Who has authority over a country from beyond its borders?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
The very fact that The Queen has not been elected would make Her Majesty’s position as head of the Commonwealth all the more appropriate for an international organisation. Also, as mentioned, that would only be my preference — I highly doubt that the Commonwealth is ever going to recover the sort of influence that the British Empire had once held as an institution. Feel free to turn this into another anti-monarchy thread, though.
It is an interesting question......
And that is about all I agree with in your post.
What history has proven is that governmental authority and military power are never to be trusted.....that the protection and defense of individual human rights are in the hands of those individuals, and that creating yet another level of government to rule is foolhardy, while to arm that level with any sort of military force would be insane.
And Thank God the Security Council are the only ones with any influence.....otherwise the lunatics would be running the asylum......
Basically, each nation is responsible for what occurs inside that nation............to that extentt I agree with damngrumpy.......but there are situations in which the behaviour of a nation is so atrocious, so outrageous, that something has to be done.....Rwanda, Cambodia.......then action depends on individual nations gathering together and forming a "coalition of the willing" as tarnished as that concept has been.......
Sometimes a nation becomes such a threat to the outside world that willing partners must discipline it....Afghanistan, Iraq in the First Gulf War, Iran now......
The UN should be maintained as a debating society.....
I like your ideas except for the one about the Commonwealth. Quebec would be saying, why not the Francophonie instead. And Arab countries would be backing the Arab League. The Commonwealth simply has too much historical baggage in the British Empire to become a truly global enterprise.
But who decides what is atrocious and what isn't? Do I have a right to go out and knock off the local abortionist because I think what he's doing is atrocious?
Again, who decides what is a threat? Bush said Iraq was a threat, yet the UN (and even some within the Bush administration) disagreed with Bush. So who decides what is a threat an whatisn't?
Because Canada sided with a mass murderer in the Iraq War when it could have sided with the US, UK, Australia, Spain, Italy, the vast majority of current EU countries and several other countries to help get rid of him instead of taking the side of the French, who only opposed the war because they, alongside the Russians, were the biggest sellers of weapons to Saddam and are supporters of Hamas (a huge chunk, if not the vast majority, of countries which opposed the Iraq War were Muslim countries); because Canada's national sport is a game which can only be played on ice; because it had a political party called C.R.A.P but didn't notice anything unusual about that; because, whereas Britain's is a lion and America's is an eagle, Canada's national symbol is a little furry rodent with bucked teeth that those with a dirty mind use as a euphemism for female genitalia; and because everybody outside of Canada thinks its capital city is Toronto.
Heh Heh TROLL!
But, let me eliminate your misconceptions about Canada.
1. We did not take Saddam's side in the war of 2003....indeed, dozens of Canadian soldiers served with US forces in that conflict. Had we actually taken Saddam's side in the war, you guys would have gotten your arses kicked....from 2430 metres away.
2. We did not take the side of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys.............and yes, they loved Saddam and sold him many times the weapons the USA did, as did Germany China and Russia.......
3. Our game is the fastest toughest game on earth............unlike the game of cricket, enjoyed only by middle-aged poofters with ED. (Erectile Dysfunction)......which makes the sport a national past time in Great Britain.
4. You only wish your national symbol was female genitalia.....although there seems to be some doubt whether your average British male knows what that looks like.......instead of a wild, fierce, powerful animal that never actually LIVED in Britain.....compensating for something?????
5. That's OK, Torontonians think Toronto is the capital of the universe.......
Colpy addressed some but not all of it, I'll continue; Canada never had a political party called C.R.A.P. That was an acronism given to the movement to merge the Progressive Conservative and Reform Parties by disaffected "progressives", more colloquially called Red Tories, lefty political pundits, and of course left Libs and N-Dippers. The official name was the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance.
As for thinking Toronto is the capital maybe you should research your history. It was Queen Victoria's decision, (and a good one too) in 1857 to locate the capital in Ottawa, in light of the threat of American invasion. Having your capital city located on or close to open water is just foolish. If invaders think the capital is Toronto good for them.
In regards about the rwandian genocide, your right we cant interfere with other nations issues. But ill tell you what, the rwandians i know who were there when it happened, are happy Canada did what little it could to help them.
