annoying. For this research, go a little more in depth. A grade ten general purpose history of the world book wont do. It wasnt just jews who died either, it was Catholic priests, protestant priests, writers, poets,homsexuals, gypsies by the scores, retarded people,.and on and on and on. After 1933, Germans could be sentenced to death for saying anything bad about their leader. Any way you turn it, mass killing is slaughter(i`m sorry if I didnt use the words you wanted me to use, such as "emprisonment to death")

Penguin, please butt out, stop currying favor, and go cook some curry! Spliff chose to be condescending first, I just retaliated.

Spliff, it doesnt matter what country Hussein attacks, it matters that Hussein has already attacked twice. Keeper`s koncern and reasoning is a little deeper than you think(which begs the question:Do you?). The parallel he is drawing between the two are that people like Hitler dont come once in a world, in truth there are lots of them. Hussein happens to be similar to Hitler in that he has a way of breaking promises, pushing until somebody pushes back, and generally being a territory-seeking, mass-murdering, rigged-election holding, country-invading tyrant. Hitler believed England would never go to war with him, because they were in his view "reasonable." Hussein believed the United States wouldnt care who sold oil to it...Ooops, maybe they actually care about more than themselves....Oops, maybe Churchill was looking out for all of Europe`s future, not just his own. Anaylze this:"England did not have to go to war with Hitler, in fact Hitler did not want war with England, he believed that as long as England retained controll of her colonies she would be happy....Oops, Churchill had a conscience..Hitler did not...Ooops, Bush has a conscience...Saddam does not. The problem with Saddam and Hitler is that they did not realise that people do not think solely on the basis of logic, we also take into account humanitarian reasons-thus emotion-concern for our fellow man. Something Hitler couldnt fathom in 1939, and Saddam can not fathom today. Am I wrong? I hope not, but if I am please explain using reason, why I am wrong. Dont say stuff like "Saddam wouldnt have sold oil to the Americans," before the Gulf War America was nominally Saddam`s ally. Why? Because America was choosing what seemed to be at the time the lesser of two evils. Perhaps they were wrong, but they acted in good faith, and as often happens when people act like that they get slighted.......

Please read all of the post, I do so very hate it when people argue with things I never wrote. Or take things out of context.

Well, I`m sure Spliff and Penguin, you will be denigrating my arguments and coming up with ones you think are better soon..alas I do not care..

Hmm, it's funny how you keep saying that Hitler didn't think England would attack him because Churchill's reasonable. I mean, from your vast historical knowledge, it's obvious you understand that Hitler believed that Churchhill would be in a state of self-preservation. Hitler seemed to think this of Churchill all the way up of 1939, when the war started, right? Well, I'd like to point this out to you, since you seem so insistent on researching a topic before commenting. The fact is, Churchhill didn't even become PM until 1940! He didn't get into power until AFTER the war started. Please remove that head from your ass, it's totally messing up your thoughts.

Ah yes, I know a thing or two about these prisons. You see, back in 1935 the prisons for Jews might've been there, but no one really knew exactly what went on in these prisons for some time. In fact, the 'slaughter' in these prisons didn't really become evident until after the invasion of Poland. I like how listed all the types of people the Germans killed in these prisons, yet you left out the 2nd most frequently type of person killed in the prison: Russians. Yes, when the Auschwitz prison opened its doors, it was home to millions of inmates throughout the war, mostly Jews, Russian POWs, and about 10,000 gypsies(not one of those gypsies survived). Auschwitz was a very efficient prison, for it managed to house hundreds of thousands at the time, and mass killings were a frequent ceremony. If I remember correctly, they set a record, sending about 20,000 bodies to the crematorium in one day. Note that although most of these prisoners were already dead, elderly and infant inmates were simply burned alive. Yes, these prisons were quite horrible places to begin with, but the full tragedy didn't even start until well after the war started. And even then, how can the U.S. be aware of the atrocities within these prisons? After all, it's not like these prisons had reporters crawling around in them asking prisoners how prison life is like. So you see, the prisons you mentioned in Germany were pretty horrible prisons, but they were nothing like the Auschwitz prison in Poland.

Oh wait, did you say they're not prisons? Oops. :P

Oh, and don't try to tell me to butt out like you did EP. I mean, how can ignorance so blatant as yours be ignored?

keyknowte

Gaggin you are ridiculous. I said England would be reasonable. It was with Churchill`s pressure that England went to war. If I have to state the obvious for people like you with little history background, and bent on proving me wrong, then I might as well not write. You are a thoroughly disagreable person. Quite contrary. I dont normally have to state that with the people with whom I converse. they know. Did I say something about taking my writing out of context? You again thought I was wrong though again I am not. Have you ever heard Churchills speech of defiance? Have you ever read any biographies of churchill, I didnt say Neville chamberlain because he was not as strong as churchill. churchill was the one who rallied England.

Oh, lord what will I do with you Gaggin. You misunderstood the point of my second part. I was explaining to Spliff that concentration camp would be a more apt word. By the way Gaggin, have you ever been inside one of those "prisons," I have I have seen two of them. Do not tell me about them, if you wish to know I will tell you. But do not write about them for the sole purpose of attempting to prove me wrong.(when indeed I am not) Are you illiterate? I mean this not as an insult but did you make sure you understood what I wrote before you replied. Did you think objectively? Or did you just write that post to prove me wrong? Be honest with yourself at least, I dont need an answer. OH, I do believe you have missed the message and attacked the writer. Really I am sorry, because if the holocaust can not teach you more than talking about efficiency, I am truly sad. I do not jest.

Gaggin

Next time you call those "prisons" in this forum I am going to snap. Read up a little on your pre-war history, before you go around pretending that Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, and Dachau were prisons. Prisons where between them 1.5 million people died? 40 000 in those three before 1940? Prisons where in 1935, they put halters of barbed wire on prisoners and made them pull 1.5 ton bales of barbed wire around? Prisons where you didnt even need a pretext to shoot a "prisoner"? Prisons where people had "scientific" tests done on them? Prisons from which no one was ever released? What does it take to break through your self-assurance and get you to see reality. Tell the families of the murdered that there spouses died in prisons? I visited Sachsenhausen, it was one of the most saddening things I ever did. Dont fucking tell me that concentration camp was a prison. You are annoying. For this research, go a little more in depth. A grade ten general purpose history of the world book wont do. It wasnt just jews who died either, it was Catholic priests, protestant priests, writers, poets,homsexuals, gypsies by the scores, retarded people,.and on and on and on. After 1933, Germans could be sentenced to death for saying anything bad about their leader. Any way you turn it, mass killing is slaughter(i`m sorry if I didnt use the words you wanted me to use, such as "emprisonment to death")

Hmm, looks like you attacked some writor here for using the word prison, and you threatened to 'snap'. Interesting.

