US to withdraw from UN?

Sparks

Well, it was bandied about a lot, but now it's a bill in congress.
Congressmen ask for House floor vote during time of disdain for global body
The actual bill is here : H.R.1146

Mind you, it does just look like a sabre-rattling exercise, but it does prompt the consideration of what would happen if the UN's worst debtor were to leave...

Hobbes

LOL... crap.

Although there are occasional fruity bills sent up. I hope this one recieves the contempt it deserves.

They had a bill recently to remove all the US dead from cemetarys in France. What the person didn't know is those cemetarys are considered US terrortity.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I recall there being a bill about changing the state flower of Rhode Island not too long ago. Jesse Helms used to have his little crusades too, trying to ban "obscene art". Politics throws up some curve-balls occasionally, one-offs that deserve to be ignored. Besides, the US would never pull out of the UN- know why? Because there'd be nobody to veto the resolutions demanding Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Wouldn't want to deny them the right to shoot little stone-throwing boys on land they have no right to would we now? :rolleyes:

The UN may be little more than a talking shop on security issues, but it's a talking shop we helped to create and it suits our interests to be a part of it.

Éomer of Rohan

If I was a religious man, I'd sit and pray fervently for the US to withdraw for exactly that reason - no one to veto resolutions aimed at Israel. There are really no disadvantages if France and Britain remained in the UN.

Hairy Homer

Useful rule of thumb: Those who slag off the UN the most are those who owe it the most, and I don't just mean financially, although I believe the US is also the biggest debtor in respect of its subscriptions.

eg Israel: regularly portrays the UN as a haven for dictators and terrorists and accuses it of anti Israeli bias. Yet it owes the UN for its legal right to exist. Israel was created following a United Nations resolution in 1947 which partitioned what was then British mandate Palestine into Jewish and Arab areas. The Jews then immediately started acquiring strategically important territory outside what had been allocated to them, usually by a policy of what we would now call ethnic cleansing, and in 1948 declared the state of Israel. Following which, the surrounding Arab countries declared war and invaded, without much success.

The US owes the lives of thousands of its soldiers in the recent conflict to the UN weapons inspectors who effectively disarmed Iraq of what weapons of mass destruction it had. Yes it took 12 years, the process was tortuous and fractious, but that's democracy and diplomacy for you. Then the US said: 'Thanks lads. Appreciate it. We're going in now' and blitzed the largely defenceless populace.

It's going to be easy to get guerilla armies to decommission following that example, isn't it?

eg Israel: regularly portrays the UN as a haven for dictators and terrorists and accuses it of anti Israeli bias. Yet it owes the UN for its legal right to exist. Israel was created following a United Nations resolution in 1947 which partitioned what was then British mandate Palestine into Jewish and Arab areas. The Jews then immediately started acquiring strategically important territory outside what had been allocated to them, usually by a policy of what we would now call ethnic cleansing, and in 1948 declared the state of Israel. Following which, the surrounding Arab countries declared war and invaded, without much success.

Oddly enough everyone looks at what Israel did at that time. Palestine came into effect at the same time as Israel, and from their inception pushed against Israeli interests. Just as did the other Arab nations. I'm not saying that Israel is not to blame for their actions, but you have to take into account that the Arab nations performed such actions aswell. Also consider that it was the Arab nations that declared war on Israel, not the other way around. Many people have laid the blame on Iraq, that the reason for their recent downfall is due to their invasion of Kuwait years ago. The same falls on Palestine.

The israeli actions which the above is considered as ethnic clensing was also performed by arabs, and the arabs openly acknowledged that they would kill every jew in the middle east should they have won.

I might be pro-israel, but at least i'm not blind to their actions. Whereas the anti-israel crowd seem to be very selective.

As for the US withdrawing from the UN, they won't. They have too much power there, and won't want France, or Germany filling the vaccum, of their withdrawal. They'll stay part of it, however they'll continue to do whatever they like.

Sparks

Well, this thread ran off from where I was hoping it would go For the record, it's really unlikely that this will go through (the guy that put it forward has done so several times before without effect). I just wanted to consider what the effects would be if it was to happen.

klaz,
Nice can of worms - where do I sign up to be neither pro- nor anti-israel?

