United Democratic Nations

[Voerdeland]

Also, I don't defend dictators. I just say that there's no moral difference between advocating "liberating" people from oppresive regimes (also, remember that "oppression" is a relative term) and the ideology of the Concert of Europe, which believed that the "sacred monarchy" must be defended, by force if there's a need.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, I don't defend dictators. I just say that there's no moral difference between advocating "liberating" people from oppresive regimes (also, remember that "oppression" is a relative term) and the ideology of the Concert of Europe, which believed that the "sacred monarchy" must be defended, by force if there's a need.

No difference?

Personally, I find a great difference between defending a philosophy of freedom, and one of subjugation.

[Voerdeland]

Also, I don't defend dictators. I just say that there's no moral difference between advocating "liberating" people from oppresive regimes (also, remember that "oppression" is a relative term) and the ideology of the Concert of Europe, which believed that the "sacred monarchy" must be defended, by force if there's a need.

No difference?

Personally, I find a great difference between defending a philosophy of freedom, and one of subjugation.

Both are nothing more but philosophies. Do you accept starting wars because of philosophy?

[Sawia]

I - unlike you - know that human rights are a human invention. Everyone SHOULD have basic human rights, but I don't say that everyone actually HAS them.

Yeah, everyone should have them, but they don't. That is why something has to be done.

There is not much that could be done, you can tell to those nations regimes and dictators that the way they run their countries is bad but thats about it.

[Hippostania]

Also, I don't defend dictators. I just say that there's no moral difference between advocating "liberating" people from oppresive regimes (also, remember that "oppression" is a relative term) and the ideology of the Concert of Europe, which believed that the "sacred monarchy" must be defended, by force if there's a need.

No difference? Sorry, but there is a clear difference between freedom and democracy & opression and authoritarianism. One of them is clearly superior, and it's not a matter of opinion. Freedom is ALWAYS better than opression.

Yeah, everyone should have them, but they don't. That is why something has to be done.

There is not much that could be done, you can tell to those nations regimes and dictators that the way they run their countries is bad but thats about it.

Or we can form the UDN, fund insurgencies in these dictatorships and even invade the weaker ones.

[Voerdeland]

Also, I don't defend dictators. I just say that there's no moral difference between advocating "liberating" people from oppresive regimes (also, remember that "oppression" is a relative term) and the ideology of the Concert of Europe, which believed that the "sacred monarchy" must be defended, by force if there's a need.

No difference? Sorry, but there is a clear difference between freedom and democracy & opression and authoritarianism. One of them is clearly superior, and it's not a matter of opinion. Freedom is ALWAYS better than opression.

It is a matter of opinion, you may like it or not. "Freedom" and "oppression" are relative terms, and so is "superior".

[Sawia]

There is not much that could be done, you can tell to those nations regimes and dictators that the way they run their countries is bad but thats about it.

Or we can form the UDN, fund insurgencies in these dictatorships and even invade the weaker ones.

So funding illegal fighters and invading countries is the solution?
How would your insurgents help? Besides doing bomb attacks and raids on military/government places?

[Hippostania]

Or we can form the UDN, fund insurgencies in these dictatorships and even invade the weaker ones.

So funding illegal fighters and invading countries is the solution?
How would your insurgents help? Besides doing bomb attacks and raids on military/government places?

If the fighters are pro-democratic, then they might stage a democratic revolution to overthrow their old regime.

[The Romulan Republic]

Both are nothing more but philosophies. Do you accept starting wars because of philosophy?

I do not believe all philosophies have equal merit.

I believe war should be a last resort, but yes, I would advocate war to defend human rights in extreme circumstances.

[Voerdeland]

Both are nothing more but philosophies. Do you accept starting wars because of philosophy?

I do not believe all philosophies have equal merit.

Logical proving superiority of any philosophy over others is impossible.

[Sawia]

So funding illegal fighters and invading countries is the solution?
How would your insurgents help? Besides doing bomb attacks and raids on military/government places?

If the fighters are pro-democratic, then they might stage a democratic revolution to overthrow their old regime.

Or if the army is loyal to the regime get crushed in the process.

[Voerdeland]

If the fighters are pro-democratic, then they might stage a democratic revolution to overthrow their old regime.

Or if the army is loyal to the regime get crushed in the process.

In that case the UDN would pass a resolution allowing for attacking said nation (like UN did in Libya's case, when the "no-fly zone" sanctioned attacking loyalist forces)

[Miasto Lodz]

So funding illegal fighters and invading countries is the solution?
How would your insurgents help? Besides doing bomb attacks and raids on military/government places?

