AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-12-04, 16:02   Link #4901
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
Democratic leaders are just as good if not better. Look at what Bush did to Saddam. That's why Bush decided to make war on terrorism after 9/11. He wanted to give the population a motivation to rally all of the US into a common cause. Democratic countries have also been in conflict with other countries too. It was a "democratic country" that caused WW2 to begin. And no, I don't mean Germany, I mean the allies such the UK and the other bigwigs at the time for being too appeasing toward Hitler when they knew he was a threat to them. Modern dictatorships don't have as great a history of conflict as democratic ones either. the USSR and Communist China were actually in very good terms with each other because they shared the same beliefs. There was conflict between dictatorships and democracies, but not between two dictatorships. Democracies also cannot survive without a scapegoat.
Yeah I mean it's not like Russia and China fought a series of small scale border wars. Oh wait...

I'm also going to call bullshit on that whole WWII was caused by appeasing Hitler thing. Neither Britain nor France was prepared for war at the time. During the time they were appeasing Hitler, Britain was making preperations for a major military expansion, and France was doing likewise. Plus there was still the hope of avoiding a repeat of WWI, which was still fresh in the memories of many people even two decades later. Sure you can say that Germany was less prepared for war than Britain and France at the time, but even so there was nothing they could do for Austria, and little they could do for Czechoslovakia. In fact when they tried to help Poland, that didn't go very well. Even if they did declare war sooner, we'd still get a WWII, just a few years early. Plus declaring war there kind of goes against your whole WWII was caused by appeasing Hitler since it still results in war.

As for the whole 9-11 thing you do have a point when it comes to Iraq, but Afgahnistan? No matter how you look at it, our reasons for going in were justified. Sure the war was horribly mismanaged, but still the intial reason was fairly solid as wars go.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 16:26   Link #4902
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
Yeah I mean it's not like Russia and China fought a series of small scale border wars. Oh wait...
I was referring mostly to the relation between Stalin and Mao Zedong. Many communist ideals suggested by Mao were based on Stalin's model of the USSR. Evn this conflict wasn't that great compared to worldwide conflicts. Those were nothing more than a series of small scale battles which didn't last for a year. It happens, but not more often than democratic-led conflicts. The point I'm making is that democracy as it exists in reality isn't so much different except for the fact it is more subtle and deceptive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
I'm also going to call bullshit on that whole WWII was caused by appeasing Hitler thing. Neither Britain nor France was prepared for war at the time. During the time they were appeasing Hitler, Britain was making preperations for a major military expansion, and France was doing likewise. Plus there was still the hope of avoiding a repeat of WWI, which was still fresh in the memories of many people even two decades later. Sure you can say that Germany was less prepared for war than Britain and France at the time, but even so there was nothing they could do for Austria, and little they could do for Czechoslovakia. In fact when they tried to help Poland, that didn't go very well. Even if they did declare war sooner, we'd still get a WWII, just a few years early. Plus declaring war there kind of goes against your whole WWII was caused by appeasing Hitler since it still results in war.
Of course the allies could not stop Germany from taking Poland, Austria or Czecoslovakia. In all those cases, they would have had to cross German broders, which would've inevitably caused severe damage to their military forces. And in the case of Poland, allied interference would've incited Stalin to retaliate as well, and nobody wanted to get on his bad side at the time. If allied forces tried to do something about them, they'd have been surrounded by Germany and the USSR. It was a no win situation then. However, Hitler still did not have sufficient forces to tackle the allies when he took the Rhineland, when the UK and France could've easily stopped Hitler. That was appeasement as it was breaching the Varsailles treaty. Yet France did nothing to stop this and they were to later pay the price for this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
As for the whole 9-11 thing you do have a point when it comes to Iraq, but Afgahnistan? No matter how you look at it, our reasons for going in were justified. Sure the war was horribly mismanaged, but still the intial reason was fairly solid as wars go.
How was it justified? What did Osama have there that was so dangerous? Weapons of mass destruction? The only thing there is over there that's of any real value is oil. That's what the Soviets wanted in the old days, and what Bush wanted during his presidency. There was nothing else there that posed a threat to the Bush administration.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 17:43   Link #4903
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
I was referring mostly to the relation between Stalin and Mao Zedong. Many communist ideals suggested by Mao were based on Stalin's model of the USSR. Evn this conflict wasn't that great compared to worldwide conflicts. Those were nothing more than a series of small scale battles which didn't last for a year. It happens, but not more often than democratic-led conflicts. The point I'm making is that democracy as it exists in reality isn't so much different except for the fact it is more subtle and deceptive.
You claimed, "the USSR and Communist China were actually in very good terms with each other because they shared the same beliefs. There was conflict between dictatorships and democracies, but not between two dictatorships" The fact is there were tensions between the Soviet Union and China that resulted in conflict. In fact the tensions between the two where the reason Nixon tried to improve relations with China.