Nice can of worms - where do I sign up to be neither pro- nor anti-israel?

Is that really an option? Although if there is, then i'm sure that area will get quite crowded.

As for the can of worms, i totally agree, bt i can never resist when i see a post that ignores arab actions, and focuses totally on israeli actions. A weakness in me, i suppose.

bobsmith833

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
If I was a religious man, I'd sit and pray fervently for the US to withdraw for exactly that reason - no one to veto resolutions aimed at Israel. There are really no disadvantages if France and Britain remained in the UN.

The UN would fall apart at the seams if the US were to leave, as it is already threatening to do simply by their noncompliance with its wishes - do you really think britain, france, china and russia have enough clout to do anything about israeli occupation even if they happened to unite forces? The strong yiddish movement in the states would prevent any such action taking place on threat of all out nuclear war, rendering the new UN impotent.

Sparks

klaz,

Is that really an option?

Yes it is. I'm anti-violence and pro-rule-of-law... unfortunately both sides are pissing me off

Biffa Bacon

To be honest it doesn't really matter if they withdraw or not. The UN is now completely irrelevant.

Sparks

Only in relation to opposing US foreign policy.

QBall

Originally posted by Sparks
Only in relation to opposing US foreign policy.

Not entirely. I wouldn't have seen weapons inspections in Iraq over the years as being specifically "US foreign policy".

In 1998 the UN pulled its weapons inspectors out of Iraq due to the fact that Iraq was not fully cooperating, and was in fact deliberately frustrating the UN's attempts to carry out inspections.

In 1998 the UN allowed itself to be pushed around by one country: Iraq.
In 2002/3 it then allowed itself be pushed around by another country: the USA
It has continuously been ignored by Israel.

I'm sure I could find more examples of this, but I think you can see my point:

The UN is not respected by many countries, not just the US. If the UN was working as it should be then countries would contribute to it equally and they would accept the consequences of any and all resolutions passed by it.

The moment one nation, whatever its size or power, ignores the UN is the moment when it comes under threat. The UN's inability to respond in a decisive manner to countries disrespecting it is what makes it irrelevant. The fact that single countries can "get away with" (for want of a better phrase) pushing the UN around is disgraceful.

The UN is supposed to represent the entire world yet so many countries have given it the two fingers and done what they wanted to do anyway. Compliance with the UN's decisions is an option, not a requirement and that is what makes it irrelevant.

Éomer of Rohan

The UN would fall apart at the seams if the US were to leave, as it is already threatening to do simply by their noncompliance with its wishes

This is delusional.
IF the UNSC minus the United States were united (as they generally are) against Israel then much could be done and the first thing that would pull Israel back into line would be economic sanctions - even if the US picked up the tab of economic sanctions, something that would be favoured by the Yiddish movement you mentioned, they could not account for the lost trade without expending Billions more USD than they already do and if this were the case, I'd be quite happy to let them personally. The US would NOT move against Britain regardless of anything Britain did on the international stage short of attacking the US itself or US 'territories' - the Philippines, Guam, the Marianas etc.

Sparks

Given that the US will default on it's foreign debt before the end of may unless the debt ceiling is raised another trillion to $7.38 trillion, I doubt they could pick up the tab on economic sanctions against Israel.

Qball,
Weapons inspectors in Iraq were not opposing US foreign policy.
When kicked out of Iraq in '98, UNSCOM had eliminated an estimated 97% of Iraq's nastier weapons and it was generally accepted that the remainder were destroyed in bombings by the US.
The continous ignoring of UNSC resolutions by Israel is a myth - they have ignored other UN resolutions, but thanks to the US vetoing any and all anti-Israel resolutions in the UNSC, they've never had to worry about one. The other UN resolutions were not in the same chapter as resolutions like 678 and other such resolutions that allowed for military action.

I'm afraid that the majority of the damage suffered by the UN in recent years lies with (in order), the US, Russia and China.
Short of having a military force that could counter all three of these simultaenously, there's not much that can be done.
Reforming the UNSC veto mechanism though, would be a good step in the right direction.

