Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on April 22, 2004, 02:58:45 pm
-
...someone will give this man the Nobel Peace Prize.
__________________________________________
'I Am Happy and Proud to Do What I Did'
by Mordechai Vanunu
Excerpts from the news conference with Mordechai Vanunu held upon his release from an Israeli prison after serving 18 years for disclosing Israel's nuclear secrets.
I have a statement to tell you. I'm speaking only in English. I'm not speaking in Hebrew. If Israel don't let me to speak to foreigners, I'm not speaking in Hebrew.
I have a statement to read: I am Mordechai Vanunu, the man behind The Sunday Times article from October 5, 1986, the article about Israel's nuclear weapons.
I was kidnapped in Rome, Italy, by Israel's spy on September 13, and I was brought to Israel, arrived to Ashkelon prison on October 7. I was here, I am here in the prison, in this prison Ashkelon prison from October 7 1986, until today, 17 and a half years, in very cruel barbaric treatment by Israel's spy Mossad, Shabak.
This prison is guided and controlled by Shabak Mossad. The prisoners, the guards, the guards are only obeying orders of Shabak Mossad. In this prison you have a section seven by the Shabak Mossad. ...
(In Hebrew): I tell the Israelis if you discriminate and prevent me from talking to citizens abroad then I am also not talking to you in Hebrew. If you decide who, and discriminate between Jews and foreign citizens then you are a dictatorship and an apartheid country. You yourselves are conducting a racist policy.
(In English): To all those who are calling me traitor, I am saying: I am proud, I am proud and happy to do what I did. I am very glad I succeed to do what I did. I don't have any secrets. All this bull****, blah blah blah about secrets is dead. My case is dead. Since the article was published, there is no more any secrets. All the secrets were published in the hand of all the world, all the world, all the states, 180 states received these secrets and now I am ready to start my life, to do for my life.
I am not harming Israel, I am not interested in Israel. I am, I want to tell you something very important. I suffered here 18 years because I am Christian, because I was baptised into Christianity. If I was a Jewish, I wouldn't have all this suffering here in isolation for 18 years only because I was a Christian.
I say Vanunu Mordechai saying he don't need a Jewish state. Vanunu Mordechai don't want to live in Israel and don't need a Jewish state. I said Israel don't need nuclear especially now that all the Middle East is free from nuclear weapons, Iraq don't have a nuclear weapons, Libya ... Egypt. All the Middle East is free from nuclear weapons.
My message today to all the world is open Dimona reactor for inspection, open Dimona reactor for inspection. I said to the Shabak Mossad you didn't succeed, you didn't succeed, you didn't succeed to break me. You didn't succeed to make me crazy, the target of 18 years of isolation is to make me crazy.
This will be a symbol that a free man can survive, a free spirit can exist. There is no human being that can destroy the freedom of speech, the will of freedom, the man who want to be free. I'm a hero? I think that all those who are standing behind me and supporting me, all those who continue to be my friends for 18 years, all are heroes.
What I want to say is that this day I am free but not total free. I hoped that after 17 and a half years I can leave Israel. My symbol as I said is about the will of freedom, the human spirit. I am a symbol of the will of freedom that you cannot destroy the human spirit. ...
I will continue to speak against all kinds of nuclear weapons, against all democracies nuclear weapons. I want to say this day, I want the President of the United States, George ****, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder, Vladimir Putin, all the leaders to do for my release from Israel, to leave Israel, and now all those leaders should deal and speak about Israel nuclear secrets. I come to end this silence and secret cooperation by the West: United States, Canada and all Europe helping Israel, co-operating with Israel. ...
Of course, I'm free to speak. They found some papers that I wrote about what I worked, but I wrote it in 1991 when I had nothing to do, I wrote it for myself. They have nothing to fear from me. I don't have any secrets, I don't want to harm Israel, I want to leave Israel and start new life. I want to go to the United States to start my life to study history to teach history.
They take all the copies of all my letters to my friends, all my copies of my letters to my friends. I am going to the church to give thanks to my friends and to God, Jesus Christ for the support for 18 years. I am going to the St. George Church in Jerusalem and later I will start my life.