If the fighters are pro-democratic, then they might stage a democratic revolution to overthrow their old regime.

But what should we do when all those cute, pro-democratic partisans are turning their country into religious regime driven state? Plus, good luck with trying to "liberate" Qatar or UAE.

[Voerdeland]

If the fighters are pro-democratic, then they might stage a democratic revolution to overthrow their old regime.

But what should we do when all those cute, pro-democratic partisans are turning their country into religious regime driven state? Plus, good luck with trying to "liberate" Qatar or UAE.

An Islamist state wouldn't be the worst scenario, I think. Religion and Sharia law could have a great deal in unifying the nation and ending tribal conflicts.

[Sawia]

Or if the army is loyal to the regime get crushed in the process.

In that case the UDN would pass a resolution allowing for attacking said nation (like UN did in Libya's case, when the "no-fly zone" sanctioned attacking loyalist forces)

So basically "If you shoot back you will be attacked" situation for regime forces? What if that regime has modern or fairly modern airforces and air-defences, would UDN be willing to risk own casualties just for exporting democracy?

[Voerdeland]

In that case the UDN would pass a resolution allowing for attacking said nation (like UN did in Libya's case, when the "no-fly zone" sanctioned attacking loyalist forces)

So basically "If you shoot back you will be attacked" situation for regime forces? What if that regime has modern or fairly modern airforces and air-defences, would UDN be willing to risk own casualties just for exporting democracy?

Some people here consider it acceptable...

[New Freedomstan]

You can choose to not work. You can choose a better employer. You can attempt to charge more for your labor. Your employer, does not pretend to own you. By the very fact that you suggest a labour movement benefits the unemployed (it actually causes them), you acknowledge that you presume to own the job you have.

Actually, choosing not to work isn't an option. Well, it is an option... then again, suicide is also an option compared to living, isn't it? There's a limit to how long you get unemployment subsidies, and naturally that is conditional on one actually searching for a job. I can't really choose my employer. My area has roughly 6% unemployment (it is ruled by the Conservative Party and the Progress Party, and they don't give a fuck about the unemployed). My employer owns my labour, he owns my contribution to society and pays me just enough that the Union can't do anything about it, and enough that risking a year or more of unemployment for a better job is not worth it. And the Labour Movement have aided the unemployed. You don't think a reduced work-day (from roughly 14-16 hours a day, till 7.5 hours a day, all fought for by the Union) have forced employers to hire more workers, thus reducing the unemployment rate?

[Angleter]

Oh, but trade is very much governmental. World leaders frequently visit other nations and leaders precisely to increase trade ties and bring down trade barriers. In no world would creating a democratic foreign policy bloc, let alone one that isn't useless, and thus pissing off all the world's authoritarian regimes (which tend to be emerging markets), end up causing anything but a decrease in UDN-dictatorship trade.

You claim that you don't want relations to deteriorate, but you also claim that you can live with insulting China's government. So which is it? Relations will suffer unless the UDN is completely toothless (and its very formation wouldn't go unnoticed).

China needs us as much as we need them. They make the goods, we buy them, trade imbalance not-withstanding. So no, I disagree...even with a UDN, we would have trade with China.

> but you also claim that you can live with insulting China's government

In that instance I was talking about myself, not the UDN.

China is actually a great nation, with great potential. I have no doubt that they will soon be a great democracy. My insults, if any, would be for the dictators alone.

That's a very simplistic approach to China's economy. While much of their manufacturing sector is reliant on America and the West, they also have vast yet-to-be-tapped mineral wealth, and of course their financial sector and its various fingers in the American pie. Not to mention Russia and its gas and oil supplies to Europe that can be switched off at its will, or Saudi Arabia and its massive oil reserves. Insulting these nations- and that's what a UDN would be, a fairly open declaration of hostility and condemnation to the rulers of these places- is not going to be good for Western economies at all- indeed, they might just vote them all into the UDN for pragmatic reasons.

[Risottia]

You really seem to like talking about Western things and Westerners. Are you sure you aren't looking for a Union of Western Values?

I am a Westerner and I have no idea of what "Western Values" are. Except for "grab the money", that is.

Anyway, the UN is pretty inefficient, and the proposed UDN would be exactly as useless.

[Angleter]

No difference?

Personally, I find a great difference between defending a philosophy of freedom, and one of subjugation.

Both are nothing more but philosophies. Do you accept starting wars because of philosophy?