Quote:
Of course the allies could not stop Germany from taking Poland, Austria or Czecoslovakia. In all those cases, they would have had to cross German broders, which would've inevitably caused severe damage to their military forces. And in the case of Poland, allied interference would've incited Stalin to retaliate as well, and nobody wanted to get on his bad side at the time. If allied forces tried to do something about them, they'd have been surrounded by Germany and the USSR. It was a no win situation then. However, Hitler still did not have sufficient forces to tackle the allies when he took the Rhineland, when the UK and France could've easily stopped Hitler. That was appeasement as it was breaching the Varsailles treaty. Yet France did nothing to stop this and they were to later pay the price for this.
France couldn't do anything then either without starting another war. All you're doing is suggesting the allies start the war sooner, but they are't exactly in a great position for it either at the time. You are also seriously underestimating the effect things like the Battle of the Somme had on people who went though it. It was something political leaders in Britain and France wanted to avoid again if at all possible.



Quote:
How was it justified? What did Osama have there that was so dangerous? Weapons of mass destruction? The only thing there is over there that's of any real value is oil. That's what the Soviets wanted in the old days, and what Bush wanted during his presidency. There was nothing else there that posed a threat to the Bush administration.
Afghanistan does not have a large oil industry. It's believed there might be oil there, but at present it hasn't been found and estimate put it at 3.6 billion barrels, which is less than estimates for the amount of oil in ANWR. So no, you're wrong about oil being a primary reason in either case. You're also forgetting that the US was attacked by terrorists operating from there. Three thousand dead civilians is a pretty good justification for war, don't you think?
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 18:07   Link #4904
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
You claimed, "the USSR and Communist China were actually in very good terms with each other because they shared the same beliefs. There was conflict between dictatorships and democracies, but not between two dictatorships" The fact is there were tensions between the Soviet Union and China that resulted in conflict. In fact the tensions between the two where the reason Nixon tried to improve relations with China.
On this case, I stand corrected, although democracies do have their share of conflict as well. Like I said, this conflict didn't last a year and that they had a clean history together as opposed with other countries like the US attempting to spread their views of democracy. As for Nixon, if China and the USSR didn't have their fallout, he wouldn't have done anything. It just means he believed in the saying that goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" if nothing else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
France couldn't do anything then either without starting another war. All you're doing is suggesting the allies start the war sooner, but they are't exactly in a great position for it either at the time. You are also seriously underestimating the effect things like the Battle of the Somme had on people who went though it. It was something political leaders in Britain and France wanted to avoid again if at all possible.
Yes, war would've broken out, but Germany didn't have all the territory it later acquired through appeasement. It broke the Versailles treaty and the French should have retaliated. It would've meant war, but it likely would not have lasted long enough to escalate into a world war. But by the time Germans were granted the Rhineland, which would eventually give them free access into France, it was already too late.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
Afghanistan does not have a large oil industry. It's believed there might be oil there, but at present it hasn't been found and estimate put it at 3.6 billion barrels, which is less than estimates for the amount of oil in ANWR. So no, you're wrong about oil being a primary reason in either case. You're also forgetting that the US was attacked by terrorists operating from there. Three thousand dead civilians is a pretty good justification for war, don't you think?
That's only if you want to believe Al Quaeda really was behind 9/11, and the impossibility that planes crashing at the top floors of the towers caused them to collapse from the bottom. Yes, I am a truther, because I like the truth.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 18:26   Link #4905
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg1942 View Post
Safe School Czar's recommended reading list reads like "Sankaku" blog material

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/
I read a few of those excerpts and they don't seem that bad to me. Clearly not something young kids should be reading, but older kids say 16 and up I wouldn't have a problem with reading that. Let's be honest here, kids see far worse on their own and there's really no completely clean way to handle some subjects.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
On this case, I stand corrected, although democracies do have their share of conflict as well. Like I said, this conflict didn't last a year and that they had a clean history together as opposed with other countries like the US attempting to spread their views of democracy. As for Nixon, if China and the USSR didn't have their fallout, he wouldn't have done anything. It just means he believed in the saying that goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" if nothing else.
Yeah I mean it's not like the Soviet Union funded communist insurgencies the world over. It's not like China invaded any of their neighboring countries like say India or Vietnam or conquered Tibet.


