Again, you took my statement out of context. I disagreed with you that the U.S. is a
“a democracy that regularly consults its allies.” were emphasis is on consults their allies. It should be more like “a democracy that sometimes informs their allies”. Maybe say ask for opinions, but then still goes ahead with what they want to do. This is certainly not a democratic behaviour, especially if it has been decided by the world community not to.
[quote=“fred smith”]
the UN? Give me a break. Most of the nations in the UN are not democracies themselves. So who exactly is the world community?[/quote]
Wow, stop right there. I don’t know the membership requirements for the UN, but I am pretty certain that it does not require a country to be a democracy. So what countries shall be banned next from the UN in your opinion? Islamic countries? All European countries that have a different opinion than the US? Why not remove the democratic rights of gays, lesbians, hell, all non US-citizen? Who gets to decide who can cast a vote in the UN? A democracy should be able to deal with all people of different political orientation, race, sexual preference etc. And if the UN membership does not require a nation to be a democracy, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to cast their vote.
If you want to buy banana’s from the Kongo, go ahead, its up to you. But if it is a matter of global stability then it concerns everybody.
First, I am sure the decision to grand Russia, China, Great Britain, France and the U.S.A. a veto right (notice, not Germany) was again a democratic decision and yes, even the U.S.A. agreed to this decision when the security council was established. And these veto rights were given to them for a reason. Maybe it was in an attempt to avoid unnecessary wars.
Second, here a little statistic I found on who used how often their veto in the security council.
Soviet Union 118 / Russia 2
United States 76
Britain 32
France 18
China 5
Where 7 of the last 9 vetoes at the Security Council have been by the United States, and 6 of these have been of draft resolutions criticising the Israeli Government in some way. In total, the US has blocked 35 draft resolutions on Israel.
As you see, France has used their veto only 18 times which is a little more than the last on this list, China. And the bad mafia Russians, only twice since the collaps of the UDSSR. Which leaves the U.S.A. on the top of the list of using their veto power since 1991. And interestingly, it was used to protect the one country, that the whole trouble in the Middle East is all about. But that is not really topic of the thread and I cannot offer a solution either.
But please, don’t complain about France overcontrolling U.S. foreign policy with their veto rights. On a more personal note, I would agree with you, that the right to veto a decision should be removed for all countries. It would contribute to more democracy.
Third, typically, when Germany deploys it’s troups into a foreign country, the parliament won’t agree to it, unless there is a strong U.N. mandat. I don’t know the situation in other democracies.
That is the most ignorant thing you have said to date and that is a triumph believe you me. What exactly do you think a president is if not a leader? [/quote]
Okay, this is another research I did on this topic. Maybe your Greek is a little rusty, so here the definition of democracy.
[quote=“wikipedia”]
Democracy (from Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia), δημος (demos) the common people + κρατειν (kratein) to rule + the suffix ία (ia), literally “the common people rule”) [/quote]
And yes, Germany has a president, but his position is purely ceremonial. Most modern democracy have a large parliament. Hell even Great Britian has one, and they still have a queen as well. If the majority of the parliament does not agree to a governmental action, the president, chancelor, prime minister cannot do anything. So the power lies within the people, who elected each member of the parliament.
On U.N. level, the nations on this planet are more or less the people that should rule it. If there is not a democratic order within a nation, this is an internal affair, and if enough people want democracy, they will change it. But this needs to come from within and not from the outside. And this has been done before many many times.
But this does not really apply for the U.S. system. And it really concerns me, that important decisions, such as launching nuclear missles, lies soley withing the hands of the U.S. president, and congress does not have anything to say in this rather serious matter. And it seems that the U.S. president has more similar powers/ways to ignore congress. Especially Bush really seems to like doing this. Does not really sound democratic to me. But afterall, I still think there is still democracy left in the U.S.A., might need some fine tuning, and most important the capitalistic blanket that it is covered by should be removed.
[quote=“fred smith”]
So what? [/quote]
Another undemocratic statement of yours.
I think that I am having trouble understanding your English again, care to explain.[/quote]
I did not really expect you to understand this, but that is not the fault of my poor english.
[quote=“fred smith”]
In summary, I am not sure why I am responding to your posts. They are mostly rag tag theories trotted out to no great effect. [/quote]
Oh, another offense, now you are calling my opinions “rag tag theories”. Whatever that means. But your score is 4:0
Actually, I forgot about one. FYI, the word Euro has multiple uses.
[quote=“wikipedia”]
Euro is a common prefix denoting things of or connected with Europe or the European Union. Specific Europe-related meanings of Euro include:
* Euro (
