fantasy-freak.com

Fairness and justice

Offline RandBlade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1295
If 50 murderers have been let off for some reason in the past (inc. perhaps Police corruption) without anyone getting charged then a murder is committed and the Police have the evidence to arrest the suspect, should they? Why?
In the Arab world, women get stoned when they commit adultery. In the West, women commit adultery when they get stoned.

If god is that judgmental and that un-compassionate, he can go fuck himself anyway. ~ Kat


Offline Mordeth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 13998
...

what

the

fuck?
Lesbians shouldnt be allowed to use dildos. They have made their choice

My balls are exceptional, but not weird.


Offline RandBlade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1295
Do you not understand the question Mordie?
In the Arab world, women get stoned when they commit adultery. In the West, women commit adultery when they get stoned.

If god is that judgmental and that un-compassionate, he can go fuck himself anyway. ~ Kat


Offline Mordeth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 13998
.. i don't.

i mean.. because 50 murderers (and let's assume they were actually all guilty) got off for some reason (i take it we can assume different reasons for each case?)... wtf has that got to do with the police arresting someone else?

the police don't sentence people, they don't decide to free them.. the courts do.

i..

.
.
Lesbians shouldnt be allowed to use dildos. They have made their choice

My balls are exceptional, but not weird.


Offline RandBlade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1295
50 was just a number from the air, so lets make it clear: if virtually all the murderers from an area for have got off for various reasons for a while, not being arrested, should the Police still arrest the latest suspect?

It's not meant to be a trick-question.
In the Arab world, women get stoned when they commit adultery. In the West, women commit adultery when they get stoned.

If god is that judgmental and that un-compassionate, he can go fuck himself anyway. ~ Kat


Offline Aimless

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 7952
Of course.

Why shouldn't they?
Sometimes I think, sometimes I am


Offline Mordeth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 13998
erm

that's.. too simple a question

but too simple an answer, yes they should. They have jobs to do and they should do them, whatever is going on in the courts isn't really their issue.

if they don't want to go around catching criminals that won't get punished they can revolt, form vigilante groups, or quit.
Lesbians shouldnt be allowed to use dildos. They have made their choice

My balls are exceptional, but not weird.


Offline Thin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 7638
I suspect he's relating it to Iraq, and America's hunting down of dictators, or that philosophy in general.

I would have to wonder what failure of the justice system allowed for the murders in the past to get away with it, and what makes this murder so different that he is the one that they want to put on trial.

Murder is wrong, agreed. But its hardly fair if you pick and chose who you're going to put on trial.


Offline RandBlade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1295
Quote
I suspect he's relating it to Iraq, and America's hunting down of dictators, or that philosophy in general.

I would have to wonder what failure of the justice system allowed for the murders in the past to get away with it, and what makes this murder so different that he is the one that they want to put on trial.

Murder is wrong, agreed. But its hardly fair if you pick and chose who you're going to put on trial.
Well done, you're quick :). Now you are seeing it from my perspective, we can all agree that it's right to prosecute the murderer and that bad precedent does not mean that you should not. I agree with you that a failure of the justice system should be worrying and again you can turn that to the international community that fails to act against genocidal dictators.

Two wrongs don't make a right, two wrongs don't a prevent right from being right.
In the Arab world, women get stoned when they commit adultery. In the West, women commit adultery when they get stoned.

If god is that judgmental and that un-compassionate, he can go fuck himself anyway. ~ Kat


Offline Thin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 7638
I could, however, pick apart the analogy as it is perhaps a little over-simplistic.
For starters, The state has a legitimately accepted system of trial for murderers and a properly appointed police force.
The international system does have a good system, and if it failures in legitimacy, it would be from an inability to force its morals.
What I would ask is what gives the US the right to behave as an independant police force? Certainly not the international system (in this scenario).

It is perfectly fine to say that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do, and many would agree that he was a brutal dictator, but what happened was like the police ignoring the legal system and locking up a murderer because they feel they are doing the 'right' thing.
it may immediately be the 'right' thing, but it also sets a rather dangerous precedent, doesn't it? whats to stop the US, or even a country like China from invading a neghbouring state because they decided that it wasn't being governed properly?