Quote:
Yes, war would've broken out, but Germany didn't have all the territory it later acquired through appeasement. It broke the Versailles treaty and the French should have retaliated. It would've meant war, but it likely would not have lasted long enough to escalate into a world war. But by the time Germans were granted the Rhineland, which would eventually give them free access into France, it was already too late.
Germany didn't have all that territory during WWI either. That war lasted four years and resulted in more than 15 million deaths. The Germans also didn't invade France through the Rhineland. The main invasion crossed the low countries just like in WWI. France and Britain were not about to risk starting another war a mere 2 decades later over that. They were also not prepared for war yet either. Not to mention you're blaming France and Britain for starting WWII because they refused to start the war earlier. Surely you can see the flaw in that logic.



Quote:
That's only if you want to believe Al Quaeda really was behind 9/11, and the impossibility that planes crashing at the top floors of the towers caused them to collapse from the bottom. Yes, I am a truther, because I like the truth.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

That should debunk most of the idiocy. For the rest, consider this: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 18:53   Link #4906
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
Yeah I mean it's not like the Soviet Union funded communist insurgencies the world over. It's not like China invaded any of their neighboring countries like say India or Vietnam or conquered Tibet.
For one thing, this really has diverted from the original topic, which was to say that democracies and dictatorships aren't all that different to begin with, just that democracies are more subtle in their approach to subjugate the masses. But if you really think only communists do that, think again. US and its presence in Vietnam, which was a bad mistake, was an attempt at spreading their brand of democracy, just as they had tried doing in Iraq. Democracies also have their share of bloodshed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
Germany didn't have all that territory during WWI either. That war lasted four years and resulted in more than 15 million deaths. The Germans also didn't invade France through the Rhineland. The main invasion crossed the low countries just like in WWI. France and Britain were not about to risk starting another war a mere 2 decades later over that. They were also not prepared for war yet either. Not to mention you're blaming France and Britain for starting WWII because they refused to start the war earlier. Surely you can see the flaw in that logic.
Hitler was also partly to blame but if the allies hadn't taken so much from Germany following the Treaty of Varsailles. He was the result of discontented Germans following impossible reparation costs which, if Germany abided by them, wouldn't have ended until the 80's. None of that would've happened if the Germans weren't stripped to that extent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
Explain to me how tons of airplane material vanished into thin air after hitting the Pentagon. Explain to me the crash site in Pennsylvania where there was nothing left of the plane at all. All of these occurences are part of 9/11 as well, not only the twin towers.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 19:05   Link #4907
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
For one thing, this really has diverted from the original topic, which was to say that democracies and dictatorships aren't all that different to begin with, just that democracies are more subtle in their approach to subjugate the masses. But if you really think only communists do that, think again. US and its presence in Vietnam, which was a bad mistake, was an attempt at spreading their brand of democracy, just as they had tried doing in Iraq. Democracies also have their share of bloodshed.
I never claimed only communists do that. You however claimed only democracies do it.



Quote:
Hitler was also partly to blame but if the allies hadn't taken so much from Germany following the Treaty of Varsailles. He was the result of discontented Germans following impossible reparation costs which, if Germany abided by them, wouldn't have ended until the 80's. None of that would've happened if the Germans weren't stripped to that extent.
Now see that's a fairly reasonable argument, and one I'd agree with so some extent. That wasn't what you were claiming though.



Quote:
Explain to me how tons of airplane material vanished into thin air after hitting the Pentagon. Explain to me the crash site in Pennsylvania where there was nothing left of the plane at all. All of these occurences are part of 9/11 as well, not only the twin towers.
Read the first link, it covers that. In fact here's a direct link to the page. Though I can give you a summery. Most planes are actually pretty fragile, which is to be expected as they have to be as light as possible in order to fly. When they hit a solid object at high speed there usually isn't much left apart from the more solid bits. You're not likely to find many big pieces and the ones you do are going to be inside the building.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 19:50   Link #4908
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by wassupimviet View Post
Right, but upon passage of the constitution, the people have self-imposed limits on their power. I think it's necessary that these limits be upheld even against the majority, or at least broached in a separate debate rather than ignored at will to maintain the illusion of constitutional limits.
Sure. But is the minaret ban unconstitutional? That's not an argument I hear that often. Either because it's not, or because nobody can be arsed to look it up.