Penguin, please butt out, stop currying favor, and go cook some curry! Spliff chose to be condescending first, I just retaliated.

Well, another attacked writer here as well, looks like Penguin. Hmm...

Spliff, it doesnt matter what country Hussein attacks, it matters that Hussein has already attacked twice. Keeper`s koncern and reasoning is a little deeper than you think(which begs the questiono you?).

Wow, yet another attack! Well well...

OH, I do believe you have missed the message and attacked the writer

Oh, I do believe I got the message, loud and clear. You're once again being so hypocritical, and for no reason either. Of course I attacked you, that's what debaters do. It's called a rebuttle. And you must've totally missed my point on the whole 'Auschwitz Prison' thing. I only did it to make fun of you. I'm mean like that. :)

Unlike some people, I don't deny that I'll go out of my way to attack someone, nor will I condemn those that do. I'll simply point out those who think they're better than everyone else by considering themselves above such things, which is silly to begin with. I don't care if you've seen the concentration camps, I can still comprehend the fact that millions dead isn't good.

EP's right, we've really got way off the subject here. I hope the next person will lead us back onto it...

keeper of the grave

Haha, keeper will respond when he sees fit, but presently keeper is very very busy, and keeper does not need distractions like this forum at the moment. You see, keeper has a job, and means he has some comittments, which left unfulfilled, you get the picture. No more paycheck, and no more evenings out for keeper.

I think the reason you are so naive is the fact you spend all your time inside the forum instead of out meeting people in the Real World. Note, "interacting" is not sufficient, plus, it is a sterile term.

As the years go
I change my opinions

What was once a stem has now become a wrist
And with two joining hands the brood has been crushed
As the face with leaf shaped eyes reveal,
Planets to exploit our dreams through shields
Its the words we can never block that make us think
Synchronized thoughts of the child that moves
outside the house the roof stops the rain
But inside, you know mothers build on pain
Life is in the length of tomorrow
Narrow is the mind that's shallow
Walls are a religion of perfection
Hate is an infection, and I feel no guilt
This is a mastery of soul
Where once there was beauty there is only brick
Society bombs this opinion cus this world is sick
As a teenager we act as if we know it all
But now as an adult I only try to forget
Regret is the poison that we all live in
In the mind of a child is the only time we're free
Return to me

I know y'all think I am just a hip hop groupie, and I know what I think of you.

Damn Gaggin, you really are dumb. I did not expect you to make the same mistake about 4 times. I am not going to explain to you why you are wrong, but I do suggest you read Churchill's memoirs and find out. You will ignore this, and then laugh at a someone who evidently knows his history.
The full tragedy is that our society allows non-entities like you to exist. I do wish abortion had been much more common, oh, 17 years ago. You and Penguins are perhaps the greatest arguments FOR abortion I have ever met.

Yo Keynowte, nice name, are you a student, or are you employed?

But, like I was saying, I don't halve thyme write know two right.

Penguin, when you complain about people "changing the subject", why don't you just ignore your response to MY FIRST POST in this topic. I still don't know how you managed to involve your family in this discussion.
Penguin and Gaggin, you ressemble Sisyphus.

I think we need to restate this debate though. This debate is REALLY about the UN. You say it is a useful organization, I know otherwise.

I suggest any organization which has Lybia and Syria on its "human rights comission" can not be taken seriously, you suggest all it needs is a little more power, more comittment. I counter with the argument giving power to wicked nations is foolish, you then go on to claim the power does not end up in the hands of the evil people.

I wisely note there are 104 member nations with completely un-democratic(thus could not possibly respect people's rights) forms of government, and only 89 with any semblance of democracy.
Of course, you claim those figures are a red-herring. Not important. I beg to differ. This argument can be stated in the form of a question, "how do you propose a majority of un-democratic vested interests will react to attempts to democratize?"
You somehow believe they will go along merrily enough, suggesting 51 convicted murderers, and 49 law abiding citizens would all vote to increase punishment for murder. A highly believable scenario.:rolleyes: But, if you believe it is possible, you can join the Penguin nut-riding fan club on a limited time offer, they will join such other great visionaries as the Rove an Theory dick ridin
band of biters.
If you are skeptical, a logical response, Penguin will bombard you with more of the same.
He will reiterate all it needs is a little more power.

Penguin, have you ever seen someone hold a gun to a person's head or chest, and then calmly pull the trigger? I don't suppose you have, even in your worst nightmares about keeper.(yes that was you screaming like a girl)
My point is the individual who does such a terrible thing can neither be trusted, nor cured.(except with a lethal does of lead or TNT)
But, more to the point, a person who has put a gun to the head of another without just reason, has also put, figuratively, a gun to his own head. A murderer can not abdicate power, and simultaneously abdicate responsability for the crimes he comitted with that power.-This should be fairly obvious. The point: is a dictator suddenly surrenders himself to the will of his people, he is unlikely to receive mercy. Like the fabled queen who rode the tiger, he knows his descent will lead to more than just a loss of ultimate power(I mean the power over another's life)but also the loss of his life, his family, and all his possessions.

How many people condemn themselves to death Penguin? How many? Perhaps they would even volunteer to witness against themselves at their trials? :rolleyes:

Those conclusions should also be fairly easily made.

So, you have 104 people riding tigers against 89 who maybe are not, and you wonder why the UN is such a marginalized organization, why it has so little credibility; for the very reason two of the worst "human rights offenders" can be found on the "human rights comission." Just like the Durban Conference against Hate and Racism, became exactly the opposite of that: a forum for un-diluted racism and hatred.
I don't think I need to explain the UN's inability to succeed.

But there goes Penguin, "they need more power," or, "it's because of people like you." Finger-pointing, and undefinable needs.

No Penguin, it is because of people like you; people with no respect for human life or dignity, and certainly none for freedom. People who attempt to sideline every debate, and manipulate others with out-out lies and catchphrases.

I am not done yet. Penguin suggests the UN's credibility could be restored by giving it more power, and giving it a free-hand. I'm not sure how he intends to circumvent the little problem of dictatorial majority, maybe with an unfair dictatorship of his own devising. What do I mean? Explain yourself Keeper...Ok, ok. I mean that as long as the UN remains an organization where votes by member nations determine something, nothing will be accomplished. I am not suggesting we eliminate free-votes; in fact, they are what gives the UN the slightest veneer of continued accountability.

No, my honest opinion is the UN is a waste of money in any manifestation, and Penguin's dream of a United Earth is economically unfeasible.

As the clincher, I would like to add there is nothing more amusing than a fool Gaggin, but they do become tiresome.