Offline RandBlade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1295
Quote
I could, however, pick apart the analogy as it is perhaps a little over-simplistic.
For starters, The state has a legitimately accepted system of trial for murderers and a properly appointed police force.
The international system does have a good system, and if it failures in legitimacy, it would be from an inability to force its morals.
What I would ask is what gives the US the right to behave as an independant police force? Certainly not the international system (in this scenario).
The point of the analogy is that if something is right it does not stop being right simply because it was not done in the past.

"The international system does have a good system" are you joking? :? What is good about the existing system that lets the lunatics run the asylum? The UN's Human Rights Committee has Sudan and Zimbabwe on it to name but two and is chaired by Lybia. You call the UN a good system? :shock:

The US is the Police Force already, there have only ever been 2 UN-mandated wars and both of those were fought by the US.
Quote
It is perfectly fine to say that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do, and many would agree that he was a brutal dictator, but what happened was like the police ignoring the legal system and locking up a murderer because they feel they are doing the 'right' thing.
it may immediately be the 'right' thing, but it also sets a rather dangerous precedent, doesn't it? whats to stop the US, or even a country like China from invading a neghbouring state because they decided that it wasn't being governed properly?
There's never been anything to stop that
In the Arab world, women get stoned when they commit adultery. In the West, women commit adultery when they get stoned.

If god is that judgmental and that un-compassionate, he can go fuck himself anyway. ~ Kat


Offline Thin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 7638
Quote
"The international system does have a good system" are you joking? What is good about the existing system that lets the lunatics run the asylum? The UN's Human Rights Committee has Sudan and Zimbabwe on it to name but two and is chaired by Lybia. You call the UN a good system?

I called the system good, I agree that it isn't being run properly. I do think a proper international system can be implemented by cooperating states with the beliefs and ideology that they hold. The idea is good, it just doesn't work very well in practice for numerous reasons.
To make the system fair, it would have to have equal cooperation from members and ensure that the members are up to a certain level of human rights. Unfortunately, it has become weak and desperate in the past few years, and you do get the cases you mentioned above.

Quote

The US is the Police Force already, there have only ever been 2 UN-mandated wars and both of those were fought by the US.

To be fair, many other countries have contributed forces to hot-spots during and after the cold war.
Still, the war lacks international legitimacy without the backing of the UN. The US doesn't need this to act, but it does strain relations with the rest of the world. Why should there be laws if the US doesn't follow them? It should be a role-model, not 'big-brother' :p

Quote

There's never been anything to stop that

Agreed. but before, at least the pretense of the UN allowed nations to either try and justify their actions or be prevented from invading from the threat of trade sanctions or force.


Offline RandBlade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1295
Quote

I called the system good, I agree that it isn't being run properly. I do think a proper international system can be implemented by cooperating states with the beliefs and ideology that they hold. The idea is good, it just doesn't work very well in practice for numerous reasons.
To make the system fair, it would have to have equal cooperation from members and ensure that the members are up to a certain level of human rights. Unfortunately, it has become weak and desperate in the past few years, and you do get the cases you mentioned above.
That is not the system we have though. Neither Russia nor China are free nations or (genuine) democracies, the would fail any human rights test and they are both permanent veto-wielding members of the UN-SC. You may like the idea of an institutional system like that but we do not have one. The closest to it is NATO.
Quote
To be fair, many other countries have contributed forces to hot-spots during and after the cold war.
Still, the war lacks international legitimacy without the backing of the UN. The US doesn't need this to act, but it does strain relations with the rest of the world. Why should there be laws if the US doesn't follow them? It should be a role-model, not 'big-brother
The only two wars ever sanctioned by the UN were the Korean War and the Gulf War, there have been no others. Since nobody has ever listened to the UN in the past I don't see why people suddenly care now. France has never listened to the UN before, no-one has it is an empty, useless talking-shop.
Quote
Agreed. but before, at least the pretense of the UN allowed nations to either try and justify their actions or be prevented from invading from the threat of trade sanctions or force.
The pretense has never been there, there have I believe been over 200 wars by UN members (an average of over 1 per nation) in the last 50 years. Every single permanent-UN member has been involved in quite a few. Besides since the UN has never implemented that the pressure was never there, only the threat of retaliation does that and the UN neither does that nor is needed for that.
In the Arab world, women get stoned when they commit adultery. In the West, women commit adultery when they get stoned.

If god is that judgmental and that un-compassionate, he can go fuck himself anyway. ~ Kat


Offline Bannor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
    • Posts: 391
China and Russia may be veto weilding members of the UN security council but the fact remains that in the recent past most vetos are coming from the US, with GB running in close second.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm

So who is crippling the UN most then?