Quote:
Er, just as a matter of fact, I'm fairly sure the Swiss constitution includes some provisions for freedom of religion, at least implicitly. I'd venture there's a pretty strong argument on the minaret ban breaching that freedom.
Not that strong. Plenty of mosquees without minarets. In fact, the first ones didn't appear until 80 years after Mahomet's death. So, yeah, they can do without - especially since those minaret'd be silent anyway, because of noise pollution regulations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
Do tell. That's why one guy is in jail in the first place and the other isn't. Does that contradict anything I wrote?
But once the guy's served his term, one is still more dangerous than the other. But they're both out of jail.


Quote:
You're simply equating direct legimacy with indirect legitimacy coming to conclusions that are misleading at best. "Government by the people".


"We should couple voting rights to a PhD." (or IQ or whatever) That is what you are "pretty much hearing"? Really? Obviously, the people you hear talking are not the same people I hear talking.
Maybe they are. But I do hear a lot of "This votation is rock solid evidence that direct democracy is wrong, because there's majority of ignorant people." As if representative democracy never made any unpopular or questionable choice. Didn't you guys legalize torture a few years ago?

Quote:
People I hear talking against referenda are concerned with the scope of possible referenda (e.g. from civil rights as in this case to anything) not with who's eligible to vote.
I hear some of that too, but I don't really talk about it, because I don't disagree.

Quote:
If you want to summarize that as "Joe (independent of education and drinking habits) is not good enough" to decide on minarets so be it.
I don't. I see those as separate issues.

Quote:
There are legislative bodies I elect on four levels: local, state, national, and union level. Each come with a list of competences, shared or exclusive. They all are "good enough" as you put it to decide some issues but not others. So?
Indeed. So? Is there no salvation outside the American system? You'll find that different countries have different repartitions of competences. Does that mean that only the American one is right, and all others wrong?

If you don't like the way Switzerland does things... don't go live there. Or better yet, do. Go there and soapbox away. Tell the Swiss they're doing it wrong. Tell them to throw off the yoke of direct democracy and adopt the American constitution. And post it all on Youtube. The moment promises to be, if not historical, at least hysterical.

Quote:
The people I hear talking pro referenda are often enough angry individuals are self-declared representatives of "the people",
Not me! I've never claimed to represent anyone but myself.

Quote:
poorly informed and blindly raging against "the corrupt elite".
I'm not raging. I don't even think the elite is particularly corrupt. But I don't think they're particularly honest and altruistic, either. They're like everyone. But with more power. And if there are two things the internet taught us, the second one's that the world's full of thieves. (The first one would be that it's full of porn.)

Quote:
They consider any suggestion that good governance is a result of a carefully crafted system as a personal insult.
I don't. But neither do I think there's only one good way to govern, one-size-fits-all.

Quote:
Instead they want to monopolize decision making,
I don't. I quite like the idea of voting for things. I'm certainly not the one who wants to impose my idea of "good governance" to everyone whether they like it or not.

Quote:
disdain compromises, and also concepts like fair trials (as long its not their own)
I quite approve of fair trials. Never said a word against them. But there, too, I think you'll find that different countries have different ideas of what constitutes a fair trial. I'm open to the idea that, while none of them are perfect, they all have some validity. And that it can be quite hard, and certainly beyond me, to say which, if any, is the best, and in what circumstances.

Quote:
or civil rights (dito)
Ditto indeed.

Quote:
and generally everything that might come in the way of their idea of "real" democracy.
Again, not me. I'm not the one who claims that a direct democracy, like Switzerland's, isn't a real democracy, on the basis of one decision that happens to be unpopular. Or politically incorrect. Or unwise. Or unfair. It's not like representative democracies avoid that pitfall, either. *cough*Gitmo*cough*second gulf war*cough* Are you sure you want to go there?

Quote:
They're also incedibly irresponsible. They don't care for anything that isn't their fault,
Well, yes. I only care enough to post about it on the internet. What about you?

Quote:
and nothing is ever their fault,
I'm not Swiss. I don't have the right to vote there. I don't live there. I've never even set foot there. The closest I've ever come to influencing their affairs was when I bought Swiss chocolate and thus infinitesimally stimulated their economy. How is the minaret ban or government system my fault?

