CNN Interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Serbia. Croatia. Macedonia...

How so? Crotia has always been inhabited primarily by Croats, Serbia by Serbs, and Macedonia by Macedonians (funny how that works). There was no massive displacement of any group, nor was any of the countries formed as a homeland for a religious group. The countries were formed as homes for the ethnic groups who had lived in these lands for centuries.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Oh so who should be the police then Lanny? Regardless if we agree that the US and England have the right to be the police or not, they are the best option so live with it. Unless you think Iran, Egypt, Sudan should be the police. What country do you think has the moral responsibiliy to have these weapons?

The UN should be the world police. The police force should come from all walks of life and there should be no restriction to that force. Also, the police should be fair and impartial. When they are not the society they oversee disintegrates into chaos. Any police action that takes place should be a body made up of representatives from around the globe that are considered impartial on the disagreement. The leadership of the police should be an agreed to party from both sides of the altercation and there should be a binding agreement that what this leadership group says is law. That's how policing works, not the bull**** solution of "who ever has the biggest gun" like you suggest.

As to nuclear weapons, no country has the "moral responsibility" to have these weapons. When I hear people like yourself natter on and on about who has the right and responsibility to have such weapons it scares the hell out of me. Brainwashed idiots who believe they have the moral high ground based on economic factors have the control over weapons that can kill millions. I do not see how that differs from the brainwashed idiots who believe they have the moral high ground based on religiosity. You should also not talk morals when you talk about America and England. Neither government has morals IMO.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The UN should be the world police. The police force should come from all walks of life and there should be no restriction to that force. Also, the police should be fair and impartial. When they are not the society they oversee disintegrates into chaos. Any police action that takes place should be a body made up of representatives from around the globe that are considered impartial on the disagreement. The leadership of the police should be an agreed to party from both sides of the altercation and there should be a binding agreement that what this leadership group says is law. That's how policing works, not the bull**** solution of "who ever has the biggest gun" like you suggest.

As to nuclear weapons, no country has the "moral responsibility" to have these weapons. When I hear people like yourself natter on and on about who has the right and responsibility to have such weapons it scares the hell out of me. Brainwashed idiots who believe they have the moral high ground based on economic factors have the control over weapons that can kill millions. I do not see how that differs from the brainwashed idiots who believe they have the moral high ground based on religiosity. You should also not talk morals when you talk about America and England. Neither government has morals IMO.

I do agree that the UN should be the world police but that is impossible when you consider they have no means of enforcement unfortunately. Someone needs to come up with a better system.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The UN should be the world police. The police force should come from all walks of life and there should be no restriction to that force. Also, the police should be fair and impartial. When they are not the society they oversee disintegrates into chaos. Any police action that takes place should be a body made up of representatives from around the globe that are considered impartial on the disagreement. The leadership of the police should be an agreed to party from both sides of the altercation and there should be a binding agreement that what this leadership group says is law. That's how policing works, not the bull**** solution of "who ever has the biggest gun" like you suggest..

I agree, but the UN needs a complete over haul, focus on solutions, following through on sanctions. Right now there is too much in-fighting between the permanent members, and too many UN members are in it for their own personal gain.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Sowa

I do agree that the UN should be the world police but that is impossible when you consider they have no means of enforcement unfortunately. Someone needs to come up with a better system.

The UNSC has the means to enforce resolutions, but if the P5 countries don't have the will to intervene, then the UN doesn't have the mandate. Talk to US/Russia/UK/France/China. Once those 5 are on board the UN can do tremendous things. Though, personal national self-interest appears to permanently trump global collective security.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

The UNSC has the means to enforce resolutions, but if the P5 countries don't have the will to intervene, then the UN doesn't have the mandate. Talk to US/Russia/UK/France/China. Once those 5 are on board the UN can do tremendous things. Though, personal national self-interest appears to permanently trump global collective security.

Bingo!!!

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The UN should be the world police. The police force should come from all walks of life and there should be no restriction to that force. Also, the police should be fair and impartial. When they are not the society they oversee disintegrates into chaos. Any police action that takes place should be a body made up of representatives from around the globe that are considered impartial on the disagreement. The leadership of the police should be an agreed to party from both sides of the altercation and there should be a binding agreement that what this leadership group says is law. That's how policing works, not the bull**** solution of "who ever has the biggest gun" like you suggest.

As to nuclear weapons, no country has the "moral responsibility" to have these weapons. When I hear people like yourself natter on and on about who has the right and responsibility to have such weapons it scares the hell out of me. Brainwashed idiots who believe they have the moral high ground based on economic factors have the control over weapons that can kill millions. I do not see how that differs from the brainwashed idiots who believe they have the moral high ground based on religiosity. You should also not talk morals when you talk about America and England. Neither government has morals IMO.

Are you calling me a brainwashed idiot???

I didn't say anyone had the moral authority to have nuclear weapons, I asked you who you thought did. What I said was I would rather have a country like USA and England have these weapons over countries like Iran and Pakistan.

My personal preference is no weapons at all. But as long as one country has them, there has to be a few other countries that have them to balance power.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by octothorp

How so? Crotia has always been inhabited primarily by Croats, Serbia by Serbs, and Macedonia by Macedonians (funny how that works). There was no massive displacement of any group, nor was any of the countries formed as a homeland for a religious group. The countries were formed as homes for the ethnic groups who had lived in these lands for centuries.

Wrong. The UN moved thousands of people after peace was agreed to.
They are still moving some I think.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Wrong. The UN moved thousands of people after peace was agreed to.
They are still moving some I think.

I'm not aware of any UN-organized population transfers in the three countries you mentioned, but perhaps you were referring to Bosnia-Herzegovina and the population transfers allowed in the Dayton Accord? These transfers were voluntary, with every refugee and displaced person being allowed to return to their home, or to a destination of their choice. The only people who were displaced by this process were those who had tried to seize land that became temporarily vacant by fleeing refugees, and those people were allowed to then return to their previous homes. There was a natural process of homogenization, but it was largely voluntary.

The only other thing I can imagine that you might be referencing in the displacement of ethnic Albanians from Serbia during the war there (really horrible refugee situation), but most of them returned to Serbia immediately following the war.

Are you referring to one of these two incidents, or a different one? And even if you count these as long-term population displacements (I don't, as no ethnic group in the region can claim to be displaced, as each--Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, Albanians, Macedonians--has a clearly defined homeland), it still differs from the middle-east conflict in that the populations were divided along ethnic lines, not religious.