To use your analogy the current murderer is not being prosecuted by legitamite police, he was lynched by a torch bearing mob, who then burned his house down and are in the process of nicking the fuel out of his car.

Whether or not he was a vicious bastard in this case is irrelevant. there are systems put in place to make society work. The might is right system of international politics is not a way for countries to interact.

The UN is a great idea in principle, and it falls upon its most powerful members to do the make it work. But those nations have consistantly failed to do so.


Offline Ranges

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 3958
I do seriously believe that one should let 10 criminals go if that would keep one innocent man out of prison.
In this case that leads to the fact that the evidence gathered by corrupt cops cant be used because these cops cant be trusted with their jobs, so yes, i support their getting off. But those cops should be prosecuted.
*giddy decidedly dumbfounded looking smirk*
all shall adore the Dark Lord of Coffee!


Offline Thin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 7638
Quote

That is not the system we have though. Neither Russia nor China are free nations or (genuine) democracies, the would fail any human rights test and they are both permanent veto-wielding members of the UN-SC. You may like the idea of an institutional system like that but we do not have one. The closest to it is NATO.


I'm not to fond of the veto-system, no. The security council is the one with the most dire need for reform. I have heard other interesting suggestions that are worth looking at, although I'm not completely confident in any of them. Would you agree on a system where votes are distributes on membership basis, population basis or power?

Quote

The only two wars ever sanctioned by the UN were the Korean War and the Gulf War, there have been no others. Since nobody has ever listened to the UN in the past I don't see why people suddenly care now. France has never listened to the UN before, no-one has it is an empty, useless talking-shop.

Not true! Somalia was also santioned by the UN, and I believe that Rwanda also got through, its just that no one was willing to help.
You seriously underestimate the UN as a 'talking shop'. To the ones with power, it might seem that way, but to every legitimised state on earth it is their only ability to communicate their fears, and position. I'm glad that they do a lot of talking, because through that we are eble to both better understand and come to common grounds with our neighbours. It may sound idealistic, but I really do believe this is a better option than simply doing what we want because no one has the power to stop us. One day someone will have the power to stop us, and the resulting war would be as devastating, if not more so than wwII.

Quote

The pretense has never been there, there have I believe been over 200 wars by UN members (an average of over 1 per nation) in the last 50 years.  Every single permanent-UN member has been involved in quite a few. Besides since the UN has never implemented that the pressure was never there, only the threat of retaliation does that and the UN neither does that nor is needed for that.

Ah. But we can also blame that inaction and widespread war on the very active cold war, can't we? It could be just as easy to say that the US was so inneffective because its members were directly opposed to each other ideologically. I don;t believe that the UN was really given its chance to grow and fix its flaws following the collapse of the USSR.

Quote

So who is crippling the UN most then?

I dont think its an issue of 'who' or 'the most'. The UN has some serious flaws, and most of these flaws are based in its assumptions and interactions with the state system.
The UN requires every state to come on quasi-equal terms and surrender a part of its own soverignity in order for it to work. No nation wishes to do this because the ones with the most to lose (ie, the US) are simply not going to let the UN make its decisions for it.
It would be a like an orphan boy, who has grown up on the streets living it tough, fighting other orphans for security suddenly having the option to move into the home of adoptive parents.
The orphan doesn't want to move in because it would mean losing independence, control over his life and most of all, he just doesn't trust anyone.


Offline Devlyn, the special edition

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 2788
    • http://www.shiningsource.net
I would arrest them, if the evidence was closing enough to make a good case. Still, I would give such a person lenient treatment in court, as the preceding ones didn't get sanctions at all.

I saw the analogy to Iraq right away as well, but they did not do their full best to obtain evidence in the first place there. The weapon inspectors should have been allowed to finish their job first, before deciding to invade Iraq. Blix himself said that he needed another six weeks at the very most.

Also, what is different in the analogy is that in the Iraq situation, other countries are still getting away with dictatorships and such.

On a final note, there is the issue of good and bad dictatorships. Should every dictatorship be liberated, even when they have quite non-oppressing dictators (such as Pakistan) or dictators chosen by the people for life (like Liechtenstein)?

Edit: haven't the Yugoslavia missions been sanctioned by the UN as well?
First and Proudest Member of the Unmelodramatic Music Fundamentalists Association!
blehg, a blog!