Quote:
its always the upper/lower/middle class they not consider themselves part of, or politicians, lobbies, foreign powers, ... .
When did I single out such a group? I did talk about a "ruling elite", but only to say they weren't any better than the rest of us.

Quote:
If anything else fails, its the government's fault for not having them informed enough as if that wasn't their own obligation.
Again, not me.

Quote:
(Tick of what applies to you, I see a few points.)
Then would you care to enlighten me?

Quote:
And considering that they voice their opinions in more or less orthographically and gramatically correct sentences
Ah. You've got me there.

Quote:
and in the comment sections of respectable newspapers (not tabloids)
No, just the internet. And I don't bother reading the tabloids, so I wouldn't know who posts what, there. My experience with newspaper websites' comments is that, on both sides of the fence, you'll find the whole range of literacy, from excellent to really bad. But then, I didn't actually count them.

Quote:
I suppose there are more Joe PhDs than Joe Sixpacks among them. Still, I do not want to let those people "directly" legislate into my personal sphere.
Ideally, no one would legislate into my personal sphere in any way, shape or form. But since this is the real world, and I want to enjoy the fruits of society, I'm going to have to compromise a bit. Like everyone else. Including compromise on what constitutes personal sphere or not. We, the French, have our compromise. You guys have yours. The Swiss have theirs. Again, does one have to right and the others wrong? They've all served well enough so far. In the case of the Swiss, it's done so for more than a century. Despite your misgivings bordering on the fear-mongering about direct democracy, they're not embroiled in civil war. They're not particularly violent. Or oppressed.

I understand that you dislike the Swiss' emphasis on referunda. But that's what they've decided for themselves. No doubt you'd have some things to say about every system, whether the democracy's direct or not. I remember, in 2000, when Bush won the election despite losing the popular vote, many of us shook their heads. Have you changed your system because of that?

Quote:
I don't know what the Swiss constitution says about re-votes. They can probably vote for and against as long as they like. But its not as if they bear the consequences of their mistakes in the first place.
I don't mind them revoting because the population as a whole has changed its mind, and they follow the procedures. I just find outcries from non-Swiss to revote just because they don't like the result to be... improper.


Quote:
So referenda > rule of law? Make another tick above.
Rule of law? I must confess my ignorance. I didn't know the ECHR could decide what laws could pass or not. When did Switzerland give up its sovereignty?

Quote:
I do not use ad hominem. I'm not saying your opinions are wrong because you voice them. I say your opinions are wrong, period.
OK, then. That's certainly your prerogative.

Quote:
I think your naive and irresponsible.
And I'm starting to wonder if you aren't closed-minded.

Quote:
You wouldn't if your history was different.
Yes, maybe I'd be an anarchist. Or a royalist. Or the kind of chauvinist who's unable to accept that different doesn't necessarily mean inferior. Who knows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Narona View Post
For example, when a government starts doing what it wants without caring about the popular opinion. Or when they decide very important thing (like the lisbon treaty) without checking the popular opinion, nor explaining to them what it is in details.
The text of the treaty was freely available, if you were that interested.

Quote:
I don't say it's better (of course not), but at least in a true dictatorship, you know how it is and they make their objectives and laws very clear to understand.
Not really. In fact, arbitrariness is one of the hallmarks of dictatorship.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 19:54   Link #4909
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Sure. But is the minaret ban unconstitutional? That's not an argument I hear that often. Either because it's not, or because nobody can be arsed to look it up.
An earlier ban on minarets at the canton level was deemed unconstitutional. Whether this being a full popular vote on a national level makes it constitutional is something beyond my limited knowledge of the Swiss legal system.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 21:36   Link #4910
Autumn Demon
~
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ithaca, NY
Age: 25
How comprehensive was this ban on minarets? Did it define what a minaret is?

As a non-religious person, a minaret is just a cool looking tower with historical significance to me. I wonder what would happen if someone built a minaret-looking tower in Switzerland but didn't call it a minaret nor let it be used for religious purposes.

This ban on minarets goes beyond just freedom of religion to infringe the freedom of expression (of architects) and equality (of towers (yes, towers have rights too!)).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swiss Constitution
Article 2. [The Swiss Confederation] shall ensure the greatest possible equality of opportunity among its citizens.

Article 5. The Confederation and the Cantons shall respect international law.