If genocide doesnt warrent outside intervention in your books, and you think they should just get it out of there system your messed up and letting politics cloud your vision
That to me is the difference
If genocide doesnt warrent outside intervention in your books, and you think they should just get it out of there system your messed up and letting politics cloud your vision
That to me is the difference
Last edited:
Canada and France weren't duped into thinking Saddam had weapons of mass desrtuction and links to Osama bin laden like the coalition of the willing.
So because we have a game played on ice we should get invaded? What's your national game again? Is it riot in the stands like a bunch of hooligans? You can have that boring game.
Lions are lazy unlike the hard working beaver, I'd rather have a sympol of hard work and not be known as lousy in the sack. So the beaver has buck teeth, at least they are nice teeth and not falling out of there skull like most brits.:lol:
If you don't like us why post here, oh yeah because we make superior forums.
lol there arent even lions in britian unless there in the zoo... Mabye the people who created the crest of britian spent too much time at the zoo
And some Muslim would be moaning about having an Islamic believer, Hindu would be wanting a Hindu, atheists would insist on an atheist, etc. Men would be saying a man would be better.
Meddling in other countries' affairs should only happen in extreme circumstances. Countries are formed and held together by some bond, primarily geography, language, ethnicity, creed, culture etc. What appears wrong to one country's culture may be perfectly acceptible to another's. However, it would be hard to dismiss the wrongs of Aparthied as being binding culture to anyone outside the ruling class of South Africa at the time. But there was no invasion, just many years of sanctions and protests until the system fell. Other obvious wrongs, (to us) are the goings on in China. Any amount of meddling will probably only prolong its citizens' plight and harm trade. While sounding hypocritical, a good trade relationship in this case may be the best and fastest means to reform. Once the proletariat accumulate wealth the government's power begins to slip, (which is why socialists champion "wealth distribution"). Now if only China would leave Tibet and Taiwan alone.
Getting involved in a civil war is a mug's game, you'll be considered an invader by one side, just hope it's not the winning side.
But some battles have to be fought. History will determine if the invasion of Iraq was justified. Saddam had already waged two wars of aggression, with Iran and Kuwait. He also used bio and chemical weapons inside his own borders. He was not upfront about posession or production of more weapons. He constantly rattled his sabre. In retrospect, I would agree that the invasion was based on flawed information, and the US has stayed far too long afterward. But I think we can all agree that if you point a toy gun at a cop, chances are you are going to get shot.
Iran and North Korea are other loose cannons. Both have identified potential targets. Both have unpredictable leaders. How long does the world wait. Germany was under a weapons ban but built the most formidable war machine during that time. The US, under political pressure at home, refused to get involved before Germany had already goose stepped into France, established a naval base with the ability to blockade the Atlantic, and damn near owned all of Western Europe, and of course, Japan had its own plans of world domination.
As for deference to the UN, I'm not terribly comfortable with an organization that has as permenant members of the security council such bastions of freedom and liberty as China and the Russian Federation. And has or had non permanent members such as Lybia, Uganda, Vietnam, Lebanon. I don't care for official busybodies meddling in our affairs, and except in cases of obvious human rights abuses or national security, I would expect reciprocity.
Getting involved in a civil war is a mug's game, you'll be considered an invader by one side, just hope it's not the winning side.
But some battles have to be fought. History will determine if the invasion of Iraq was justified. Saddam had already waged two wars of aggression, with Iran and Kuwait. He also used bio and chemical weapons inside his own borders. He was not upfront about posession or production of more weapons. He constantly rattled his sabre. In retrospect, I would agree that the invasion was based on flawed information, and the US has stayed far too long afterward. But I think we can all agree that if you point a toy gun at a cop, chances are you are going to get shot.
Iran and North Korea are other loose cannons. Both have identified potential targets. Both have unpredictable leaders. How long does the world wait. Germany was under a weapons ban but built the most formidable war machine during that time. The US, under political pressure at home, refused to get involved before Germany had already goose stepped into France, established a naval base with the ability to blockade the Atlantic, and damn near owned all of Western Europe, and of course, Japan had its own plans of world domination.
As for deference to the UN, I'm not terribly comfortable with an organization that has as permenant members of the security council such bastions of freedom and liberty as China and the Russian Federation. And has or had non permanent members such as Lybia, Uganda, Vietnam, Lebanon. I don't care for official busybodies meddling in our affairs, and except in cases of obvious human rights abuses or national security, I would expect reciprocity.