I was kidnapped immediately after we land in Italy. We went to an apartment as soon as I went into the apartment they attacked me, one Israeli and one Frenchman. They drug me, they drug me, they drug me, they took me in a car, from the car we went to the beach, an isolated beach, a commando boat, from the commando boat to a small yacht. There I was chained for seven days, we speak only English. I ask them: "Who are you?" They say we are here Israelis, French English. After seven days we arrived near to Caesaria beach.
-
I don't know that he deserves a Nobel prize.
Frankly, Israel was in its rights to charge him with treason. It may or may not have been the right thing for him to commit treason, but either way it was still treason.
Oh, and actually Canada has a very neutral position regarding Israel. So do most European nations, I believe.
-
And South Africa was well within its rights to imprison Nelson Mandela....so what? The guy spent more time in prison than some people have been alive. He exposed something that very much needed to be exposed, and suffered because of it. I don't care about Country A's rights to secrets and bull**** to further their own agenda. Isreal had no right to keep the nuclear program a secret. The welfare of the world comes before the welfare of any one country. If Dubya and Blair can be nominated for the Nobel Prize, why shouldn't he be?
-
If Israel has the right to develop a nuclear weaponry program in secret, why then do other countries have the US poking their nose into their business when they try?
-
Actually, Rictor, unless they were signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, they were A) within their rights to develop any nuclear weapons they so chose and B) keep it a secret.
I hate to break it to you: a country has whatever rights within it borders that it says it does. That's pretty much what makes it a sovereign nation.
You may or may not agree, but them's the facts.
-
No, those are the aspects of the status quo.
**** the status quo.
-
It's basically national security - if the revealing of Israels nuclear programme creates an additional risk (i.e. of a pre-emptive attack, or compromises it's negotiating position, etc), then it can be considered treason.
If Mordechai Vanunu signed a document promising to obey nationality security / secrecy rules, then Israel are and were well within their rights to hold him to that.
-
Like **** they are.
If someone signs a non-disclosure agreement with the US then finds out they're planning to bio-weapon Mexico, there's no fucking way a piece of paper signed under United States law should keep that **** a secret.
-
Tell that to your government Mikhael
-
Gank, keep that out of this. If you want to get that debate started, take it somewhere that can be locked independently of this thread.
An0n, I agree. Morally I would have to make it public, and almost everyone would see it the same way. But I do not concur that is is somehow outside of a nation's rights. I would not be suprised if that same government had me arrested for treason if I revealed information classified for national security reasons of any kind. It's only marginally removed from spying. Yes, I'd fight it, but I would have to concede that it is within the government's power and responsibility to do so.
-
What Grey Wolf 2009 and Gank said but with more charisma and in a more friendly manner... :nervous:
-
If any government has anything that can reduce a sizable portion of this Earth to a cinder it Should. Not. Be. Secret!!
-
I agree. But fault Israel for building the things in the first place, not for holding the guy in jail for 18 years.
-
StratComm, **** off.
-
Bah. **** Israel.
They're America's little pit-bull. Building them up with weapons and cash till they're read to set them on the rest of the middle-east, so they can reduce the region to village-level governments while maintaining a comfortable official distance for America to hide behind. Then in come the Marines and BAM! No more OPEC.
Everyone knows it. It's just the only people with the balls enough to say it are the terrorists.
.......:nervous:
-
Originally posted by an0n
Like **** they are.
If someone signs a non-disclosure agreement with the US then finds out they're planning to bio-weapon Mexico, there's no fucking way a piece of paper signed under United States law should keep that **** a secret.
That's true, but it's also a different parallel to this - there's been no evidence - as far as I know - that Israel intends and plans to make a first strike.
The difference between an offensive and defensive weapon is very fuzzy, true, but the political repercussions would make it seem very unlikely to me that Israel would actually use nukes as anything beyond bargaining chips.