Asuka

The UN already looks like a bit of a joke after the Iraq situation. If the US were to leave, it wouldnt actually mean anything. Im not saying this cos im pro-US or anything; its the truth. Fundamentally, the UN exists to prevent a global war. Without any global players, this becomes impossible.

The UN bears too much resemblance to the League of Nations as things stand. I dont personally think it means anything to todays US government anyway.

A

Sparks

Unfortunately, if you're correct and the UN is irrelevant, it doesn't bode well for our future at all.

QBall

Originally posted by Sparks
Weapons inspectors in Iraq were not opposing US foreign policy.

Exactly, so the UN's role in life is not to oppose US foreign policy. :-)

When kicked out of Iraq in '98

They left on their own decision. Granted, it may have actually been a "we'll jump before we're pushed" scenario, but publicly the UN pulled out on their own. I'll edit with a URL to the story if wanted.

The continous ignoring of UNSC resolutions by Israel is a myth - they have ignored other UN resolutions...

I never said UNSC, I said UN.

Reforming the UNSC veto mechanism though, would be a good step in the right direction.

Most definitely. As far as I am concerned, all vetoes should go. Giving a country a veto is implicitly saying that that country is more important than a country without a veto.

ballooba

The US are getting too big for their boots. I reckon the rest of us gang up and kick the living sh*t out of them. Who do they think they are?

Who do they think they are?

Perhaps the most powerful nation both military & politically wise?

Theres simply no-one to keep them in line.

Sparks

QBall - well, '98 was the equivalent of staggering out of a bar under your own power, with six bouncers two feet behind you

Klaz,

Perhaps the most powerful nation both military & politically wise?
Theres simply no-one to keep them in line.

*looks at US economy*
Yet...

*looks at US economy*

Regardless of their economy, they still have the most political clout in the world. And their military is still the most powerful in the world. Their economy might be going down the toilet, but that won't change the status of the above that much. In fact their military might become more powerful as a result. Countries in trouble generally increase their military for some reason.

Éomer of Rohan

Regardless of their economy, they still have the most political clout in the world. And their military is still the most powerful in the world. Their economy might be going down the toilet, but that won't change the status of the above that much. In fact their military might become more powerful as a result. Countries in trouble generally increase their military for some reason.

I find this stunningly (and untypically) naive. The US military has always existed for one reason and one reason only; to protect US commercial interests - from the invasion of Texas to the Mexican War to the invasion of the Philippines to the invasion of Nazi Germany, there has been one driving motivation; money. Not always governmental money, sometimes personal money, but always money. What is more, the armed forces are based upon the economy obviously - if there is no money there are no weapons - best case, the Former Soviet Union.
Furthermore, their political clout is related only to how much money they are making other regimes - if they have a seriously weak economy, they could be knocked off their perch really easily - no one likes the US; certain regimes need US approval to maintain their oppressive positions, some need friendly relations in order to trade, all including many in the UK hate the US whether for real reasons or for reasons such as the arrogance of the US and jealousy of the power they have. If the US economy really did go down the toilet, the vultures would be circling within minutes and all the while, the only real loser is the common man rather than the billionaires safe in their multimillion dollar homes.

QBall

Originally posted by Eomer of Rohan
...from the invasion of Texas to the Mexican War to the invasion of the Philippines to the invasion of Nazi Germany, there has been one driving motivation; money.

Just curious, how do you link the pursuit of money to the invasion of Nazi Germany? It doesn't sound too plausible to me, but then again my knowledge of history is not exhaustive.

no one likes the US;

Sorry, my sweeping generalisation detector went off the scale. Eh, I like the US. Does this mean I'm evil? My liking the US doesn't mean that I agree with their policies (foreign and domestic) all the time, but in my experience the people are pleasant and friendly and are not out to get the rest of the world. Unfortunately they are lead by a complete muppet, but then again so are we. We get what we vote for.

the only real loser is the common man rather than the billionaires safe in their multimillion dollar homes.

Man, that sounds bitter.

Éomer of Rohan

Just curious, how do you link the pursuit of money to the invasion of Nazi Germany? It doesn't sound too plausible to me, but then again my knowledge of history is not exhaustive.

