Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We're Capalist(sp) of an evil empire called democracy. We're straight out damn evil. Didn't we have a thread awhile back talking how NK kids view western nations/military? Actually. I hink I started that thread!?!?! Dang you all for FORGETTING!!!!! NOW CHOKE YOURSELF!!!

The Propaganda posters were of particular interest.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical

'cuz... it's chemical weapons...

If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?

That Syria is full of donkey caves?

Well... yeah, that too...

And also the fact that crack-pot dictators and whackadoos would know for sure that we probably wouldn't be sticking our noses into their wars if CWs are used.

And really why should we? Especially alone! That's what the UN is for. If the UN can't get it together than that is their failing, not the US's. The US is not the world police.

Unfortunately due to the way that the UN security council works its very difficult to actually bring some of these people to justice if they're buddies with Putin, or China, or the US for that matter.

 EmilCrane wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical

'cuz... it's chemical weapons...

If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?

That Syria is full of donkey caves?

Well... yeah, that too...

And also the fact that crack-pot dictators and whackadoos would know for sure that we probably wouldn't be sticking our noses into their wars if CWs are used.

And really why should we? Especially alone! That's what the UN is for. If the UN can't get it together than that is their failing, not the US's. The US is not the world police.

Unfortunately due to the way that the UN security council works its very difficult to actually bring some of these people to justice if they're buddies with Putin, or China, or the US for that matter.

Right, the UN is a fail....we all know that, nothing new. But just because the UN is impotent does not mean the US then has to do the job. We did our part, we went to the UN.

NATO looking more effective then the UN. UN needs a serious overhaul.

 Jihadin wrote:
NATO looking more effective then the UN. UN needs a serious overhaul.

Why would you expect a body designed to serve the interests of the Western world to be less effective in serving the interests of the Western world than one that isn't designed to do that?

Relapse wrote:

Perhaps, but it seemed he was very keen on the idea of how advanced Syria was when discussing with me the political situation there and took offense to my statements that the country might not be able to function well as a Democracy and could be considered backward.

Syria wouldn't function well as a democracy, or at least not a Western democracy. The problem is that people in the West tend to equate the two and further cast aspersion on nations which function differently, even if they do so in a democratic fashion. In this light calling a nation "backwards" is akin to frowning on difference.

Why would you expect a body designed to serve the interests of the Western world to be less effective in serving the interests of the Western world than one that isn't designed to do that?

Good call on me Dogma. I give it a shot in clarifying my viewpoint. UN at the beginning was effective which pretty much we all agree with. Granted the UN was like NATO vs Warsaw Pact but on a different arena. US was lead in both arena.

UN also depended on the US for military support. Early to Mid 90's the US military we had a major issue of accepting commands from foreign officers. Not sure if you remember the refusal to wear UN berets.

Clinton took it one step further when the UN increased pressure for the US to pay the UN dues. He pretty much refused and stated the US took the lead in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. We all agree with that.

UN lost credibility over time by allowing certain nations with questionable reputations lead in certain areas. I don't think we really need to go over that.

UN also mad at us for not signing the Anti Landmine Act or whatever bill that was.

UN mismanagement use of funds. Everyone guilty of that but the UN takes it to a new level of laziness in not covering its evidence.

UN mandate that we use approve UN contractors in Afghanistan.....in NATO FoBs. US lead mission there.

NATO on the other hand that's pretty much lead by the US is more effective. My fault I digress.

Who would you prefer to run things. UN or NATO. Granted NATO is a military Alliance but you be surprise on the aspects of that treaty. I dealt with UN missions in Afghanistan. Their policies on how they want their gear to arrive in areas comes from fantasy land. NATO is whatever fastest way to get it there in quantity.

 EmilCrane wrote:
Unfortunately due to the way that the UN security council works its very difficult to actually bring some of these people to justice if they're buddies with Putin, or China, or the US for that matter.