Article 10. Everyone has the right to personal liberty

Article 15. Freedom of religion and conscience is guaranteed. Everyone has the right to choose freely their religion or their philosophical convictions, and to profess them alone or in community with others.

Article 16. Freedom of expression and of information is guaranteed.

Article 17. Censorship is prohibited.

Article 21. The freedom of artistic expression is guaranteed.

Article 26. The right to own property is guaranteed.

Article 35. Fundamental rights must be upheld throughout the legal system.

Article 36. Restrictions on fundamental rights must have a legal basis. Significant restrictions must have their basis in a federal act. The foregoing does not apply in cases of serious and immediate danger where no other course of action is possible. Restrictions on fundamental rights must be justified in the public interest or for the protection of the fundamental rights of others.
The Swiss Constitution is 197 articles so I'll stop here. :O :O :O :O
Autumn Demon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 23:31   Link #4911
Slice of Life
eyewitness
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Is there no salvation outside the American system?

[...]

Does that mean that only the American one is right, and all others wrong?

[...]

Tell them to throw off the yoke of direct democracy and adopt the American constitution.
3x

I don't know why disagreeing with you makes people American, but hey, it's OK. I should be obvious from my contributions that I'm no native English speaker (typer?) though. Oh, and I haven't been negrepped for the first time but "silly goose" is new. It has more class than "STFU". Thanks.
__________________
- Any ideas how to fill this space?
Slice of Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-05, 00:36   Link #4912
justsomeguy
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
What's the controversy about? The new constitutional ban on minarets obviously targets only a specific cultural group, and as Autumn Demon pointed out creates an exception to the principles of the other articles in the Swiss constitution. Sure the measure was legal because it was passed according to the law, that doesn't mean that it is obviously discriminatory and hypocritical, considering that cathedral towers and other tall structures are not also banned.
justsomeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-05, 00:42   Link #4913
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
The pessimism here is bit hard to ignore. but the behavior does help promote "change" productively, though i just have a feeling that over pessimism towards current governments might lead to anarchy.

Systems are named differently because their simply different. names may be flexibly used falsely--but it is false nonetheless. if your pro-freedom, support the more freedom *prone* government. whether or not entirely true, the tendency just makes the difference.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-05, 01:23   Link #4914
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Okada tells Okinawa mayor situation 'tough' over U.S. base issue

Quote:
‘‘Going on like this may lead to the situation that should be feared the most,’’ Okada told Ginowan Mayor Yoichi Iha in the city of Naha at the outset of their meeting. He was apparently referring to the possibility that the danger to local residents posed by the U.S. Marine Corps’ Futenma Air Station, located in a crowded residential area of Ginowan, will not be removed for some time to come.

Okada’s visit to the southernmost prefecture comes as Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama faces difficulty reaching a conclusion on the relocation issue by the end of the year, triggering concern from the United States which is urging Japan to swiftly abide by an existing bilateral deal.

‘‘The situation is extremely tough,’’ Okada told Iha in the meeting, which took place a day after a high-level Japan-U.S. working group met to discuss the issue in Tokyo.
Quote:
Meanwhile, Okinawa Gov Hirokazu Nakaima has said that expectations are growing in the prefecture that the government led by the DPJ, which has achieved a historic change of power, will move the Futenma facility outside of the prefecture.
U.S. dismisses base issue's adverse impact on ties with Japan

Quote:
‘‘I think our relationship is just so broad and so deep…We of course have expressed what our concerns are. But we have a mature relationship with Japan. They are one of our most important allies,’’ a senior State Department official told reporters. The remarks came after the United States voiced concerns Friday as Japan appears unable to draw a conclusion on where the U.S. Marine Corps’ Futenma Air Station should go by the year-end.
Defense Ministry looking at alternative options for Futenma relocation

Quote:
The Defense Ministry has been studying the feasibility of alternative sites for the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps’ Futenma Air Station in Okinawa, including the possibility of moving the facility to Mage Island in Kagoshima Prefecture, government sources said Friday.

Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa has instructed the ministry to conduct a survey of the site but the United States is unlikely to welcome the idea because it wants the new facility to be located near troops and training sites, according to the sources.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-05, 04:54   Link #4915
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
3x

I don't know why disagreeing with you makes people American, but hey, it's OK.
Oh, sorry about that. I misread that bit about the different levels of competence, plus the general assumption that everyone on the net is American unless stated otherwise. Just substitute your country where appropriate. And, I guess, USA's where "you" or "your" isn't.