Republican Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota chaired a senate committee which concluded that America had entered the First World War to "Save the Skins of American bankers and that this continued as motivation to the second war"

Source; "America Rules" Tom Hanahoe.

ry, my sweeping generalisation detector went off the scale. Eh, I like the US. Does this mean I'm evil? My liking the US doesn't mean that I agree with their policies (foreign and domestic) all the time, but in my experience the people are pleasant and friendly and are not out to get the rest of the world

Sorry, I was not referring to individuals, I was rather referring to governments (which you aren't:D ) - and it is true - in fact it is the nature of nation states.

Man, that sounds bitter

Anyone not embittered when they look at the state of the world obviously does not appreciate the state of affairs.

vorbis

it seems a bit odd to be crowing about the US economic decline when most European ones are passing it down the toilet.

Éomer of Rohan

Oh if only there was something to crow about - mayhaps I shall live to see the day when the Eisenhower Miltary Industrial Complex comes crashing down in economic ruin and the US people decide to claim the billions of dollars that is rightfully theirs and not the possession of those at the pinnacle of capitalism, the master exploiters, the puppeteers. But he is right, most economies at this point are looking shaky.

QBall

Originally posted by Eomer of Rohan
Republican Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota chaired a senate committee which concluded that America had entered the First World War to "Save the Skins of American bankers and that this continued as motivation to the second war"

Source; "America Rules" Tom Hanahoe.

I was actually looking for some evidence suggesting that the US made a direct profit from participating in the Second World War (preferably figures), but either way...

Senator Nye's committee was set up at his suggestion to investigate the profits made by the munitions industry. This, along with his isolationist outlook would very obviously lead to him saying things like your quote above.

"Nye remained a staunch isolationist during the emergence of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in Europe."
(http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnyeG.htm)

That is, his politics were the primary reason why he said your quote above, not any particular hard evidence. IMHO isolationism in the US pre-WW2 was idiotic. Whatever about Saddam Hussein, was it not abundantly clear that Hitler and Mussolini were a serious threat to global stability?

Still, isn't trade a much safer, easier, cheaper way of making money? (It also offers better guarantees of success)

The US is hardly so stupid as to think that war is their best way of making money. Their munitions industry will still sell to the US armed forces regardless of whether or not there is an impending war and many of their industries (notably the airlines) suffer greatly in time of war.

Originally posted by Eomer of Rohan
Sorry, I was not referring to individuals, I was rather referring to governments (which you aren't) - and it is true - in fact it is the nature of nation states.

I'm sorry if my comments on the American people mask what I said. I was initially talking about the nation as a whole, then I talked about the people. Everyone does not dislike the US, even though you'd apparently like that to be true.

I have a long list of countries I like less than the USA, starting with the dictatorships and/or oppressive states.

China springs to mind. How come you seem to be continuously worked up about the US when over 1 billion people are under the control of that particular brutal and oppressive regime?

At least the US governments policies are a product of democracy and hence represent the will of the people in that country (to the extent possible with representative democracy). GWB's approval rating has been consistantly over 50% since his "election"[1] (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) which seems to suggest that it is the will of the US people that they continue to be as they are.

Originally posted by Eomer of Rohan

Anyone not embittered when they look at the state of the world obviously does not appreciate the state of affairs.

Well, maybe I'm just the eternal optimist then. Either that or I'm just bitter about other things than you.

[1] For a short explanation on how the American voting system is the one most likely to end in paradoxical results I reccommend "The Universe and the Teacup: The Mathematics of Truth and Beauty" by K.C. Cole. In fact, you should probably read it anyway as it is an excellent book.

Éomer of Rohan

I was actually looking for some evidence suggesting that the US made a direct profit from participating in the Second World War (preferably figures), but either way...

Senator Nye's committee was set up at his suggestion to investigate the profits made by the munitions industry. This, along with his isolationist outlook would very obviously lead to him saying things like your quote above.