Go back to highschool, form some views of your own, and then come crawling back sonny.

Spliff Smoking Lab Chimp

Originally posted by keyknowte
Next time you call those "prisons" in this forum I am going to snap. Read up a little on your pre-war history, before you go around pretending that Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, and Dachau were prisons. Prisons where between them 1.5 million people died? 40 000 in those three before 1940? Prisons where in 1935, they put halters of barbed wire on prisoners and made them pull 1.5 ton bales of barbed wire around? Prisons where you didnt even need a pretext to shoot a "prisoner"? Prisons where people had "scientific" tests done on them? Prisons from which no one was ever released? What does it take to break through your self-assurance and get you to see reality. Tell the families of the murdered that there spouses died in prisons? I visited Sachsenhausen, it was one of the most saddening things I ever did. Dont fucking tell me that concentration camp was a prison. You are annoying. For this research, go a little more in depth. A grade ten general purpose history of the world book wont do. It wasnt just jews who died either, it was Catholic priests, protestant priests, writers, poets,homsexuals, gypsies by the scores, retarded people,.and on and on and on. After 1933, Germans could be sentenced to death for saying anything bad about their leader. Any way you turn it, mass killing is slaughter(i`m sorry if I didnt use the words you wanted me to use, such as "emprisonment to death")

Penguin, please butt out, stop currying favor, and go cook some curry! Spliff chose to be condescending first, I just retaliated.

Spliff, it doesnt matter what country Hussein attacks, it matters that Hussein has already attacked twice. Keeper`s koncern and reasoning is a little deeper than you think(which begs the question:Do you?). The parallel he is drawing between the two are that people like Hitler dont come once in a world, in truth there are lots of them. Hussein happens to be similar to Hitler in that he has a way of breaking promises, pushing until somebody pushes back, and generally being a territory-seeking, mass-murdering, rigged-election holding, country-invading tyrant. Hitler believed England would never go to war with him, because they were in his view "reasonable." Hussein believed the United States wouldnt care who sold oil to it...Ooops, maybe they actually care about more than themselves....Oops, maybe Churchill was looking out for all of Europe`s future, not just his own. Anaylze this:"England did not have to go to war with Hitler, in fact Hitler did not want war with England, he believed that as long as England retained controll of her colonies she would be happy....Oops, Churchill had a conscience..Hitler did not...Ooops, Bush has a conscience...Saddam does not. The problem with Saddam and Hitler is that they did not realise that people do not think solely on the basis of logic, we also take into account humanitarian reasons-thus emotion-concern for our fellow man. Something Hitler couldnt fathom in 1939, and Saddam can not fathom today. Am I wrong? I hope not, but if I am please explain using reason, why I am wrong. Dont say stuff like "Saddam wouldnt have sold oil to the Americans," before the Gulf War America was nominally Saddam`s ally. Why? Because America was choosing what seemed to be at the time the lesser of two evils. Perhaps they were wrong, but they acted in good faith, and as often happens when people act like that they get slighted.......

Please read all of the post, I do so very hate it when people argue with things I never wrote. Or take things out of context.

Well, I`m sure Spliff and Penguin, you will be denigrating my arguments and coming up with ones you think are better soon..alas I do not care..

Churchill had a conscience....... Tell that to the people of Dresden, tell that to Iraqi's gassed by the RAF in the interwar period for the purpose of putting down a rebellion. I wouldn't, because talking to things that no longer exist is slightly delusional, but you have your prayer.

I call them prisons because they were set up as prisons, most of those that were arrested on the Crystal Night were released, the purpose was harrassment to cause emigration. In the forties the purpose of policy was not emigration it was extinction, there fore the policy changed, prisons became factories of death for the sole purpose of killing all who entered, which is my definition of a concentration camp. I know the difference, relatives went in and out of prison for being communists and/or pacifists, a couple didn't come back from where ever they were sent in the forties when they refused to fight. Then again my grandpa in the RCAF might of accidentally bombed them.

Raven of Narnia

Originally posted by Evil Penguin
Neighbor beating his kids? Don't call the cops; kill him and take his stuff! Justice at its finest!

And what would be the alternative? If the cops (like the UN) is useless and non-effective, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the kids to stand up to the parents as a good semaritan? I think it is. I don't know about you, but I don't like to stand idly by while people suffer in the name of a dictatorship. If they choose to, then they should have the right, but until they say they like it how it is, somebody should be willing to step in.

If all people (Americans) are created equal under OUR constitution (with no regard for race, creed, sex, sexual preference an so on, they why Penguin, do you believe that all people that are not Americans shouldn't have the same equality? Isn't that against all that we as Americans believe and what our constitution provides us?Perhaps you think it is selfish to act, but wouldn't it also be selfish to watch as innocent people suffer and do nothing?

Evil Penguin

Ahhh!

The hypocrisy in here has an almost tangible quality, like a thick fog. Anyway, starting with the most recent:

Raven: The "police force" is ineffective because we, the most powerful and very necessary member of that force, refuse to operate within the law and instead carry out "justice" outside of it, when it suits us and to our own advantage. It would be so simple to do otherwise. I do think its amusing that you are accusing me of ignoring the rights of non-Americans, though. This from the guy who condones killing civilians and said he wanted to bomb the Japanese. The whole point is to ensure the rights of everyone.

Keeper: Oy. Your first post didn't have substance, there wasn't much to ignore. What it did have were glib, sarcastic allusions to other things you've said, which yes, I found quite offensive. There were only so many times I could listen to you trash Europeans for being "bleeding heart racists," or whatever you think they are. Anyway, it was still on topic, because the debate is whether it's a good idea to rush wildly into military domination, and who should be involved. Or at least much more on topic than your (oh, I'm sorry, "keyknowte"'s) endless argument with Spliff and Gaggin. Whoever was right about those facts doesn't matter even one tiny bit to the current situation, yet not only was it pursued as if it were absolutely crucial, but it was more personal insult than argument, anyway.

The UN is a necessary diplomatic organization, forcing everything out into the open and encouraging cooperation and a closer world community. Not to mention preventing World War III, but hey, details. You're right, no dictator will ever step down willingly, but you seem to be missing the concept. It doesn't have to ensure democracy. It would be better if it did, but you're entirely right that that is impossible, at least for now. What it can do is effectively establish real international laws and enforce them. If the UN had overriding sovereignty, like the U.S. federal government has over states, for instance, it would literally mean an end to war, a vastly improved global economy, and a code of basic human rights that is actually enforceable. You wouldn't need a "kleptocracy," as you love to put it. Why do you suppose America's or Japan's economy is so strong while Nigeria's or Ghana's suffers so much? It is because they are isolated, in separate economies, and it is almost impossible for a nation to escape the third world if there are so many first world nations that dominate all. Unfortunately dictators couldn't be gotten rid of at first, but then, neither could slavery at the founding of the United States. Progress follows cooperation, and you can't expect every problem to be solved at once. There were those who thought dreams of a united Germany, or a united Italy, or a united America were completely unfeasible, too. No respect for human life or dignity? Please. You're the one advocating doing nothing.