Quote:
I should be obvious from my contributions that I'm no native English speaker (typer?) though.
Not to me. But then, I'm not a native either.

Quote:
Oh, and I haven't been negrepped for the first time but "silly goose" is new. It has more class than "STFU". Thanks.
Again, not me. I sure do say that to you a lot, don't I? (And could a mod please vouch for me on that one? I don't negrep for mere disagreement. Or even for being called "naive" and "irresponsible".)
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-05, 05:25   Link #4916
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
Yeah I mean it's not like Russia and China fought a series of small scale border wars. Oh wait...

I'm also going to call bullshit on that whole WWII was caused by appeasing Hitler thing. Neither Britain nor France was prepared for war at the time.
I studied it. Plus, I also watch a lot of documentaries with real recordings from that times, with a lot of interviews.

Recently, I watched the part when Hitler was reclaiming the parts of czechoslovakia in which some german people were living, just before the WWII.

At that time, neither Chamberlain nor Daladier did anything to stop him.

After the last meeting between Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier and Mussolini (mussolini, pointed in the documentary, who was helping Hitler. What he proposed when he took a map and a paper in his pocket was something made and given to him by hitler before the meeting); Daladier knew what they had done (aka nothing to save the czechoslovakia and accepting all that Hitler wanted, while trying to appease him because they chickened like cowards, while they had accords about protecting some allies). When he arrived in France, he thought "will i be acclamed by the french? or will they realize what we have done?". At the moment when they opened the door of the plane, he saw that the French didn't understand anything and were acclaiming him. He then commented about the French to the person beside him: "Les cons" (translation: "idiots/morons").

And now the good part. An official german said that if at that time the English and the French had tried to crush the Germans (at that precise time, it was clearly said they had the means to do it, whether you believe it or not.), they would have won, because at that time Hitler and his army were not that ready and prepared.

So yeah, they concluded that if the English and French had made something instead of bending over at Hitler, the WWII would have been very different.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
The text of the treaty was freely available, if you were that interested.
Tell me if i'm wrong, but Sarkozy already planned it before/during/and right after the election. And at that time, but I admit I could be wrong, he didn't include all the details of what he planned to propose for the Europe after the election.

Would it has changed anything? I don't know, but I know some people who didn't think he would go that way after having said that he "understood the past referendum and would accept what the French has chosen" (not exact words, feel free to correct me).

Now for when the treaty was voted by the parliament, at that precise time, that many people read the text or not, they would have voted it anyways.

Last edited by Narona; 2009-12-05 at 06:51.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-05, 05:33   Link #4917
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narona View Post
(aka nothing to save the czechoslovakia and accepting all that Hitler wanted, while trying to appease him because they chickened like cowards).
Maybe your picking too much on them. The role of the leader is quite complicated and it can't be simplified into this.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-05, 05:45   Link #4918
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
Maybe your picking too much on them. The role of the leader is quite complicated and it can't be simplified into this.
I just repeat what was said. Even Daladier knew (implied it himself) that Hitler will not stop here. Aka, he knew what will surely happen next.

About chamberlain, source: that was said in the documentary, he was only upset about avoiding that the English got attacked. After the meeting in munich, he took hitler apart and made him sign a paper, about "not attacking the UK + a few other accords". Because he knew hitler will not stop it. A few months later, Hitler already broke the accords signed in munich, and his agreements with Chamberlain.

Daladier was the one who was the most opposed to those accords actually, while chamberlain was pushing him to accept.

Last edited by Narona; 2009-12-05 at 07:35.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-05, 06:45   Link #4919
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narona View Post
I just repeat what was said. Even Daladier knew (implied it himself) that Hitler will not stop here. Aka, he knew what will surely happen next.

About chamberlain, source: that was said in the documentary, he was only upset about avoiding that the English got attacked. After the meeting in munich, he took hitler apart and made him sign a paper in secret, about "not attacking the UK + a few other accords". Because he knew hitler will not stop it. A few months later, Hitler already broke the accords signed in munich, and his agreements with Chamberlain.

Daladier was the one who was the most opposed to those accords actually, while chamberlain was pushing him to accept.
how reliable is this documentary?
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-05, 06:52   Link #4920
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
how reliable is this documentary?
Very reliable as far as I know. Feel free to not believe what I say if you want because I don't record all the documentaries that air on ARTE and FRANCE 5. So I can't upload it for you.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.