Of course - to be fair - there is a side issue in whether Vanunu didn;t do the Israeli government a service. It certainly would have (and possibly has) acted as a deterrent to any major attack.
but overall, I'd still say that it was within the rights of the Israeli government, the same as it would be if it had been a defector selling nuclear secrets to another nation - although the morality of the punishment (both in length and nature) is certainly debatable given the nature of the 'crime'.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The difference between an offensive and defensive weapon is very fuzzy
A WMD? Defensive? :lol:
Yeah, right... but you are right about it being bargaining chips... the problem is when they call for "your" bluff. :shaking:
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
A WMD? Defensive? :lol:
Yeah, right... but you are right about it being bargaining chips... the problem is when they call for "your" bluff. :shaking:
Yeah, well that is the somewhat dodgy defensive sense of a nuke. Hence the whole nuclear 'deterrent' malarky.....which only works while you have them in control of a relatively sane individual, which is less and less nowadays.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of nukes. The only problem is figuring out how to make sure everyone gets rid of them at the same time, so noone can take advantage.
-
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4898771
-
Who gives a **** is Israel only intends to use it as foreign tanks are rolling through the streets? They're still planning to indescriminately incinerate a most probably populated area.
The same thing goes for the whole 'nuclear deterant' thing. America is basically saying "If anyone launches a nuke at us, we're going to purposely and deliberately destroy half the Earth out of spite".
-
Originally posted by Gank
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4898771
Don't think i was including **** in the 'sane' category, though.
But, yeah.... the probelm comes when everyone has nukes - because it increases the likelihood of their use. And once one nation has fired, the rest feel they can too......of course, the other problem is that when someone like the US starts chucking their weight about, it prompts nations to want nukes and WMD more - simply because it means they have (and they feel they need it) a viable threat to try and deter the Us, or indeed anyone else.
-
Alright, lets get the "well within their rights" out of the way right now.
Yes, according to the letter of almost every law on the book, it was well within their rights to arrest Vanunu, even execute him. However, The Law is not the holiest of powers, morality overrules it.
If someting is moral but not legal, it OK. If something is legal but not moral, its not OK. A sovreign nation can make any law it damn well pleases. If Hitler had had a little piece of paper saying "it is legal to kill any Jew", would his actions have been alright?
It comes down to the welfare of one nation against the welfare of all the world. Having something as powerful as a nuke a secret, that endangers the whole world. And it is not the right of any nation to keep it a secret. Same thing with biological weapons or anything like that.
He broke the law, so he's a criminal. But that law is bull**** in the first place, so its doens't matter. If someone breaks a law to serve a higher purpose, he is not a criminal, but rather a hero (of a degree proportionate to the good that he accomplished). If someone murdered Stalin, yes he would be a murderer. But he would have a ccomplished a good greater than that of maintaining the integrity of the law.
-
Ah, if only you hadn't used the words 'higher purpose'.....
-
If someting is moral but not legal, it OK. If something is legal but not moral, its not OK.
I think you mean the other way around. :p
:EDIT:
On second thought, having read it again, it is not OK in either case.
-
It was pretty much common knowledge Israel had nukes well before whats his face blew the whistle, they even tested one:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/Vela.html
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, lets get the "well within their rights" out of the way right now.
Yes, according to the letter of almost every law on the book, it was well within their rights to arrest Vanunu, even execute him. However, The Law is not the holiest of powers, morality overrules it.
Actually, no. Morality, as has been discussed in many threads here, is anything but objective. The law is, in theory, objective and is actually binding. Shall we start to use morality as the basis for all our decision making? If so, remember who is in the White House right now, and the things his 'morality' says we should do.
He broke the law, so he's a criminal. But that law is bull**** in the first place, so its doens't matter. If someone breaks a law to serve a higher purpose, he is not a criminal, but rather a hero (of a degree proportionate to the good that he accomplished). If someone murdered Stalin, yes he would be a murderer. But he would have a ccomplished a good greater than that of maintaining the integrity of the law.
Its up to a court to decide if a law is bull****. Not you, not me. If I've got a problem with a law in my country, I get to challenge that law in court. I don't get to break that law willy-nilly and expect to get away with it.
Again, be careful of using 'for a higher purpose' as a criterion for deciding on the 'right' or 'wrong' of an issue. My idea of a 'higher purpose' and your idea of a 'higher purpose' probably don't match up, and neither of us match up with the leadership of certain countries I could (but won't) name.