Everyone else: chill.

keeper of the grave

I fail to see how any assembly dominated by dicators would ever willingly enforce any "good" international laws. They have not yet. I just do not see why we should put our faith in an organization whose failure rate touches 100%, why do you?

As for World War 3, nuclear weapons prevented that, not the UN. Do you think the Soviets or Americans gave a damn it?

World War 3 may not have happened yet, but there are still dozens of wars going on every year here. The UN has not been very effective at that, has it?

I will not explain to you the economic unfeasability of one currency to you, or the dreadful effects regional subsidization because you just wouldn't understand. There is no "GLOBAL ECONOMY" Penguin.
Acrtually, the reasons for Nigeria and Ghanas poverty are manifold. There is the corruption, the inflation, the taxes, the government, the lack of trade between cities, the lack of manufacturing that takes place, and the lack of law and order. Third world cities must trade with each other, and protect themselves from 1st world imports.
Your meagre grasp of economic systems has not been aided by the even more flawed illusions journalists conjure up.

If the United States were "such a successful economic unit," American cities would be responding more effectively to their trade deficits. Too bad about that unified currency; it's called faulty feed-back.

I have never advocated "doing nothing" Penguin, unless "doing nothing" was preferable to "doing something." It has always been my most firm belief that peace must be achieved with the least loss of life and property possible. "Peace at all costs" holds nothing for me.

As for the United Germany, we see what a mistake that was.

I put that on the clan you just wouldn't understand
That's the hip hop kclan you just wouldn't understand.

"These nutz,
And the hip hop kclan!!!"

Raven of Narnia

Originally posted by Evil Penguin
Ahhh!

The hypocrisy in here has an almost tangible quality, like a thick fog. Anyway, starting with the most recent:

wow, that's nice that you can say something like that. I assume you don't include yourself in that? It's also hypocritical not to.

Originally posted by Evil Penguin
Raven: The "police force" is ineffective because we, the most powerful and very necessary member of that force, refuse to operate within the law and instead carry out "justice" outside of it, when it suits us and to our own advantage.
[/B]
So, you're saying that the US is to blame for trying to enforce the laws that the UN makes but will not enforce itself? Going outside the law? I honestly think that is the STUPIDEST comment on this serious forum I have ever seen. We are going outside the law by enforcing what laws the UN made. That's brilliant Penguin, seriously...and would would happen if the "good side" of the world followed the UN and the "bad side" did not?

Originally posted by Evil Penguin
It would be so simple to do otherwise. I do think its amusing that you are accusing me of ignoring the rights of non-Americans, though. This from the guy who condones killing civilians and said he wanted to bomb the Japanese. The whole point is to ensure the rights of everyone.
[/B]
Tell me what the difference is between civilians who kill innocent people and soldiers who kill innocent people? Only the law. Why should they not both be punished? But, that is another topic that has already been discussed, although you chose to decide that you were right and that was the end....you are like a fillibuster, Penguin. Bore people and be repetitive until they give up trying to discuss anything with you. Great debationary tactics.

And [b]to "ensure the rights of everyone" is an injustice to the people who obey the rights of everyone else and provide protection for those who don't.[/]b Staying within the rights of the UN law is about as ineffective as saying to Saddam, "Please stop, let's all be friends" while he kills us. No Penguin, the worst thing we could do is let guilty people go. And coincidently, look who just FREED "guilty people", Saddam Hussein...So, apparently, since you agree with Saddam Hussein about working "within the law" even if the law is ineffective and letting guilty people run free, you are about as bad (or good as you think) as a terrorist and wepaons dealer. So, to recap, you would be Saddam and according to you, I am Al'Qaeda. So, now that you have or almost have WoMD, where can I pick those up and how much will it cost me? You are about as much of a hypocrite as I am, so stop your "holier than thou" attitude

Zaknafien

"So, you're saying that the I am to blame for trying to enforce the laws that the US makes but will not enforce itself? Going outside the law? I honestly think that is the STUPIDEST comment on this serious forum I have ever seen. I am going outside the law by enforcing what laws the I made."

We're a part of the UN....shouldnt we be therefore enforcing their laws? Its not just us, other people pitch in to, but is it SO illogical that we should help the organization were part of?

keeper of the grave

I'm not sure what Zak was trying to say there, but I think he was saying that Raven and I are right, and Penguin is wrong. That would be the only logical response.

Gaggin

I think Zak is trying to say that since the U.S. is a major part of the U.N., it should be justified in enforcing violations of the laws set by the U.N... makes sense, right? Well, unfortunately, alot of the U.N. members are against enforcing these laws for whatever reasons. The problem here is that the laws are no longer being enforced by the 'United Nations', but rather one powerful nation that's taking the law into its own hands. The purpose of the UN is to stop psycho rulers like Saddam from doing the things they do, but it is also there for the purpose of solving problems as a united International front.

So I think it's pretty clear that the UN needs some serious revamping... not only to make it more effective in solving issues, but more effective in keeping a united front on situations. Many people complain about the U.S. being too involved in international issues, but in truth, it has to be, because the rest of the UN isn't holding up its end. War with Iraq seem imminent now, but had the UN been a bit more organized to begin with, war wouldn't have been an option in the first place.

keeper of the grave

Any changes empowering the UN will come at the expense of our freedoms. If you are willing to forego them in exchange for an idyllic fairy tale dream of world peace, all well and good. If not...

Gaggin

That's the universal key to Governing. The more more your Government works for you, the more freedoms you have to give up. So you have to ask question; Is the improvement in heading towards world peace(No, world peace isn't atainable, but we can definately progress towards it) worth the freedoms that we'll be giving up? Besides, only our nation's freedom will be touched in such a reorganization. Our individual rights still remain the same. And if a nation doesn't like giving up those rights, it doesn't have to stay in the U.N.

You see Keeper, world peace may be just a dream, but bettering the world's situation is not. If peace is such a lost cause to you, why do you even care?

Evil Penguin

Whose freedoms? Mine? Yours? No, those freedoms would be ensured. The only freedom that would be forfeit is the freedom of opression and domination. I think we can do without those.

