[karajorma]

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.

[Rictor]

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...

[Ghostavo]

Then why couldn't Iraq do what it did? It had sovereign right as a nation.

[Sandwich]

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.

[an0n]

Because Iraq was killing people who were officially on their soil but not part of their country.

Israel's just killing Palestinians.

Oh...wait.

[Janos]

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

[Janos]

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.

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. 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.

[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....

[Janos]

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).

[an0n]

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.

[Rictor]

anon: Sweden, Canada, Scandinavia, other countries in Europe, many nations in South America etc etc. Think before posting.

[an0n]

Think about what, exactly?

[Janos]

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]

[Rictor]

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.

[an0n]

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.

[Rictor]

Never ate Corn Flakes in my life. You should have said Nutella.

Mmmm, delicious Nutella. Monosodium glutamate...mmmmmm

[an0n]

Yes, because Nutella are a real powerhouse of political commentary.

[Janos]

GG DUDE

[Gank]

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.

[Janos]

Democracy is only good if you vote how we like.