Shall we just decide, then, that a 'higher purpose' is all we need to make something all right? That's pretty much offering an excuse for anyone to do anything and claim they've got a 'higher purpose'.
-
Alright then, have it your way. The law is the ultimate power if and only if certain adjustments are made to make that system just and indicative of the will of the people.
From now on, no more sovreignty. We have a internation court to decide all maters of foreign policy for all countries. Ever person on the planet is offered a chance to vote on any issue that they want.
Its 1986, and Mordechai Vanunu has been captured and taken to Israel. Whether he is guilty or not is put to a worldwide vote, anyone who chooses to can vote. A certain number of people have to vote, otherwise the vote is null. 5 million people turn out, 2 millions from Israel and 3 millions from abroad. They vote, and 65% choose to free him. He goes free.
So long as one country can make legal or illegal anything that will affect any other country, the system doesn't work. Isreal can not decide to keep the nukes a secret, because they affect the whole world. Similarly, America can not make the invasion of Iraq legal, because that is not within its authority.
If **** (and a significant chunk of the American people) claims as his right to determine whether Country A can or can not develop nuclear weapons, surely the people of the world can claim as their right to detrmine this same thing.
-
Unfortunately, you can't up and declare national sovereignty null and void.
You got a problem with how some other country handles things? Well tough. You don't get a say--and neither do I. You only get a say in how your own country handles things--and not even always then.
You're sitting there declaring to the world that the Israelis have to bow to your idea of morality and your idea of justice and fairness. Unless and until you're the guy in charge in Israel, its not going to happen. Back here in the real world, the Israelis, for however morally wrong they may have been, were in the legal right according to their own laws (and probably by the laws of most every other first world nation today).
-
From what I understand - and I freely admit that I haven't been following this Vanunu issue at all - it's not that he "revealed" the existance of Israel's nukes to the world. Everyone pretty much knew we had nukes, as Gank said. What I understand that Vanunu did was to reveal secrets about the program - I'd think such things as # of nukes, range, yield, etc.
Originally posted by Rictor
...someone will give this man the Nobel Peace Prize.
__________________________________________
'I Am Happy and Proud to Do What I Did'
by Mordechai Vanunu
...
I said Israel don't need nuclear especially now that all the Middle East is free from nuclear weapons, Iraq don't have a nuclear weapons, Libya ... Egypt. All the Middle East is free from nuclear weapons....
Israel needs nukes just like Vanunu needs bodyguards, to protect him via dissuasion and discouragement from the people all around him that want to kill him.
-
*sigh*
I'm not talking about law. I'm talking about morality. And before you start yelling bull****, morality is not so random as you would have me believe. Give every person (over the age of say, 16) a list of questions to ascertain their moral standing. When 99% of them agree, we'll take that and call it morality.
I don't care about laws. I know whats right and whats wrong, laws are just that put to paper. Yes, there have been and will probably be more wackos with a perverted sense of morality. Hitler, Stalin, Kissinger. But they are few among very, very many. If I've got a pile of 1,000,000,000 shirts, and they're all blue, except for 20 that are red, I can safely say that "These shirts are blue". This is humanity, not math. Nothing if absolute, nothing is certain. But humanity works by degrees, in moderation. To elect a President, you don't need 100% votes, you need like 60%. There will never we consensus, but we can come close. More people agree on the principles of morality than will ever agree on a leader, or a policy. If it works for politics, why not here.
Again, laws are worthless if they are deemed to be immoral. You can't not legalize killing, rape, theft. If Paul Martin (Canadian PM) made a law tommorow that legalized murder, you would not be wrong to ignore it. This matter was *not* Israeli internal policy, but rather foreign policy. Obviously, they weren't going to use the nuke against their own people, so its foreign policy.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
From what I understand - and I freely admit that I haven't been following this Vanunu issue at all - it's not that he "revealed" the existance of Israel's nukes to the world. Everyone pretty much knew we had nukes, as Gank said. What I understand that Vanunu did was to reveal secrets about the program - I'd think such things as # of nukes, range, yield, etc.