"Nye remained a staunch isolationist during the emergence of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in Europe."
(http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnyeG.htm)

That is, his politics were the primary reason why he said your quote above, not any particular hard evidence. IMHO isolationism in the US pre-WW2 was idiotic. Whatever about Saddam Hussein, was it not abundantly clear that Hitler and Mussolini were a serious threat to global stability?

Still, isn't trade a much safer, easier, cheaper way of making money? (It also offers better guarantees of success)

The US is hardly so stupid as to think that war is their best way of making money. Their munitions industry will still sell to the US armed forces regardless of whether or not there is an impending war and many of their industries (notably the airlines) suffer greatly in time of war.

I don't think it fair to attribute the results of this report to one man when this investigation was not carried out by him, simply chaired by him and furthermore, it is important to note that this is what the Senate themselves accepted as true - from the report (which I have extracts of) the Rockefellers and the Morgans were implicated in serious lobbying to go to war against Nazi Germany as they stood to loose a fortune if the status quo were held.

I'm sorry if my comments on the American people mask what I said. I was initially talking about the nation as a whole, then I talked about the people. Everyone does not dislike the US, even though you'd apparently like that to be true.

You misunderstand what I mean; I was referring to the attitude of nation state to nation state not personal to nation state.

At least the US governments policies are a product of democracy and hence represent the will of the people in that country (to the extent possible with representative democracy). GWB's approval rating has been consistantly over 50% since his "election"[1] (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) which seems to suggest that it is the will of the US people that they continue to be as they are.

If there is one thing I hate, it is a hypocrit - and that is what the US is writ large. The US purports to defend freedom and democracy across the world while itself curtailing the freedom of millions of people who just don't happen to be US citizens and itself being a plutocracy. What is more, several of the Presidents of the United States agree with me on this one - check out what Presidents Hayes, Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt have to say on the matter. In fact during the first world war, Eugene Victor Debs, a worker activist, was locked up for saying it. Between 1933-1980, 75.5 percent of the Senate and House of Representatives have been from the Debsian 'elite class.' America may be the most democractic in how many positions are chosen by 'election' but elections such as these can be bought and although things like the Presidency are won through elction, the nomination is won by corporate support for you and your policies. I am very pro-democracy but quite simply, America isn't one.

ferdi

i wudnt blame them, the UN is a sham

QBall

Originally by Eomer of Rohan
I don't think it fair to attribute the results of this report to one man when this investigation was not carried out by him, simply chaired by him and furthermore, it is important to note that this is what the Senate themselves accepted as true - from the report (which I have extracts of) the Rockefellers and the Morgans were implicated in serious lobbying to go to war against Nazi Germany as they stood to loose a fortune if the status quo were held.

The results of the report may not have been due to Senator Nye, but I think it's fair to say that most committees take their lead from their chairman. It would also be fair to say that Senator Nye had a certain bias, and the committee was set up at his suggestion to investigate a topic of his choosing. He set out to prove something and he did it.

True, the Rockefellers and co. were probably seriously lobbying to go to war with Nazi Germany on economic grounds, but unless the entire US was morally incontinent at the time, I'm sure there were many who were lobbying for war on grounds other than economic ones.

I do not deny that powerful pro-war lobbying was made on economic grounds but I find it implausible that that was the primary reason for going to war. I would say that the US was far more concerned with the idea of Nazi Germany and/or Communist Russia running Europe, as they posed greater threats to the US as a whole rather than to particularly large powerful industrialists.

Originally by Eomer of Rohan
You misunderstand what I mean; I was referring to the attitude of nation state to nation state not personal to nation state.

OK, so let me get this straight: When you said "no one likes the US" were you saying that no nation in the world likes the US? If so I think I'll stop bothering to respond to your posts as you are too caught up in your own personal beliefs to possibly understand that you are wrong. If not, then maybe we can talk.

