Originally posted by scottishinnzSo, as a citizen of the world community, we should not allow any one person to seize power and install a totalitarian state, even if it means armed conflict with that state to remove that government and establish a truly representive government. Do you agree?
And both of them elected into power, by a majority of the citizens in their respective countries. They only became dictators when they changed the law, which, of course, they did through the proper legal channels (okay Hitler intimidated MPs to vote for him, but he still got the vote).
Originally posted by breedluvI would agree but only if the actual military power or pressure is done by UN Forces.
So, as a citizen of the world community, we should not allow any one person to seize power and install a totalitarian state, even if it means armed conflict with that state to remove that government and establish a truly representive government. Do you agree?
Anywhere on this forum I have already explained my point of view to that. The UN should get an professional army recruited out of the army´s of the belonging nations according to their population and economical strength and state of tech. This army must have the size and power to be capable to fight whatever state on the earth (i.e. stronger than USA, China or Russia).
The UN fee´s are strictly monitored. When a state come into a delay of paying after two month his right to vote is cancelled until fully paid.
The veto rights are cancelled.
Through a UN resolution the UN decides to strike against this particular state. The UN take the leaders into custody, bring them to Den Haag to justice, put the state under UN power and bring out laws that exclude a dictatorlike leadership. Together with OSZE they remain in this country until fully free elections have been supervised and finished and a legal government takes over.
Peace and Prosperity will follow.
Originally posted by RochadeI think essentially Rochade you speak for me also. I perhaps would not go so far - I see no need for the UN to be stronger than the US (although I see that point too). I think the UN's main role should be for peacekeeping etc, although it should be involved in things like this whole Iraq business.
I would agree but only if the actual military power or pressure is done by UN Forces.
Anywhere on this forum I have already explained my point of view to that. The UN should get an professional army recruited out of the army´s of the belonging nations according to their population and economical strength and state of tech. This army must have the size and ...[text shortened]... supervised and finished and a legal government takes over.
Peace and Prosperity will follow.
Originally posted by breedluvYes, I think that is correct, however it's often not as simple as that in many circumstances. For example, GWB's USA in many ways resembles Hitler's Germany, for example, society driven by fear, routine government surveilence of citizens, detention without charge, even torture has been admitted. All it takes now is GWB to change the constitution so that he can run for a 3rd term or he takes "emergency powers" which allow him to remain past his term....
So, as a citizen of the world community, we should not allow any one person to seize power and install a totalitarian state, even if it means armed conflict with that state to remove that government and establish a truly representive government. Do you agree?
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes I see that danger, too.
Yes, I think that is correct, however it's often not as simple as that in many circumstances. For example, GWB's USA in many ways resembles Hitler's Germany, for example, society driven by fear, routine government surveilence of citizens, detention without charge, even torture has been admitted. All it takes now is GWB to change the constitution so th ...[text shortened]... n for a 3rd term or he takes "emergency powers" which allow him to remain past his term....
Interesting in that connection is the declaration of indepence (although I am a no US citizen I must grant its a great and idealistic document).
May I quote: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
(Source: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html).
The change in the US way is quite disturbing and alarming. I was quite relaxed when I hear about the time rgulation for the patriots act.
What is alarming that through the fear for terror the people are not just taken it for granted but are applausing these matters.
I have no problem with the US or its people. But with the momentarly government (for example I think that Clinton was a good president and a great foreign politician).
Originally posted by scottishinnzPlease, please, please.
All it takes now is GWB to change the constitution so that he can run for a 3rd term or he takes "emergency powers" which allow him to remain past his term....
Never, either in sincerity or in jest state this again.
My heart just can't take the thought of it. It just can't.
Nemesio
Originally posted by RochadeBush could develop a very long terminal illness.
When looking into the news all one see is devastating terror, war (both real war and economical war, misunderstandings and spreading hatred.
Unless we are all about to immitate neutral Switzerland there is need for a worldwide change of idea´s.
But governments are just like kids. Unless there is a certain event nobody would change whatsoever just to ...[text shortened]...
Please discuss.
Thank you for your attention and please refrain from flame and spam wars.
Originally posted by steve645LMFAO LOL every 28 days (think of the movie 28 days later !)
World peace can be obtained simply by having a woman leading every nation. There would never be a war of any kind. Now there would be some intense negotiations every 28 days........🙂
Surely women are not just so inspired by emotions as men but I seriously doubt that they wouln´t be as bad as men just it takes them longer to get there.
Besides we would see declarations of war everytime two women stateleaders show up to UN meeting in the same dress. And the bitc.ing would be quite hard.
Vibrating conference tables ? I don´t need this.
Originally posted by steve645Hey, we had a female PM in the UK for a number of years. Think that stopped any wars?
World peace can be obtained simply by having a woman leading every nation. There would never be a war of any kind. Now there would be some intense negotiations every 28 days........🙂
WRONG!!!!
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf you are relating to the Iron Lady Miss Thatcher she definetly didn´t refused to go to war. But she has scre@ed the labor unions and is responsible for GB not paying the full EU share every year.
Hey, we had a female PM in the UK for a number of years. Think that stopped any wars?
WRONG!!!!
Next question: Overpopulation and the possibke rise of the southern hemisphere against the northern.
I request your comments.