Raven of Narnia

I don't think we are giving up any freedoms. I think the idea of us acting is to protect our freedoms. We take the freedom of those who seek to take ours. If we did anything else, we wouldn't be protecting ourselves. We stand up for the freedoms that the UN decided all law-abiding people should have. Until someone infringes on that, there would be no reason. Once that plane of law has been crossed, they forfeight theirs. The only real way to punish them is to take theirs, whether that be the right to live where you wanna live, or even the right to live. However, I myself do not consider those rights, I consider them privilieges. When you take another man's life, you forfeight your privilege to live. Our government and our military are here to protect us from people who want to hurt us. I don't know why anyone would think that does not apply in today's age of tribal warfare and terrorism. The answer is not to respond to an attack, but to prevent one. Why shouold we not take the freedoms of guilty people before they hurt innocent people?

keeper of the grave

Whose freedoms? Mine? Yours? No, those freedoms would be ensured. The only freedom that would be forfeit is the freedom of opression and domination. I think we can do without those.

Pure speculation, the only evidence either of us has is personal opinion, hardly enough to debate over. You will continue to tell me how much better the world would be with a huge centralized government, and I will continue to tell you it is both economically unfeasible, and will infringe on personal freedoms very quickly.

It probably does not matter who is right because no one in the world wants to sacrifice his or her sovereignity for a white elephant.

My personal opinion is: if it does not work now, giving it more money and power will not make it work any better for us.

Your personal opinion: I love the UN, but aside from that, we need a huge centralized government so my inculcated zombieish attachment to world peace may some day become a reality.(I want to thank my teachers, and my parents, and all my sponsors...)

"They who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security ."

Benjamin Franklin

I like Gaggin and his little, "if we can even save one life," line. I think you meant to say, "the more you work FOR your government, the more indebted you feel towards it." Not to mention the preserving the big government factor so as to preserve one's job, or one's mummy or daddy's job.

Gaggin

No no, I never said anything about saving just one life. I was talking about making progressive steps to building a better world society.

And it's not a matter of feeling indebted to your Government. It's the natural balance that affects all Government ever since the ancient days of Hammurabi. The closer you get to an authoritarian government, the less freedom you'll have, but you'll be taken cared for more than a government that leans towards an anarchal government. But with the latter, you'll have more freedom. Less law, less protection, more law, less freedom. It's a double-edged sword.

keyknowte

Interesting theory there Gaggin. The reality though seems to be that the more power you give a government, the more it will work for itself...Lets take communism in Russia as an example shall we? Have you heard of the Nomenklatura Gaggin? The Nomenklatura were the bureaucrats created by the communist system. In the beginning, some of the bureaucrats might(just might) have thought they were helping the people, but as time progressed, people in Russia became bureaucrats for the perks. The bureaucrats spouted the same lame lines(we are a government of the proletariat blah blah blah), however by the 1940`s they no longer believed what they said(and took every opportunity to enrich themselves). Just like Lenin never ever believed what he said. But anywho, when governments become more powerful, their ability to dispense wealth is increased(i.e. they take more money from the citizens in the form of taxes, etc..), and therefore bureaucratic positions become more sought after, and the people seeking them no longer care a good god damn about the people they are supposed to serve. Thus, the bigger the government, the smaller the chance you are being represented or cared for.. it is not a double edged sword, you lose one way, you win the other. The winning way happens to be the one involving the smaller government. Big Brother is not watching over you to protect you, he is watching over you to protect himself. Would you say the people in Communist Russia, Iraq, Communist China, communist Korea, Syria, get taken care of better than we do? Interesting concept....Really, I also fell a lot better protected here in Canada, as I am not worried about agents knocking at my door at night if I say something against the state.

Evil Penguin

The federal government protects individual rights, does it not? It doesn't allow states to legalize slavery, or carry out unexplained executions, or silence the press. Or invade each other. Now imagine how nice the whole world could be.

McLeod

Well your federal government also invades and bombs other countries, as well as finances rebels and marionette dictators across the globe. So I wouldnt be so sure about that. :)

Seriously though, I think we are slowly edging towards a centralized world government. Just look at EU. While I dont see it happening at least for another century, eventually we'll get there. The real question is wether it will be huge and bureaucratic, or smaller and de-centralized to some degree. Looking at how bigger in-human Kafka-style governments did in the past, I'd say the choice is obvious. A smaller human-oriented system, the more horizontal in its structure the better. Vertical systems tend to turn countries into police-states, real fast too.

Gaggin

You have to find the right balance. If there's no Government, you have complete freedom, but there's nothing to stop people from killing you without consequence. In some cases it is a matter of being taken care of too much. You don't need the Government to tie your shoes for you, but in an extreme situation the Government would do it for you anyway. Too much control is not good, but not enough control isn't good either. Yet the balance remains. The trade-off of freedom for power is always there, but not all trade-offs are good (or bad). And this isn't some theory I thought up, it's one of the first things I learned in AP Government.

Evil Penguin

Originally posted by McLeod
Well your federal government also invades and bombs other countries, as well as finances rebels and marionette dictators across the globe. So I wouldnt be so sure about that. :)

Seriously though, I think we are slowly edging towards a centralized world government. Just look at EU. While I dont see it happening at least for another century, eventually we'll get there. The real question is wether it will be huge and bureaucratic, or smaller and de-centralized to some degree. Looking at how bigger in-human Kafka-style governments did in the past, I'd say the choice is obvious. A smaller human-oriented system, the more horizontal in its structure the better. Vertical systems tend to turn countries into police-states, real fast too.

Indeed it does, which is why global government would be an improvement. Then they can bomb other planets and marionette the asteroid belt.

As for the other part, I agree totally. Most things should be taken care of locally, but the whole point is that there are universal, enforceable guidelines, and when push comes to shove no individual nation can defy them all.

keeper of the grave

I think I will research the European Union, and find out just how good these conglomerated bureaucracies really are.

Raven of Narnia

yeah, well you guys try to convince those gang warfare middle eastern leaders who capitalize with power and money by war. Let's see how well you can convince them and many others to have a central government for the world. It's not gonna happen, not in 10 years, not in a 1,000

I mean, just look at the US. Many of us at least agree on what constitutes fairness and equality, but even with that in common, there are a lot of anarchists. We have every spectrum of ideology in the world, do you really think a centralized government would work here if we started it tommorow? Most people would probably say no, the only reason we have one now is because we started it a long time ago. If we had to decide on a government for the first time nowadays, we wouldn't be one country. We wouldn't even be able to make the population of the US protected under a centralized government. What makes you think the world would?

McLeod

You've got to look at it on a global scale. People were much more different 100 years ago around the world than they are now. There is this thing called Globalization going on. With super-fast progress in information and communication technology our cultures are coming closer together. That is a fact and there is no turning back, because its a natural process and we all are in fact humans.