Offline Thin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 7638
Nope, Yugoslavia was NATO. There was a UN peacekeeping mission in there at the time, but it proved itself to be useless at stopping genocide happening right in front of its soldiers.

This is because the Dutch UN camp had something like 50 soldiers in it, facing a serbian battalion :?


Offline RandBlade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1295
Quote

I'm not to fond of the veto-system, no. The security council is the one with the most dire need for reform. I have heard other interesting suggestions that are worth looking at, although I'm not completely confident in any of them. Would you agree on a system where votes are distributes on membership basis, population basis or power?
The General Assembly is far worse than the Security Council, it is absolutely dominated by dictatorships. I don't think I would support any international system, I disagree with it on principle, I think they are wrong. Nations should have their own sovereignty. NATO is OK as it is an alliance of free nations only where things can be done if agreed but nations can act outside of it if they so choose.
Quote

Not true! Somalia was also santioned by the UN, and I believe that Rwanda also got through, its just that no one was willing to help.
You seriously underestimate the UN as a 'talking shop'. To the ones with power, it might seem that way, but to every legitimised state on earth it is their only ability to communicate their fears, and position. I'm glad that they do a lot of talking, because through that we are eble to both better understand and come to common grounds with our neighbours. It may sound idealistic, but I really do believe this is a better option than simply doing what we want because no one has the power to stop us. One day someone will have the power to stop us, and the resulting war would be as devastating, if not more so than wwII.
Rwanda and Somalia weren't wars, they were peace-keeping, weren't they? And the UN failed catastrophically in both so hardly good examples, they are examples of why we must never be constrained by the UN as it does not work. I don't see how saying that nations can talk in the UN takes away from the fact it is a 'talking shop', that's kind of saying the same thing :?. If in the future a nation does have the power to stop us then the UN will achieve nothing, just like it has never achieved anything, diplomacy between us and them will. The UN did not prevent a war between the west and the USSR, nuclear weapons did.
Quote
Ah. But we can also blame that inaction and widespread war on the very active cold war, can't we? It could be just as easy to say that the US was so inneffective because its members were directly opposed to each other ideologically. I don;t believe that the UN was really given its chance to grow and fix its flaws following the collapse of the USSR.
Kosovo and Iraq are perfect examples of a post-USSR failure by the UN, we tried the UN-route both times and the UN failed completely, just like it failed in Rwanda.
Quote
I dont think its an issue of 'who' or 'the most'. The UN has some serious flaws, and most of these flaws are based in its assumptions and interactions with the state system.
The UN requires every state to come on quasi-equal terms and surrender a part of its own soverignity in order for it to work. No nation wishes to do this because the ones with the most to lose (ie, the US) are simply not going to let the UN make its decisions for it.
It would be a like an orphan boy, who has grown up on the streets living it tough, fighting other orphans for security suddenly having the option to move into the home of adoptive parents.
The orphan doesn't want to move in because it would mean losing independence, control over his life and most of all, he just doesn't trust anyone.
Such blind idealism. The UN can never restrain nations, it is simply not possible under its system.
Quote
I saw the analogy to Iraq right away as well, but they did not do their full best to obtain evidence in the first place there. The weapon inspectors should have been allowed to finish their job first, before deciding to invade Iraq. Blix himself said that he needed another six weeks at the very most.
Time was up and rightfully so. Iraq had 12 years to co-operate and never did, Blix himself also said that they were not co-operating. He never said "that he needed another six weeks at the very most", what was actually said was that if Iraq co-operated he could do the job within six weeks and that if Iraq did not co-operate no amount of time would be enough. We had given nearly half a year before we invaded and Blix said right before we invaded that Iraq was still not co-operating, so why should any more time be given? November 2002 was Iraq's "Final Opportunity" to co-operate, so come March why delay any longer when Iraq was still not co-operating, in Blix's own words?
In the Arab world, women get stoned when they commit adultery. In the West, women commit adultery when they get stoned.

If god is that judgmental and that un-compassionate, he can go fuck himself anyway. ~ Kat


Offline Thin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 7638
Quote

The General Assembly is far worse than the Security Council, it is absolutely dominated by dictatorships. I don't think I would support any international system, I disagree with it on principle, I think they are wrong. Nations should have their own sovereignty. NATO is OK as it is an alliance of free nations only where things can be done if agreed but nations can act outside of it if they so choose.