In preventing the UN taking action against an ally of China or Russia, the UN is operating pretty much as intended. It's there to enforce some kind of notion of human rights, but there's a massive check on its power where major world powers are involved, because the whole point, basically, is to prevent another world war.

 sebster wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
Unfortunately due to the way that the UN security council works its very difficult to actually bring some of these people to justice if they're buddies with Putin, or China, or the US for that matter.

In preventing the UN taking action against an ally of China or Russia, the UN is operating pretty much as intended. It's there to enforce some kind of notion of human rights, but there's a massive check on its power where major world powers are involved, because the whole point, basically, is to prevent another world war.

I understand the point of the UN, unfortunately the Veto is too often used in power politics rather than to actually prevent a world war. But of course thats what it was designed for, no superpower would actually agree to abide by a body that would limit their power and prevent them from pursuing their intrests, unless they had a permanent all the time ability to protect their interests, thats the catch 22 of the UN, its powerless without the super powers but powerless with them.

 EmilCrane wrote:
I understand the point of the UN, unfortunately the Veto is too often used in power politics rather than to actually prevent a world war. But of course thats what it was designed for, no superpower would actually agree to abide by a body that would limit their power and prevent them from pursuing their intrests, unless they had a permanent all the time ability to protect their interests, thats the catch 22 of the UN, its powerless without the super powers but powerless with them.

Power politics in the backyard of another major power is pretty much how major wars happen. And so the UN isn't so much powerless, as powerless when it comes to issues that one of the five major powers is directly opposed to. Which I think is probably a good thing, really.

The real issue, basically, is that the old model of the five major powers doesn't really make sense any more. Russia is a nuclear power, but its economy is not much bigger than Spain's, and it's influence on world affairs not significantly greater than that. The UK and France are more or less the same. Basically if any of those three found world opinion against them, they wouldn't seriously threaten war simply because they couldn't.

Right now, the only countries for whom veto power makes sense are the US and China.

 Jihadin wrote:

UN also mad at us for not signing the Anti Landmine Act or whatever bill that was.

The Ottawa Treaty. And, despite the prevailing argument put forth in opposition to it, mines always harm innocent people; as does every area denial weapon I can think of.

 Jihadin wrote:

Who would you prefer to run things. UN or NATO. Granted NATO is a military Alliance but you be surprise on the aspects of that treaty. I dealt with UN missions in Afghanistan. Their policies on how they want their gear to arrive in areas comes from fantasy land. NATO is whatever fastest way to get it there in quantity.

NATO isn't just a military alliance, it is a well-oiled machine comprised of military organizations from the most powerful (culturally similar) nations in the world; complete with its own hierarchy. It is not comparable to the UN.

Though, to answer your question directly, I would generally prefer a NATO military action that was sanctioned by the UN. Tools plus legitimacy and all that.

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

UN also mad at us for not signing the Anti Landmine Act or whatever bill that was.

The Ottawa Treaty. And, despite the prevailing argument put forth in opposition to it, mines always harm innocent people; as does every area denial weapon I can think of.

Our opposition isn't because we want to use it all the time...

It's because of the DMZ zone between North/South Korea. I think if that ever get resolved, we'd have no problem signing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Right now, the only countries for whom veto power makes sense are the US and China.

I kinda disagree with you there...

I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but having only two countries being able to veto seems asinine.

Maybe change the UN Charter to have simple majority? Add a few more countries to the security council?

 Grey Templar wrote:
I see.

But I still have doubts as to what the curriculum actually has. Is it really telling them what Democracy is?

Well, that is, as Hamlet muses, the Question. I'll point out that the original protests that started all this were for Assad to step down and for greater democracy in Syria. I'll also point out that it's unlikely that Syria would be able to run the sort of vilification campaign that places like NK have, because of their previously open boarders. And the fact some of their (many now former) allies being (on paper) democracies. Even Iran's secular leaders are (in theory) elected.