As for political extremism, I dont see how will it stand in the way of a global government. I think in few decades we all will agree that liberal democracy and free elections are the way to go for now. Yes, even China will get there eventually. The hardcore Islamists either will be all killed or hiding in underground, or will turn sane with time (the first is more likely looking at current developments). Religious extremism will die out, because it is born out of lack of education and uncontrolled hatred. Eliminate the reaosons and you will eliminate the consequences.

BUT.

The world needs to look at its driving idea. United world will not work, if this idea is Greed. Wild capitalism will fail. Class diferentiation will lead to nasty things like global hatred and terrorism. We will have to share with eachother, wether some of us like it or not. Its in our best interest too, because globalization is our only chance to avoid nuclear wars, global terror and other bad stuff, associated with intercultural differences and miscommunications. The age when we could just get drunk on ale and go on a crusade if some outlanders were pissing us off are over.

As for EU, it works. The structure might not be working at its peak efficience yet, but its still in development. Just look at Euro, transparent boundries and new liberal employment laws. I first fully appreciated it when a bunch of friends got together and we just flew from Cologne over to Turin to see a Juventus game. No visums, no currency exchage troubles, no annoying border control. Its great. And seeing as problems with inflation are gone, it will get even better.

keyknowte

Cultures may be getting closer together, but that just seems to be leading to more conflict. Relations between China and the West are about at where they were at the begginning of the 20th Century.. Muslim and occidental cultures dont seem to be melding quite so well either....Then there are the "little" tribal conflicts in Africa. The number of wars around the world really has not diminished much either.

Mcleod, reality check! If all the countries in the world had liberal governments what the fuck would be the purpose of a Global Government. What if some countries would rather make their own decisions? How would democracy with billions of voters? How would the interests of thousands of ethnic groups and countries be represented in this government? How much in taxes would you have to pay for an extra level of government? What about civil wars? Global government on every front is ridiculous and disastrous. Im not resisting change, I`m resisting riduculous change. What if the Americans dont want to join? Or Canada? Are you going to force them to join? I guess that eliminates the idea of world peace...... Something tells me I would rather have my own corrupt politicians ruling than some corrupt politicians from somewhere else. I know this fanciful idea has been pushed by the U.N., George Lucas, Socialists, and other people of limited credibility. I guess we will just have to try a World Government....:rolleyes: As Benjamin Franklin said; experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other. This seems like the dream of socialists to finally be able to create their world communist Frutopia.... Really, have you even thought(using real economic theory and practice), about the consequences of such a "Union." What is the point of a World Government anyway?

The federal government protects individual rights, does it not? It doesn't allow states to legalize slavery, or carry out unexplained
executions, or silence the press. Or invade each other. Now imagine how nice the whole world could be.

Some federal governments do that Penguin, some federal governments... Some federal governments also deny personal liberties, also silence the press, and what not. The influence of the Federal government should be limited to Military, Customs and Immigration, Environment, and making some laws. The more governments intervene in our lives, the more they claim they provide, the poorer we get, and the less liberty we have.
The lesson of the U.N.`s failure is not that we werent audacious enough(i.e. World Government would work even if the U.N. doesnt), it is that the whole idea is too audacious and too foolish.

It seems we have evaded nuclear war pretty well so far McLeod. McLeod, you can say a fucking government is for anything, but that doesnt mean it is. Russia claimed is was a dictatorship of the proletariat, but in fact it was a dictatorship over the proletariat. McLeod, contrary to the beliefs of some, not everyone on this planet is good, or has good ideas, there are people who only yearn for power and influence. And it seems those those are the people who make it to the top the most. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, would a world government classify as an entity with aboslute power? Almost everyone is influenced in a bad way by power, it is just the force of it. The people below you flatter you to get better jobs, and you start to believe their flattery. You think you deserve the power that you yield, and that you in fact should yield more power...Do you see a problem?

Just look at European Union, it works :rolleyes:
Somehow I dont think that explains the huge numbers of unemployed across Europe, or the lack of growth in European economies. The European Union works for...pause for effect...the bureaucrats employed by it :eek:
That also doesnt explain the numerous problems in all of the European countries. I bet you islamo-facists are saying the same thing"no border controlls, is great." But really, when I have more time, I will really tear the EU to shreds.

Evil Penguin

haha, that what you economics professor told you? The number of wars hasn't diminished much, no, but they have moved from mainstream, globalized, powerful nations to extreme, mostly right wing, isolated nations. Did you know no war has ever been fought between two countries with a MacDonald's franchise? No, it won't happen soon, but it will happen.

How does a democracy work with billions of voters? Well, how does one work with millions? Most things are taken care of locally, and the higher the level of government, the less involvement it has but the more power to override lower decisions if necessary. Like no country can employ slave labor. Taxes would go way down if we didn't use half the world's revenues on militaries...

What's the point of world government? I think we already went over that. Be more specific.

Yes, some federal government provide that. Like mine, yours, and most others integrated into the modern world community. The fact that not all do is kind of the point. They could.

I would claim a world dictator as one with absolute power. Luckily there's a big difference between that and a constitutional representative democracy with extensive civil rights and powers limited mostly to enforcing those rights and keeping the peace. Maybe next semester you should take some political science courses.

McLeod

Keeper, what problems are you talking about? I dont remember ANY problem getting worse or anything major emerging because of the forming of the EU. Also, just so that you know, Europeans already pay extra taxes for EU structures. They arent complaining about it either.

All countries will never have liberal governments, thats why you need ONE above all. Thats the point. :rolleyes:

And no, outlandish Islamo-fascists will not attack Europe anytime soon. Why? Because we are not bombing countries into stone age just because our governemts are financed by global corporations who need some oil to make an extra buck. When Austria elected an extra right wing politician as their president, EU pressured him until he stepped down. HINT, HINT: EU works! You see, we try to keep it reasonable here. Heh.

keyknowte

Political science is a paradox. In that, political science is not a science. Thus such science loving people as you should not really like it. But really, I guess it depends who teaches the political science classes, doesnt it? My teacher might tell me about the evils of such an idea. ;)

imagine what would happen if you democrats lost the world elections for the U.S.? Gore, "The elections for a representative for the U.S were clearly rigged, we want the world electoral college to personally handcount the results."
It would be terrible..... No one would know who had really one for months, even then, even if you lost you would still claim victory...
I would just like to ask about the problems such a government migh cause. Would there still be countries? What if all the voters of China (wait, they dont vote), voted for Deng Xiao Ping? Im sure the 3/4 billion voters of China would have a huge say in worldly affairs. Instead of Tian Men Square it might be.....well, you guess. Ill write a real post whenever I have time, I`m much too jovial at the moment to right anything serious, or in depth....

