POLL: IRAQI'S prefer dictatorship! Re--enslave them now!

[GUNWOUNDS]

Ah. Are they the ones who make sure Bush knows things Blix doesn't? (If it doesn't make sense initially, think about it)

are you saying the European weapon inspectors have better PhD's than ours??

[emprworm]

Whoa. That's actually a good point. Can world peace exist with totalitarian dictatorships?

no it cant.

[emprworm]

are you saying the European weapon inspectors have better PhD's than ours??

uhhh..European weapon inspectors GET their PhD's from the U.S.

rofl  :D

[GUNWOUNDS]

no it cant.

[nemafakei]

Ah, the caps lock key... a wonderful device for removing those uncomfortable questions.

As a linguist, I also can confirm that comprehension is aided by repeating your last sentence louder and louder until they get what you mean. That or leave you alone, which is just as good.

"are you saying the European weapon inspectors have better PhD's than ours?? "

No.

[emprworm]

Ah, the caps lock key... a wonderful device for removing those uncomfortable questions.

As a linguist, I also can confirm that comprehension is aided by repeating your last sentence louder and louder until they get what you mean. That or leave you alone, which is just as good.

"are you saying the European weapon inspectors have better PhD's than ours?? "

No.

considering I am not a lingquist, I will continue to USE CAPS when I want to raise my voice a bit.

[nemafakei]

I did not say everyone must bow down to the UN, I said that they should work towards helpingit  and improving it, rather than sticking two fingers up at everyone else's effort.

Your challenge is not relevant to the point I'm making, only the point you'd rather I was making.

[emprworm]

my challenge need not be relevant to the point you were making.

it is relevant to the point I was making.

[nemafakei]

Ok, I had understood it as a reply to the point I made:

"And if my points are too good to refute, feel free to leave me alone.  If not, I challenge you to refute"

I dealt with one of your points, so the if not applies; I will not take up the challenge, because it has no issue with my stance.

To put it into simple terms (not that even monosyllables has woprked in the past): Just because the UN isn't ideal now doesn't mean you can't try to improve it, rather than ignoring it.

[emprworm]

the UN is vastly improvable.  Until it is improved, countries must act in the void of its uselessness.

to improve the UN, in my opinion, we must start with the fundamental principle:  a dictator should not have the right to cast votes.  With this principle, remove all dictators from the ability to vote on world affairs within the UN.  By removing this UN bigotry, I may change my mind about the veracity of the UN.  Until then, it is an anti-semitic sham.

[DukeLeto]

to improve the UN, in my opinion, we must start with the fundamental principle:  a dictator should not have the right to cast votes.  With this principle, remove all dictators from the ability to vote on world affairs within the UN.  By removing this UN bigotry, I may change my mind about the veracity of the UN.  Until then, it is an anti-semitic sham.

The United Nations was founded on the principle of giving equal representation on world affairs to ALL nations.  What is the point of having a GLOBAL orginazation for peace if 3/4 of the world's nations can't vote in it?  Why should the third world not be allowed to vote on, say, world hunger?  After all, it's aproblem that primarily affects them.

The UN was created to advance world cooperration, not give the US another way to dominneer world policy.

[EWS]

No I wasn't implieing sarcasm, i fully supported the war.  one of the only in my school, however it was Britain i supported going into the war, and if America was with them then I supported them.  I like Bush, I like what he has done since Sep 11.  I also believed that the relevant justification was there, and I had done my research, it wasnt propaganda.  I originally thought it was a bad idea (my ex's Father was going) but once I had read everything I realised it was correct.

[Edric O]

to improve the UN, in my opinion, we must start with the fundamental principle:  a dictator should not have the right to cast votes.  With this principle, remove all dictators from the ability to vote on world affairs within the UN.

Define "dictator".

Would a "dictator" be a head of state who did not receive the vote of the majority of his country's population?

Well, there goes the USA...

[Edric O]

See, the problem is that if you want to remove dictatorships from the UN, you'd have to set a global standard on what it means to be a democracy.

And then you'd hear the poor baby conservatives crying about evil world government...

[HasimirFenring]

"to improve the UN, in my opinion, we must start with the fundamental principle:  a dictator should not have the right to cast votes."

So who gets to decide when a country can/cannot vote in the UN?  Can a monarch vote?  What if the dictator/monarch has a democratically elected parliament/legislature, but is not elected himself?  There are plenty of "democracies" whose leaders are not elected fairly...  I won't mention any names, just quote Edric:

"Would a "dictator" be a head of state who did not receive the vote of the majority of his country's population?

Well, there goes the USA... "

[emprworm]

Define "dictator".

Would a "dictator" be a head of state who did not receive the vote of the majority of his country's population?

Well, there goes the USA...

stupidity, not even worth responding to.

[emprworm]

The United Nations was founded on the principle of giving equal representation on world affairs to ALL nations.

[EWS]

Your anti European approach and anti UN approach are clouding your better judgement so I am not going to accept your argument Emprworm

stupidity, not even worth responding to.

So why did you?

[Warskum]

the UN is vastly improvable.

[Wolf]

But, dictators are not there to represent their own interests, they must represent the interests of their people. Therefore, only a democratic leader has the ability to do this, because only a democratic leader represents the interests of the majority of the people. A dictator might, for a time, fall in line with his peoples' interests, but since he was never elected, he was never given the mandate to rule by the people.

[emprworm]

Your anti European approach and anti UN approach are clouding your better judgement so I am not going to accept your argument Emprworm

fine.  i understand.  but then again, no one can respond to my argument.  it is not refutable.  So i'm not surprised to hear excuses.

So until someone steps up, the challenge remains:

Give me a moral and logical justification why dictators should be allowed to cast votes that govern the actions and governments of free societies (where freedom for those societies was fought for and paid for with blood)

a dictator casting a vote?  ROFL!  Please!  :D  :D

only in the UN, my dear Watson.  Only in the UN

[Warskum]

fine.

[Wolf]

I disagree. In the United Nations, he does not represent himself, or any single human being. The right to vote in the United Nations comes from the notion that each delegate is representing the people of that nation. Since a dictator has never received the mandate to rule from the people, he does not truly represent his people. Therefore, in the United Nations, he is not entitled to a vote. You misunderstand how the UN works; in the UN, no individual is granted a vote simply because he is a human individual. Only member nations of the UN may have votes in their respective committees. Furthermore, this is not always so; some nations don't even have the right to vote in certain bodies in the UN, and are given "observer" status. Therefore, the argument that dictators should be allowed to vote because they are human beings is incorrect, because the UN does not give individuals the right to vote for the sake of being human.

[emprworm]

Although a dictator might not represent his country, it doesnt makes him a non-human and since he is a human he must be treated equel, and thus have the right to cast a vote.

he can cast a vote, but free nations should not be bound to anything he 'votes' on.  A bunch of dictators 'voting' on US policies?  Never in your dreams pal.  If dictators want to vote among themselves and abide by their decisions, thats fine.  But you expect nations like the US and England to COMPLY with UN deicions where Dictators participate?  screw that.  give me one logical and moral reason why.

[Anathema]

The UN is not an organisation of people, it's an organisation of nations, meaning that dictators can cast votes because they represent their respective states. During the Cold War there was a very logical reason for this- making global policy wouldn't work if you hadn't the consent of the Soviet Union as well.

Even today there's no getting around certain nations, no matter how undemocratical they are. Saudi Arabia and Kuweit treat their inhabitants undecently, but no nation on Earth would dream about taking away their seat in the UN, again for a very logical reason, our dependency on their oil.

So emprworm, do you also believe that China should be stripped of their permanent seat in the security council?