And, yes, I do consider dictatorships 'backward'. Rule through Fear went out of style some years ago. Though hilariously, Assad's current propaganda amounts to 'Support Me or the Terrorists Win' (no, seriously).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Maybe change the UN Charter to have simple majority? Add a few more countries to the security council?

The simplest solution would be to remove the five permanent seats on the Sec Con and their vetos, and just have everyone rotated in on a yearly basis.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Maybe change the UN Charter to have simple majority? Add a few more countries to the security council?

The simplest solution would be to remove the five permanent seats on the Sec Con and their vetos, and just have everyone rotated in on a yearly basis.

$100 says Russia vetoes that motion

$100 says ALL the members of the security council would veto that one.

Touche my good sir!

 whembly wrote:

Our opposition isn't because we want to use it all the time...

When did I imply that was the case?

 whembly wrote:

I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but having only two countries being able to veto seems asinine.

There are five permanent members of the Security Council, and all of them have veto power.

 whembly wrote:

Maybe change the UN Charter to have simple majority? Add a few more countries to the security council?

There are 15 members of the Security Council, and no member of the permanent 5 would, or should, give up its veto power.

Judging by half the stupid "the US is not a Democracy, we are a Republic!" comments I hear around this part of the country on a regular basis I wonder if Oklahoman's know what a Democracy is or how it works.

We should probably not let them vote...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24113

reports in

Technically they are correct according to my high school civics class.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
high school class.

There is your problem, have you forgotten the gak they teach in High School!

 d-usa wrote:

There is your problem, have you forgotten the gak they teach in High School!

LOL They're actually right. The people elect representatives to make decisions rather than vote on everything directly.

 d-usa wrote:
Judging by half the stupid "the US is not a Democracy, we are a Republic!" comments I hear around this part of the country on a regular basis I wonder if Oklahoman's know what a Democracy is or how it works.

We should probably not let them vote...

Are you complaining because they know what type of government they have, or are you complaining with the people arguing we aren't a republic? I'm confused. However, thats ok. As I've noted, Oklahoma is flat, like pool table flat. There's always lingering evil where places are flat.


Houston is flat.
I once flattened a restroom after particularly good Mexican food.
Coincidence?

I knew I could count on the usual crowd to prove my point.

Republic =/= head if state is not a monarch. That much is right.
But a representative democracy is still a democracy, and that is not even counting the numerous ways of direct democracy that we use at every election to have the people directly pass laws.

So "we are not a democracy, we are a republic" is wrong.
We are a (representative) democracy, whose head of state is not a monarch (republic). We are both.

 d-usa wrote:
I knew I could count on the usual crowd to prove my point.

Republic =/= head if state is not a monarch. That much is right.
But a representative democracy is still a democracy, and that is not even counting the numerous ways of direct democracy that we use at every election to have the people directly pass laws.

So "we are not a democracy, we are a republic" is wrong.
We are a (representative) democracy, whose head of state is not a monarch (republic). We are both.

Going back to my high school civics class, I believe the term that we learned was democratic republic. But I'm not disagreeing with you.

I think the most accurate term might be "Constitutional Democratic Republic".

But what do names really matter.

The German Democratic Republic and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea both are great examples of the virtue of "Republics".

I learned Republic, which is a form of democracy

I learned Republic as well, because Texas was a republic, and all the other states wanted to be like us. Thats why everyone has to have forty head of longhorns by law, so in emergency we can line them up horn to horn to make a standing wall.

You know, just in case.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I learned Republic, which is a form of democracy

And see, that I am cool with.

It's the "WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!" crowd that makes me face palm every election time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I learned Republic as well, because Texas was a republic, and all the other states wanted to be like us. Thats why everyone has to have forty head of longhorns by law, so in emergency we can line them up horn to horn to make a standing wall.

You know, just in case.

Is that why your flag is the US flag, but with only one star?

Because you were the only state to actually get it right?

Pretty much.