On the Islamo-Facist note, what happened in bali Mcleod? Oh, yeah a lot of Europeans died. I dont think a single American or Jew died in that attack. Do you know why? Because they arent just targeting Americans and Jews... They are targeting anyone who is not their perceived image of a Muslim. Was it a French tanker that was attacked? I`ve already forgotten, please remind me. Does Al Queda sponsor the Albanians against the Macedonians, and the Chechens against the Russians? Really McLeod, it doesnt seem like they are targeting countries who blah blah blah you wrote. I thought Bali would bring you europeans around to the truth, but it seems that when you really dont want to believe the truth you can ignore the blatantly obvious.

So peace to the place where the sun sets,
And Im out

McLeod

About Bali: I thought a lot of Australians died? Either way, thats not the point.

The point is that we are back to religious extremism and global terror. We are back to Al Quaeda. We are back to the group which was financed by hawks in your congress and pentagon. We are back to the point that messing around and trying to solve problems with force hits you back. It hits you back big time too. I wonder when will people finally get it.

This is why Europe is trying to block the current resolution in SC. This is why England is not carpet-bombing Dublin and Belfast. This is why Spain is not carrying out pre-emptive strikes on Santander. Because we know it wont solve anything.

keeper of the grave

Here's a little snippet of, as Dilayted Peeples would say, "things to come:"

The death of the nation state

Hugo Gurdon

Friday, October 25, 2002

Yes means yes and no means maybe -- at least among Europe's new masters. Which is ironic, because the continental bien pensants would shudder if they heard this excuse for harassment and manipulative control in another circumstance. But when it is only democracy that's getting screwed, they don't mind a bit.

Which brings us to why we should care about last weekend's Irish referendum ratifying the Treaty of Nice. Its supporters say it simply paved the way for 10 former Communist countries to join the European Union. They celebrate the sight of recently freed nations entering what is depicted as a secure, democratic and free-market fold.

The truth is different. What really happened was that the European Union moved past the tipping point -- its development into an anti-democratic, anti-free market, anti-national sovereignty superstate will now be a downhill canter rather than an uphill struggle.

It has admitted new members three times since the Irish joined in 1973, but this was the first time Ireland needed a referendum. That's because Irish law demands that voters give their permission before sovereignty is drained from their national Parliament. And the Treaty of Nice involves a massive transfer of power away from the people of Europe and their elected representatives to an unelected authority in Brussels.

How can a referendum be undemocratic? Here's how. The Irish voted two years ago to reject Nice. But only "yes" votes are regarded as permanent in modern Europe; the people building a multilateral state on the other side of the Atlantic see "no" votes as temporary aberrations in which the plebs got the answer wrong and have to be asked the question again after a period of re-education.

So, when the Irish unaccountably said they'd like to continue governing themselves, the "yes" camp did what it did when the Danes rejected the treaty that created the EU in 1992 -- mounted a vast, tax-financed campaign to change minds. This time, Dublin also rigged the vote. On the last day before its Christmas break in 2001, when many legislators had gone home, Parliament rushed through an amendment to the referendum law ending Dublin's obligation to give voters both sides of the argument. And the ballot question tied approval for Nice to a vote for non-participation in an EU army, thus herding people who wanted to keep Ireland's traditional pacifism into the "OK" corral.

The treaty and its passage demonstrate the ruthless determination and dishonesty with which the EU is demolishing national sovereignty. It scrapped veto rights in 39 policy areas, so member nations can neither opt out of nor prevent continent-wide standardization. It begins with harmonizing criminal law, so offences in each nation will no longer be based on the mores, traditions or democratic judgment of that country's citizens.

Member nations can now even be stripped of their vote in EU affairs if they breach its human rights standards, the nature of which may be judged by a 1990s decision that ordered Britain, on human rights grounds, to scrap laws banning sadomasochistic torture. The centralizing EU elite can be expected to disenfranchise nations that impede the creation of the superstate.

The EU project began as an effort to enfold Germany in a warm constitutional embrace and prevent it plunging Europe into war again, but has turned into an overweening drive to subordinate member states to a Franco-German command in Brussels. The suppression of national sovereignty has become the cardinal aim, for it is what makes the EU a power to be reckoned with globally.

It is the EU leaders, France and Germany, that most vociferously oppose America's right to decide for itself that self-defence and enlightened self-interest make it wise to take military action against Iraq, unilaterally if necessary. The EU is also the strongest backer of the Kyoto climate change treaty, seeing it as a tool to undermine national sovereignty. The content of these disputes doubtless pleases Canada's anti-American left, but if their concern for our national sovereignty is real rather than a facade, they should worry about the EU's machinations.

Two years ago next month, President Jacques Chirac, of France, speaking at the Hague about Kyoto, praised "this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance ..." The builders of the EU are burying the nation state not just on their own continent, but are also working toward the imposition of global governance. EU power blooms amid multilateral structures that militate against nation states.

The primary target is the United States -- the greatest force of good for a century past -- but that's because countries like Canada are regarded as easily picked off or already in the bag. Canada and the United States understandably tend to regard European unity as A Good Thing because we were drawn into terrible wars when Europe was irreconcilably divided. But the lens of war is now an impediment to seeing the EU for the malign thing it is.

McLeod

Thats the biggest load of bull I've read this month. Keeper, I think you are an intelligent person, but if you believe in this crap, I'm not so sure anymore...

Do I need to remind you how many times did the referendum about the independence of Quebec take place? I mean really, hypocricy at its finest.

And I wont even touch the subject of Kyoto treaty and stripping the states of their votes if they REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE HUMAN RIGHTS. Bah, how is either of that a bad thing?

Gaggin

Originally posted by keyknowte
Political science is a paradox. In that, political science is not a science. Thus such science loving people as you should not really like it. But really, I guess it depends who teaches the political science classes, doesnt it? My teacher might tell me about the evils of such an idea. ;)

imagine what would happen if you democrats lost the world elections for the U.S.? Gore, "The elections for a representative for the U.S were clearly rigged, we want the world electoral college to personally handcount the results."
It would be terrible..... No one would know who had really one for months, even then, even if you lost you would still claim victory...
I would just like to ask about the problems such a government migh cause. Would there still be countries? What if all the voters of China (wait, they dont vote), voted for Deng Xiao Ping? Im sure the 3/4 billion voters of China would have a huge say in worldly affairs. Instead of Tian Men Square it might be.....well, you guess. Ill write a real post whenever I have time, I`m much too jovial at the moment to right anything serious, or in depth....