Originally by Eomer of Rohan
If there is one thing I hate, it is a hypocrit - and that is what the US is writ large. The US purports to defend freedom and democracy across the world while itself curtailing the freedom of millions of people who just don't happen to be US citizens and itself being a plutocracy. What is more, several of the Presidents of the United States agree with me on this one - check out what Presidents Hayes, Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt have to say on the matter. In fact during the first
world war, Eugene Victor Debs, a worker activist, was locked up for saying it. Between 1933-1980, 75.5 percent of the Senate and House of Representatives have been from the Debsian 'elite class.' America may be the most democractic in how many positions are chosen by 'election' but elections such as these can be bought and although things like the Presidency are won through elction, the nomination is won by corporate support for you and your policies. I am very pro-democracy but quite simply, America isn't one.

It may not be a perfectly idealised democracy, but it is a democracy with all the flaws that come with that style of government. Don't get me wrong, I disagree wholeheartedly with their particular democratic method when it comes to electing a President but to say America is not a democracy is incorrect.

While it may be true that the majority of the US Senate and House of Representatives is made up of people from well-off backgrounds, you don't have to travel to the US to see that. Look at Irish politicians, look at British politicians, the majority come from reasonably well-off backgrounds. Does that mean that Ireland is not a democracy?

Who funds the major political parties in Ireland? Big business. (With the possible exception of Labour's income from unions. Then again, I wouldn't trust a union leader any more or less than I'd trust a big businessman.) Who influences major political policies in this country? Big business (and farmers and unions, but hey, they're just as corrupt/corruptible).

The fact is, like it or not, the people who go into politics are those who can afford to. This is not a particularly American thing, it's a feature of representative democracy. Unfortunately, elections are most often a glorified popularity contest where the person who can buy the best marketing wins. These days, most people do not actively try to learn about the candidates on offer. If you don't have the financial backing to grab people's votes and persuade them to actually cast their vote you don't have a hope of getting elected.

On another point, due to the way things are, people from better-off backgrounds tend to have a higher level of education. There are many exceptions to this, but on average, the richer you are, the better educated[1] you become. I don't like this, but I don't see it changing any time soon (at least in this country). What I do insist on is that the people in government are better educated than your average burger flipper.[2] This usually means that the people I would prefer in government are wealthier than average, but I don't hold wealth or lack thereof against anyone.

If all the people in a parliament are of 'average' background, they will have 'average' education. I do not find that acceptable. The only way for people of average background to successfully populate a parliament is for the education system of that state to be 100% equal access for all. This is not the case in any democratic country that I know of, and in this country it is getting worse, not better. But that's another debate.

-C

[1] N.B. I do not mean smarter. Many people accidentally fall into the trap of hearing smarter when I say better educated. I know too many well educated fools to make that mistake myself.
[2] Apologies to anyone who reads this who works as a burger flipper. I mean no offence. :-)

Sparks

The only way for people of average background to successfully populate a parliament is for the education system of that state to be 100% equal access for all. This is not the case in any democratic country that I know of, and in this country it is getting worse, not better. But that's another debate.

*cough*switzerland*cough*

But yes, another debate...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
*cough*switzerland*cough*

I know this is heading off topic...but its struck me as interesting how often I - and others - hold up Switzerland as an example of how a democracy can work, or how it is "real" democracy, or whatever....

I assume that everyone here is aware that when the current Swiss nation was founded (only in the mid 1800s), its governmental system was based on what was perceived to be the best and fairest system at the time.....the United States of America.

I always find it ironic, therefore, that the US system is so often knocked as a sham of democracy, and the Swiss system held up as a "shining" example of how it should be done.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

True, the Rockefellers and co. were probably seriously lobbying to go to war with Nazi Germany on economic grounds, but unless the entire US was morally incontinent at the time, I'm sure there were many who were lobbying for war on grounds other than economic ones.

Nope. If you remember your history, the majority of people were lobbying for peace and isolationism to continue.

that the US was far more concerned with the idea of Nazi Germany and/or Communist Russia running Europe, as they posed greater threats to the US as a whole rather than to particularly large powerful industrialists.