^This. In reality, freedom and subjugation are unquantifiable. Is Tanzania, a democracy where male gay sex is punished by 30 years in jail, 18% of women are subjected to 'circumcision', and most women's and minority rights are well down there, free? What about Thailand, a democracy which is corrupt up to its eyeballs and needs the monarch to sanction a coup every now and then? But Cuba, a dictatorship with a much better gay and women's rights record than Tanzania, is subjugated? What about democracies with gerrymandering or plurality systems- there were plenty of Britons who complained that they never voted for Gordon Brown, and Americans who claim Al Gore should in fact be in power.

The fact is that, to quote Enoch Powell, "values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed." Nation-states most certainly do exist- they are there, they are substantive, and they most certainly can be fought for and destroyed.

[F1-Insanity]

If it wasn't for the labour movement who partyoil revenues that createdenabled the modern norwegian state, my conditions at work would be significantly worse. I've talked to a canadian mate, and were pretty shocked at the labour-practices there.

[Hittanryan]

*snip*

Everywhere, everyone, and everything in the Middle East is complicated. After taking even a simple college course in 20th century Middle Eastern history, to say nothing of actual experts and people who live there, one starts to realize why no solution to any problem in the Middle East will be simple. It's one of those subjects where as you learn more, instead of answers you get a million more questions and problems, and more reasons why the solutions won't work.

I was not trying to insinuate that Syria does not support Hezbollah. Syria has backed the group, if I'm not mistaken, since its creation during the Lebanese Civil War. My main point was that Bush alienated Syria by lumping in Hezbollah with Al-Qaeda and treating Syria accordingly. Syria then turned to Iran as an ally against the West, and I'm sure you can appreciate that these two states are not what you would call traditional allies. Assad is a secular Ba'athist (sort-of) dictator, while Iran is a non-Arab theocracy. This is kind of anecdotal, but Saddam Hussein was also part of the Ba'ath (sort-of) movement, and the Iran-Iraq War was the third deadliest in the 20th century.

The end result, as you said, is that Assad became the middle-man between Iran and Hezbollah, thus strengthening the very entity which Bush sought to destroy. You bring up a good point when you mention a power vacuum left by Assad, given some of the forces at work in Syria. We saw in Iraq what happens when you depose a brutal dictator in charge of a diverse country. Saddam Hussein kept the ethnic tensions in check by sheer brutality; removing a government like that without mitigating those tensions and you end up with a mess. Will it be civil war all over again in Syria if Assad falls? Who knows?

Now, to bring this whole thing back around to the OT, spreading democracy is not as clean and simple as it sounds. You can't spread democracy at the tip of a gun, that's a given. Diplomatic snubs and insults, like the formation of a democracy-only club which does not recognize the legitimacy of other forms of governments, can have very real consequences on the ground.

[New Freedomstan]

If it wasn't for the labour movement who partyoil revenues that createdenabled the modern norwegian state, my conditions at work would be significantly worse. I've talked to a canadian mate, and were pretty shocked at the labour-practices there.

The 8th hour working day came before the oil was even discovered. The minimum wages came before the oil. The welfare state came before the oil. All fought for by the Labour Movement, through the unions and the parties (Labour Party, Worker's Socialdemocratic Party, Socialist People's Party and the Communist Party respectively).

[Distruzio]

Actually, choosing not to work isn't an option. Well, it is an option... then again, suicide is also an option compared to living, isn't it?

You can choose to make a living by fraudulently appealing to the altruism of your friends and family.

There's a limit to how long you get unemployment subsidies, and naturally that is conditional on one actually searching for a job. I can't really choose my employer.

You can.

My area has roughly 6% unemployment (it is ruled by the Conservative Party and the Progress Party, and they don't give a fuck about the unemployed).

You can choose the area.

My employer owns my labour, he owns my contribution to society and pays me just enough that the Union can't do anything about it, and enough that risking a year or more of unemployment for a better job is not worth it. And the Labour Movement have aided the unemployed. You don't think a reduced work-day (from roughly 14-16 hours a day, till 7.5 hours a day, all fought for by the Union) have forced employers to hire more workers, thus reducing the unemployment rate?

That would depend, did they reduce the pay to reflect the decrease in time worked?

[Greater Cabinda]

If the fighters are pro-democratic, then they might stage a democratic revolution to overthrow their old regime.

But what should we do when all those cute, pro-democratic partisans are turning their country into religious regime driven state? Plus, good luck with trying to "liberate" Qatar or UAE.

As long as the parties are democratically elected, and the people still have the ability to vote them out of office if they fuck up, I fail to see how they wouldn't have legitimacy.