On the Islamo-Facist note, what happened in bali Mcleod? Oh, yeah a lot of Europeans died. I dont think a single American or Jew died in that attack. Do you know why? Because they arent just targeting Americans and Jews... They are targeting anyone who is not their perceived image of a Muslim. Was it a French tanker that was attacked? I`ve already forgotten, please remind me. Does Al Queda sponsor the Albanians against the Macedonians, and the Chechens against the Russians? Really McLeod, it doesnt seem like they are targeting countries who blah blah blah you wrote. I thought Bali would bring you europeans around to the truth, but it seems that when you really dont want to believe the truth you can ignore the blatantly obvious.

So peace to the place where the sun sets,
And Im out

There's a difference between a terrorist sect attacking Europe indirectly and a direct attack by actual nations. No Islamic nation would dare attack Europe, but instead would indirectly support one side of a conflict to their likings. It's a big political war game that most nations use, noteably the U.S.

China does in fact vote, but only on a local level. However, just because China has 1.2 billion people doesn't mean they're gonna have 1/6 of the power in a national Government. There are many ways to balance power in a global Government, and I don't think the plurality vote is the right one to use. If the Chinese voted for Deng Xiao Ping, then good for them. It's not he's gonna run the rest of the world. And what happened at Tiennamen Square is completely irrelevant to a global Government. A global government would have a hand in preventing such fiascos. Plus, the body count at Tiennemen would be very small compared to teh possible civil strife that would've occured in its place.

The EU isn't one of Europe's better ideas. There's a reason why Britain refuses to join. the EU may be Europe-friendly, but it sure isn't nation-friendly. The economic gains from the smaller countries would somewhat hurt the bigger countries, while the political power the bigger countries gain could leave the littler countries much more vulnerable. Britain doesn't want European fishing boats moving in where British fishing boats make their profit, which is just an example of the freedoms a nation gives up by joining this union. I personally thought Europe was doing just fine without such a union. Countries such as Germany and Switzerland already were flourishing economically before the EU, and now that they have to maintain a national economy without having a national Government to protect its interests.

Evil Penguin

lol "Ireland's traditional pacifism"

Sorry, that article just made me smile.

I tend to think the EU is the best idea Europe's had in quite a while. If you think its structure or elements of its policy are flawed, that's one thing, but don't blame the idea itself. Europe is a much safer, more stabile, and yes, more democratic place to live since they've started cooperating so much more. Not to mention it is the only entity capable of standing up to the U.S. with any credibility, and one country, no matter how democratic or stabile, should have power over all others. A benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant.

Lou Cyphre

Originally posted by Evil Penguin
Not to mention it is the only entity capable of standing up to the U.S. with any credibility, and one country, no matter how democratic or stabile, should have power over all others. A benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant.

Huh? Did you mean to say "shouldn't have power..."?

McLeod

Originally posted by Gaggin
The EU isn't one of Europe's better ideas. There's a reason why Britain refuses to join. the EU may be Europe-friendly, but it sure isn't nation-friendly. The economic gains from the smaller countries would somewhat hurt the bigger countries, while the political power the bigger countries gain could leave the littler countries much more vulnerable. Britain doesn't want European fishing boats moving in where British fishing boats make their profit, which is just an example of the freedoms a nation gives up by joining this union. I personally thought Europe was doing just fine without such a union. Countries such as Germany and Switzerland already were flourishing economically before the EU, and now that they have to maintain a national economy without having a national Government to protect its interests.

The idea is to create a single European economy. There will be no national economies in future, therefore there will be no need to protect them. The transition will be hard and every country will have to sacrifice something. Some more than others. But thats how it works and I'm glad that in this case politicians have enough brains to take on this challenges, because ultimately it will prove to be more than worth it.

keeper of the grave

Originally posted by Evil Penguin
lol "Ireland's traditional pacifism"

Sorry, that article just made me smile.

I tend to think the EU is the best idea Europe's had in quite a while. If you think its structure or elements of its policy are flawed, that's one thing, but don't blame the idea itself. Europe is a much safer, more stabile, and yes, more democratic place to live since they've started cooperating so much more. Not to mention it is the only entity capable of standing up to the U.S. with any credibility, and one country, no matter how democratic or stabile, should have power over all others. A benevolent tyrant is still a tyrant.

Thats the biggest load of bull I've read this month. Keeper, I think you are an intelligent person, but if you believe in this crap, I'm not so sure anymore...

If you believe I care in the least what your assessment of my intelligence might be, or I care at all about my intelligence, you are very much mistaken. If that was supposed to be some sort of appeal to my intellect, you have failed resoundingly.
As for believing what is patently untrue, I could level a similar accusation at you. You claim the European Community averted some sort of disaster in violating the rights of a nation to choose its own leader. I am referring of course to Joerg Haider, a so-called "right winger" of European politics who was virtually forced to step down from the Austrian government. Why was he forced to step down? He was labelled by the media as a racist hatemonger, and then the EU stepped in, and demanded Haider abdicate lest they punish Austria with sanctions. Was he a "hatemonger?" Certainly he said some inappropriate things, but since when has that been grounds for an unelected body from another nation to decide his fate? If you claim he was anti-semitic, then you had better depose almost every European so-called leader because they all share the same anti-Jewish ideologies masqued as some sort of self-righteous defence of Palestine. That is a clear violation of the rights of Austria's electorate. Nor is that the only case. Italy's new President was purportedly a right-winger as well, if any of you remember with your highly selective memories, he too was threatened with EU action-he was not allowed to make certain decisions as the government that had once been a sovereign nation. The rights of the voters of Italy have been violated grossly.

Penguin you are an unrepentant jackass, I am well aware of that, and I know very well that you would sacrifice individual liberties for what you suggest is the greater good. But, how can the good of the people be tied to the removal of their rights? That is clear grounds for the state to move in and become progressively(regressively) more autoritarian. The best interests of the people are not best served by an autoriatarian government which decides everything for them, THEY ARE BEST SERVED BY THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE DEMOCRATICALLY WHATEVER THEY WANT MOST. Demo- Kratos, not Auto-Kratos.

You deny this is the path Europe is taking, but it is clearly being outlined in my posts, and in Hugo Gurdon's article, and in every day life. You know already that in many European countries, freedom of speech has been severely compromised under the guise of preventing "hate speech." Seems innocent enough until the government decides to allow a broader definition or re-interprets the constitutional defintion. What about Germany's laws banning political parties deemed "far right" does that best serve democracy? Like politics in a circle, by moving further away, they only move farther towards what they purportedly do not want. When will other parties become banned too?

You are quite correct about the European Union benevolent tyranny, I quite agree. No one nation should have power over another, nor should any organization have power over a nation when its mandate is not clearly decided by the people of that nation.

The European Union, credibility? There's your credibility for you.
You know who I hate more than Europeans? People who admire Europeans.