Israel needs nukes just like Vanunu needs bodyguards, to protect him via dissuasion and discouragement from the people all around him that want to kill him.
Range, yield, number...thats all vague enough not to detract from the effectiveness of the nukes were it to come to that.
I agree that Israel has the right to have nukes. Just not the right to keep it secret. Every country has equal right to possess weapons, barring special cases. A special case might be if the whole world agrees that the leadership of said country would not use the weapons responsibly. I mean, something akin to the North Korea situation, though even they wouldn't use nukes. Like that, only more drastic.
-
The world isn't a democracy. Get over it.
-
But that does not mean that we shouldn't strive every day to make it one. If you want any kind of improvement, progress, evolution, you can't be satisfied with current conditions.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Range, yield, number...thats all vague enough not to detract from the effectiveness of the nukes were it to come to that.
I agree that Israel has the right to have nukes. Just not the right to keep it secret. Every country has equal right to possess weapons, barring special cases. A special case might be if the whole world agrees that the leadership of said country would not use the weapons responsibly. I mean, something akin to the North Korea situation, though even they wouldn't use nukes. Like that, only more drastic.
....like I said, Israel wasn't punishing him (AFAIK) from "revealing" to the world that we have nukes - the world already knew. They were punishing him for revealing information deemed "secret" by the government to bodies not authorized to possess such material.
And also like I said, I was guessing at the type of information he revealed. For all I know it could have been the in-flight detonation codes, the precise coordinated of Israel's nuclear arms bunker, and the number and location of Israel's nuclear-capable aircraft. A tad bit more serious, wouldn't you think?
I don't know. I'm guessing. Kapiche?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But that does not mean that we shouldn't strive every day to make it one. If you want any kind of improvement, progress, evolution, you can't be satisfied with current conditions.
You can strive. It won't happen in your lifetime--if ever. Me, I think I'd rather keep my national sovereignity. I don't fancy being dictated to by a Canadian, a Chinese, a Brit, a Korean, an Australian, an Arab or a Brazilian.
Now, if you all want to have a democracy under the principles and doctrine found in the Constitution of the United States of America, we can talk, but otherwise, I'll fight you tooth and nail.
-
I very much doubt it was anything like that. From what I've read, it always says "for revealing the existance of nuclear weapons programs at the Dimona facility". Also, Israel has a right to declare "secret" anything that affect only Israelis. Same with any other country, so don't think I'm singling Israel out. In my view, the law that made such information secret (assuming it was vague information) was null the second it was writen, because the world had a right to know. Can't punish someone for breaking a null law, can you?
-
Your view doesn't matter. You're A) not israeli, B) not in charge in israel, C) not in a position to nullify an israeli law.
I might think its beyond the pale that people aren't allowed to carry a concealed sidearm in Australia. I do not get to declare that law null and void and then go to Australia carrying my Glock and get away with it. As much as I wish it were so, my beliefs don't override a sovereign nations laws.
No matter what YOU think about the validity of a law, the law stands as long as it is enforced and unchanged by the government that made it.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You can strive. It won't happen in your lifetime--if ever. Me, I think I'd rather keep my national sovereignity. I don't fancy being dictated to by a Canadian, a Chinese, a Brit, a Korean, an Australian, an Arab or a Brazilian.
Now, if you all want to have a democracy under the principles and doctrine found in the Constitution of the United States of America, we can talk, but otherwise, I'll fight you tooth and nail.
You know what the difference is between an American and a Brazilian? Their passport, thats about it. Saying that Americans have a right to make laws regarding your life, but not Italians, thats absurd. Also, sovreignty does not extend to matters of foreign policy. All I'm asking is that you not be hypocritical. If America can (and it can) judge (and consequently punish/reward) other nations and individuals based on its own sense of morality, then the world can and should have that same right.
You seem to be very self-serving in this respect. Morality doesn't concern you unless its directly causing you harm. Given that you live in America, the biggest guy on the block, this will very rarely happen. But consder a Venezuelan, or an Iraqi. They can and do suffer becuase of immoral actions undertaken by your government. An injustice is no better or worse if it happens to me or to someone else. Injustice is in and of itself bad, regardless of who it harms.