And why? Not a military threat at least - the US was very far ahead of both in the military sense - the German nuclear program couldn't even have been a reason as the Germans were still experimenting with Heavy water and enriched uranium when the Third Reich fell - many years behind the US. The reason was that they feared Nazi Germany was a serious economic threat with links to the one area all European powers daren't go - South America. Stalin's USSR, if you know anything about Stalinist era politics, made an almost paranoid point out of not being interested in threatening the great powers - Germany, France and Britain - even the intelligence network at the time was benign (check internet entries for Sorge, Cairncross, Philby, MacLean, Burgess and Blunt).

may not be a perfectly idealised democracy, but it is a democracy with all the flaws that come with that style of government. Don't get me wrong, I disagree wholeheartedly with their particular democratic method when it comes to electing a President but to say America is not a democracy is incorrect.

No. It is a nation that is governed by wealth - and yes this is true to some extent in the UK, in Ireland, in France and so on but more so in the US - actually go and look up the three presidents that I mentioned and what they had to say and when you look up EV Debs you will really hit paydirt - it will save me the bother of fighting a slightly off-topic point.

Sparks

bonkey,

I always find it ironic, therefore, that the US system is so often knocked as a sham of democracy, and the Swiss system held up as a "shining" example of how it should be done.

It's not really that ironic - the swiss system sees the people retaining actual power while the US one doesn't. And since the same can be said of every representative democracy, there's a lot to be said for the swiss way of doing things.

bonkey

Sparks,

I mostly agree, but the point I'm driving at is that principally I see any failure more as one of the people than one of the system itself.

In a similar light, I see a success of a system as being largely of the people, rather than of the system as well.

The system being held up as a success, compared to the one it is being used to criticise are - in many respects - the same.

I agree the Swiss system was an improvement in that it kept the power firmly in the hands of the people, but I am not convinced that this is the sole - or necessarily even a significant - reason that it has succeeded in the way that it has.

jc

Sparks

bonkey,
I don't know about that - if I could make one and only one change to either our political system or that of the US or UK or any other state, it would be to enshrine the right of the people to call for a binding referendum on a topic by submitting a petition with a preset percentage of the populations (say 4%) signed up to it. How many decisions in the past decade would have been prevented or passed in Ireland alone through that mechanism? No need for anti-war protests, just force a referendum. No need for protesting the amendment to the FOI act, just force a referendum preventing it. And so on.

That seems to be the main difference between the swiss system and others. And it's not so much down to the people as a function of the system. I am rather convinced, for example, that if there was a system in Ireland whereby an individual could influence policy items, that we wouldn't have the problem we have with voter apathy. I mean why be concerned with politics in Ireland when honest politicians are like hen's teeth and the government merrily ignores the largest protests in the history of the state, where health and education budgest are slashed while happily ordering new jets for the government, incredibly incompetently sourced helos for the gardai, hundreds of thousands are spent on makeup and hundreds of thousands more on image consultants?
It's horribly obvious that our opinions don't count and since we don't have any other route, most people just say "fcuk it" and try to get on with their lives, or emigrate, or whatever.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
That seems to be the main difference between the swiss system and others.

Not really, when you consider that up until a few years ago, it could take 10-15 years for a public initiative to make it to a vote. Now, that has dropped to somewhere in the region of 3 years, I believe, due to some beuraucracy changes.

So its not much use for things like anti-war voting, unless something like this war and the use of Shannon brought an initiative to decide what the government was permitted to do in future.....but then you're back to voting about issues when they're dead and forgotten, rather then when they're current and people actually care about it. Try raising the Shannon question at the next general election, and you'll more than likely get a "Christ, you're not still on about that, are you" response, rather than a "this is a valid point about the people we consider electing" one. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats my genuine belief.

I am rather convinced, for example, that if there was a system in Ireland whereby an individual could influence policy items, that we wouldn't have the problem we have with voter apathy.

Agreed, mostly...its not just that you have a system, but you have a system which itself is not too subject to apathy.

Then again, if you are correct, does this not open the way for a potentially massively successful election platform....the aim to get elected to initiate constitutional change to put more power in the hands of the people.

Sounds a bit socialist though - doesn't it

jc

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by QBall

In 1998 the UN pulled its weapons inspectors out of Iraq due to the fact that Iraq was not fully cooperating, and was in fact deliberately frustrating the UN's attempts to carry out inspections.

I think you forgot to mention that the US/UK had spies in the weapons inspectors who were more intrested finding bombing targets then looking for WMD.