Thats because the world is dominated by dictatorships. It's a popular occupation :p
Of course, as a neo-con You would be seeking an international system of sorts, founded on the principles of liberal democracy. :)

Quote

Rwanda and Somalia weren't wars, they were peace-keeping, weren't they? And the UN failed catastrophically in both so hardly good examples, they are examples of why we must never be constrained by the UN as it does not work. I don't see how saying that nations can talk in the UN takes away from the fact it is a 'talking shop', that's kind of saying the same thing :?. If in the future a nation does have the power to stop us then the UN will achieve nothing, just like it has never achieved anything, diplomacy between us and them will. The UN did not prevent a war between the west and the USSR, nuclear weapons did.

Korea was a 'police-action' too. :) *shrugs* I'm not too sure that the definition is extreemely clear here. Rwanda was an internal matter, and it only stayed that way from an inability to help. Somalia was a great example of how a well-intended mission simply screwed up.
Rwanda cannot be blamed on the UN. The UN did everything it could, but it was restrained by an unwillingness of member states to help. (Somalia was only a few years prior, and some theorists have stated that America was unwilling to lose more lives in Africa...) I even think that the delegates spent awhile arguing over what colour the military vehicles used should be... *shrugs*
I'm not trying to take away from the fact that its a 'talk-shop'. I was simply trying to point out that a 'talk shop' can lack inaction, but at least it does provide the opportunity for nations to talk. Without this, minority interests will be lost.
The UN will not work if no one puts money and soverignity into it. Its as simple as that.

Quote

Kosovo and Iraq are perfect examples of a post-USSR failure by the UN, we tried the UN-route both times and the UN failed completely, just like it failed in Rwanda.

Thats not to say it will never work. Its failures have been isolated and identified. The UN can be just as effective as NATO.

Quote

Such blind idealism. The UN can never restrain nations, it is simply not possible under its system.

:p Accusations of blind Idealism from the guy who believes that Western democracies should take it upon themselves to rid the world of evil totalitarianism? :p


Offline RandBlade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1295
Quote
Thats because the world is dominated by dictatorships. It's a popular occupation :p
Of course, as a neo-con You would be seeking an international system of sorts, founded on the principles of liberal democracy. :)
I want an international system of liberal democracies with complete free trade (the latter is a second issue) however I don't want the former to be part of an institutionalised international system.
Quote
Korea was a 'police-action' too. :) *shrugs* I'm not too sure that the definition is extreemely clear here. Rwanda was an internal matter, and it only stayed that way from an inability to help. Somalia was a great example of how a well-intended mission simply screwed up.
Rwanda cannot be blamed on the UN. The UN did everything it could, but it was restrained by an unwillingness of member states to help. (Somalia was only a few years prior, and some theorists have stated that America was unwilling to lose more lives in Africa...) I even think that the delegates spent awhile arguing over what colour the military vehicles used should be... *shrugs*
The UN is no more than the sum of its constituent parts, to often due to its institutionalised structures it is no more than its weakest parts though. The lowest common denominator is not a good system to use, coalitions of the willing are far better. Not just last year, it's not a new idea, but throughout history too - especially mid-second millenia European history for instance.
Quote
I'm not trying to take away from the fact that its a 'talk-shop'. I was simply trying to point out that a 'talk shop' can lack inaction, but at least it does provide the opportunity for nations to talk. Without this, minority interests will be lost.
Got no problem with keeping a talking-shop if that's what's wanted, so long as it is known that it is no more than that and is not entrusted with actions to take or credibility etc
Quote
The UN will not work if no one puts money and soverignity into it. Its as simple as that.
So unless the UN becomes a World Government. Well I would thoroughly oppose that, a World Government would be a very wrong thing to have.
Quote
Thats not to say it will never work. Its failures have been isolated and identified. The UN can be just as effective as NATO.
I don't think it can, I think the UN's failures are institutionalised.
Quote
:p Accusations of blind Idealism from the guy who believes that Western democracies should take it upon themselves to rid the world of evil totalitarianism? :p
If I thought we could overnight rid the world of evil totalitarianism then that would be blind idealism. I do however think we can struggle to help remove some of the evil totalitarian dictatorships (and more ordinairy dictatorships too) through a wide variety of means, including but not limitted to, military force. Some dictatorships like N. Korea, Russia, China and S. Arabia can not be directly removed by us though (only the former being totalitarian).
In the Arab world, women get stoned when they commit adultery. In the West, women commit adultery when they get stoned.