You can strive. It won't happen in your lifetime--if ever
Nah, thats just being lazy and thinking up clever ways to excuse your laziness and apathy. Are you clairvoyant? There is no reason why it should not happen in our lifetime.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You know what the difference is between an American and a Brazilian? Their passport, thats about it. Saying that Americans have a right to make laws regarding your life, but not Italians, thats absurd. Also, sovreignty does not extend to matters of foreign policy. All I'm asking is that you not be hypocritical. If America can (and it can) judge (and consequently punish/reward) other nations and individuals based on its own sense of morality, then the world can and should have that same right.
I think you just insulted a bunch of Brazilians. ;)
Americans have a right to make laws that affect Americans, or laws that affect people in America. Brazilians can't make a law that say it is illegal to have purple hair and be able to get it enforced in America. See, that's what sovereignity is all about. My people, my government, my laws, my country. Your people, your government, your laws, your country.
You seem to be very self-serving in this respect. Morality doesn't concern you unless its directly causing you harm. Given that you live in America, the biggest guy on the block, this will very rarely happen. But consder a Venezuelan, or an Iraqi. They can and do suffer becuase of immoral actions undertaken by your government. An injustice is no better or worse if it happens to me or to someone else. Injustice is in and of itself bad, regardless of who it harms.
I'm arguing for the sanctity of national sovereignity. That's not self serving. Morality concerns me very much, Rictor, but I know how far my morality extends and whom it covers: me. My MORALITY is not the same thing as my belief in the rule of LAW. Where my morals and the law clash, my morals win, unless someone else will be affected. If there is anyone else involved, the trumps morality every time. See, my morals might not match my wife's, but the laws that apply to both of us are exactly the same. That's why the law makes such a useful yardstick: its the same for everyone.
If I wanted to be self serving, I'd argue to forcibly disarm Israel--and every other country except the US. Why? Because they're all threats to me. That's self serving, Rictor.
Nah, thats just being lazy and thinking up clever ways to excuse your laziness and apathy. Are you clairvoyant? There is no reason why it should not happen in our lifetime.
No, I can't tell the future, but I can look at my fellow human beings and see that--barring some fundamental change in their basic nature--they're not going to give up their petty prejudices and artificial speciation. That's like suggesting that all the wolves in the world might decide to form one giant pack. Reality, I'm afraid, intrudes yet again on your utopian vision.
-
Originally posted by Thomas Jefferson
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
Equal rights of others. Not equal rights of other Irsaelis, equal rights of others. This would imply the whole world, or more specifically in this case the Middle East.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I hate to break it to you: a country has whatever rights within it borders that it says it does. That's pretty much what makes it a sovereign nation.
If that's true Mik then how do you explain that Israel thought they had the right to go to Italy and drug and kidnap him thereby violating the laws of another sovereign nation?
If Israel have the right to do whatever they want within their borders then so does Italy and if they chose not to extrodite the guy to Israel on his arrival in the country Israel had no right to break the law kidnapping him.
-
Actually, both the Italian government and the British government gave their thumbs up. He was taken to Italy becuase Thatcher didn't want it being done on British soil...
-
Then why couldn't Iraq do what it did? It had sovereign right as a nation. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I very much doubt it was anything like that. From what I've read, it always says "for revealing the existance of nuclear weapons programs at the Dimona facility".
Ok, I haven't heard one way or another. Maybe I'll be bothered to look it up sometime this weekend.
-
Because Iraq was killing people who were officially on their soil but not part of their country.
Israel's just killing Palestinians.
Oh...wait.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Equal rights of others. Not equal rights of other Irsaelis, equal rights of others. This would imply the whole world, or more specifically in this case the Middle East.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Vanunu did not reveal anything really important, just pics of facilities and so on - not where the bombs are being held, their deployment time and methods etc.. He told that Israel has potential for 200 nukes - I doubt the number of actual devices is that high. In such a situation Vanunu's words might have been a relief for Israel. Openly and officially stating that they have nuclear weapons would have made them a target for all kinds of international pacts, bans, sanctions and so on (though they were no part of any anti-nuclear treatis), but this way they can stick to rather pragmatic "strategic ambiguity" - everyone knows they have nukes, but how many? Where?
Of course, tinfoil people all round the world think that before Vanunu came out of closet to sprout his information, Israel was busily trying to lure surrounding Arab countries to attack and then nuke them back into Precambrian age. Now Arab countries simply do not dare attack Israel [until some of them gain access to own n-weaponry], so Israel is pretty much safe.
blah blah
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You can strive. It won't happen in your lifetime--if ever. Me, I think I'd rather keep my national sovereignity. I don't fancy being dictated to by a Canadian, a Chinese, a Brit, a Korean, an Australian, an Arab or a Brazilian.
Now, if you all want to have a democracy under the principles and doctrine found in the Constitution of the United States of America, we can talk, but otherwise, I'll fight you tooth and nail.
:rolleyes:
How about Scandinavian or central European democracy? It seems pretty much better and able than your version, where two essentially same parties try to stop any advance towards one way or another. :p I understand that you Americans do speak different language than us, but please.
Besides, you are being dictated by huge number of laws from f.ex. France, China and Russia - namely those regulating trade. Full national sovereignity is only possible in total isolation, which quite frankly contradicts with anything any nation is doing - except North Korea.
-
The only government better than the US's (from a politically correct 'We hate monarchies and dictatorships' stance) is the UK's.
Everyone else is either running of some kind of kooky tribal system, an incredibly biased and corrupt party system, or so riddled with political correctness that it can't do ****.
The UK has the right mix of "Let's serve the will of the people" (House of Commons) and "**** the people, they're morons" (House of Lords).
Still, I could smoke crack and come up with a better form of government, but I'm not in power yet so....
-
Originally posted by an0n
The only government better than the US's (from a politically correct 'We hate monarchies and dictatorships' stance) is the UK's.
Everyone else is either running of some kind of kooky tribal system, an incredibly biased and corrupt party system, or so riddled with political correctness that it can't do ****.
The UK has the right mix of "Let's serve the will of the people" (House of Commons) and "**** the people, they're morons" (House of Lords).
Still, I could smoke crack and come up with a better form of government, but I'm not in power yet so....
what
seriously, what
As by watching US system, I find it far worse than for example UK or something like Sweden. Less corrupt, more choices for people, more variation and generally finding more popular leaders (lol gore/**** lol, your election methods seem quite ****ed up).
-
Basically, to be part of the government you'd need:
- To complete a set of tests and trials proving you're not a tool.
- Public support, with voting every 10 years to keep or kick you.
- And either: Show a degree of heroism, selflessness and benevolance; Or hereditary right
All laws are put to a vote, and any 5 'ministers' can call for a public vote on any issue if there's less than a 15% gap in the voting.
Then there'd be a main dude who could cast a vote equal to 25% of the total membership if he thought an issue warranted him tipping the scales.
Oh and all 'coalitions' would be banned. You could either vote how you believed or die. Anyone found to be 'horse trading' would be taken out back and shot.
-
anon: Sweden, Canada, Scandinavia, other countries in Europe, many nations in South America etc etc. Think before posting.
-
Think about what, exactly?
-
Originally posted by an0n
Think about what, exactly?
The only government better than the US's (from a politically correct 'We hate monarchies and dictatorships' stance) is the UK's.
Everyone else is either running of some kind of kooky tribal system, an incredibly biased and corrupt party system, or so riddled with political correctness that it can't do ****.
Here we have a blanket statement. Based on which facts? You should propably research other democracies before stating such things - despite what you think USA/UK axis is in no way unique. The only thing nowadays making USA unique is it's old and, when implemented, rather cool constitution, which nowadays seems to be more a stagnating element than else.
All laws are put to a vote, and any 5 'ministers' can call for a public vote on any issue if there's less than a 15% gap in the voting.
Check Ireland, they apparently vote just about anything.
Then there'd be a main dude who could cast a vote equal to 25% of the total membership if he thought an issue warranted him tipping the scales.
This is something I disagree with. This focuses way too much power on hands of a single individual. In draw situations the vote of the leader (say, speechman) should be decisive, but 25 percent is a bit excessive, even though you had a small goverment deciding all things.
[/end derail]
-
Think about the claim that no country has a better democracy than the US and the UK. There are, in general, two types of countries that do. One type are peaceful countries, with no real hopes of conquest and so forth, you could maybe say this is becuase they are not powerful enough to have these hopes. Countries such as Sweden, Finland and Scandinavian nations, also Canada to a degree. The other type are those nations who have very recently (in the last 15-20 years) had to fight for their democracy, and cherish it as something precious. Bolivia would be a great example, and so would many South American countries. The people on these nations have had a lack of democracy affect them prfoundly (starvation, wars etc), so when they finally get democracy, they're damn well going to make sure they have a say.
The Americans, and yes I am generalizing a bit here, take their democracy for granted, and are too apathetic to have a say in their governance. There's a quote from Thomas Jefferson on this subject, I'll maybe post it later. The Brits are a bit more complicated, from what I see. You are not as apathetic toward politics as your couisins across the pond. However, much as you vigoursly deny it, you're subjects not citizens. Oh, I don't mean in practice, but rather its a mindset. There are certain concepts left over from Ye Olde Days that are inhibiting full democracy in Britain. Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I could be and very likely am wrong.
Originally posted by Thomas Jefferson
“The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”
There you go, he said it not me. And no, its not just a coincidence that I'm using a lot of Jefferson quotes.
-
Never trust what you read on the back of a pack of Corn Flakes. You've got about as much of a grasp on the concept of governance as a mentally handicapped slice of cheese.
-
Never ate Corn Flakes in my life. You should have said Nutella.
Mmmm, delicious Nutella. Monosodium glutamate...mmmmmm
-
Yes, because Nutella are a real powerhouse of political commentary.
-
:yes: :yes:
GG DUDE
-
Originally posted by Janos
Check Ireland, they apparently vote just about anything.
Uh-huh, and if the government doesnt like what we say they make us vote again, saying we didnt fully understand the issue.
-
:lol:
Democracy is only good if you vote how we like.
-
You are free to do as we tell you
You are free to do as we tell you
You are free to do as we tell you
Sorry. Channelling the ghost of Bill Hicks for a second there :D
-
That quote always reminds me of that Adam Freeland song, "We Want Your Soul". :( It's a huge quotefest.
-
I'm loving this. All it takes to slap down an arguement is a smart-ass remark and the equivalent of "no, you're a poopie head!". Shall be discuss the political value to be found on the wrappers of various food? What is, in your professional opinion, the value of the opinions expressed on a milk carton as opposed to those on a Kit Kat? Now, for an encore, lets beat our heads around with some bananas for a bit, shall we? Look! Something shiny!
-
i'm in love with this malicious intent
you've been taken but you don't know it yet
what you will know must never live to be found
cos it's the subject of the eyes of the clown
- Ministry
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I'm loving this. All it takes .......... for a bit, shall we? Look! Something shiny!
I have no intention of wasting my time responding point-by-point to whatever string of words your sexually repressed little mind can piece together and attempt to pass off as a sentence.
When you can make words come from the metaphorical 'food in' end of your intellectual digestive system, then I'll bother responding to your idiocy.
Until then, I think it's best that you just kill yourself.
-
Enough...
-
Originally posted by an0n
I have no intention of wasting my time responding point-by-point to whatever string of words your sexually repressed little mind can piece together and attempt to pass off as a sentence.
When you can make words come from the metaphorical 'food in' end of your intellectual digestive system, then I'll bother responding to your idiocy.
Until then, I think it's best that you just kill yourself.
And to think, people criticize me for being difficult...:yes:
-
Thunder: Lock, then post. :p
-
Meh, I wasn't expecting anyone to post the same instant I locked the thread - the entire process took about 20 seconds!
Ah well.
-
You'd be amazed at how often it's happened to me. It makes sense since threads that need locking often are very "hot" topics that are being replied to very frequently. ;)