If god is that judgmental and that un-compassionate, he can go fuck himself anyway. ~ Kat


Offline Devlyn, the special edition

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 2788
    • http://www.shiningsource.net
Quote
Time was up and rightfully so. Iraq had 12 years to co-operate and never did, Blix himself also said that they were not co-operating. He never said "that he needed another six weeks at the very most", what was actually said was that if Iraq co-operated he could do the job within six weeks and that if Iraq did not co-operate no amount of time would be enough. We had given nearly half a year before we invaded and Blix said right before we invaded that Iraq was still not co-operating, so why should any more time be given? November 2002 was Iraq's "Final Opportunity" to co-operate, so come March why delay any longer when Iraq was still not co-operating, in Blix's own words?


Iraq was not fully cooperating. This is different from "Iraq not cooperating" or "Iraq never cooperating". Blix has claimed that Iraq was not fully cooperating as a whole, but he never said that Iraq didn't cooperate at all. Then again, it wouldn't make sense at all to say such a thing as the weapon inspectors were generally allowed to do their job near the end.
In fact the amount of cooperation from Iraq increased towards the end, and Blix did indicate that. He also indicated that he would need even more cooperation, but there wasn't much basis to think that Iraq would not give that. After all, they already let the weapon inspectors in after a long time and tried to compile files of their weapon status.

Especially in retrospect, why would Iraq not have cooperated in this search for ghost WMD under this strong political pressure?

America wanted to attack Iraq if it didn't cooperate with inspections. It did, and in an increasing amount, and still they got attacked. Honestly, I'm not surprised that other countries such as Iran are _very_ reluctant to cooperate at all. It seems that it doesn't affect America's attitude anyway.
First and Proudest Member of the Unmelodramatic Music Fundamentalists Association!
blehg, a blog!


Offline Thin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 7638
Quote

I want an international system of liberal democracies with complete free trade (the latter is a second issue) however I don't want the former to be part of an institutionalised international system.

And you believe this system is as workeable as a plural international system?
If Western democracies started encouraging and forcing other states to fit into their idea of Capitalism and Democracy, it would be quite concieveable that united opposition will form, rejecting it as a form of 'American global hegemony'. Especially if the integration into the free market isn't immediately profitable.

Quote

So unless the UN becomes a World Government. Well I would thoroughly oppose that, a World Government would be a very wrong thing to have.

Why? If it is at least based in liberal democratic thought, then I fail to see why it would be so much worse than a collection of states.

Quote

 I don't think it can, I think the UN's failures are institutionalised.

:p

Quote

If I thought we could overnight rid the world of evil totalitarianism then that would be blind idealism. I do however think we can struggle to help remove some of the evil totalitarian dictatorships (and more ordinairy dictatorships too) through a wide variety of means, including but not limitted to, military force. Some dictatorships like N. Korea, Russia, China and S. Arabia can not be directly removed by us though (only the former being totalitarian).


I never imagined that converting the world to a differnt system would be immediate.
*shrugs* War against some of these places would be devastating and achieve very little. I'm all for human liberty and rights, but not when it requires bloodshed.


Offline Devlyn, the special edition

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 2788
    • http://www.shiningsource.net
Wait a minute here: America is an example of democracy and Russia suddenly is a dictatorship?

Last time I remember the Russians had an election that was no more controversial or unfair than the American one...
First and Proudest Member of the Unmelodramatic Music Fundamentalists Association!
blehg, a blog!


Offline rorrim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
    • Posts: 79
I would say. NO!!

Just force them to participate in a hunting game, their role... target.
and build a game show around it so that the hunters can win a trip to Hawaii.

points to be awarded:

1000 points for bleeding the target till death
100 - 500 points to be determined amount of pain inflicted
250 points for a clean kill
50 points for a deep cut
25 for a bruise
?em ot gniklat uoy era

Quote
WHY DO I SEEM TO BE IN NUMEROUS PEOPLE'S SIGS. This conspiracy is freaking me out. Did something go on that I don't know about? Is someone parading about pretending to be me? THERE IS NO OTHER K0GE, I'M TERRIBLY SORRY BUT I'M COMPLETELY IRREPLACEABLE. (sp)etc.
:mrgreen: