Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Antipathy

Originally posted by Fishermage 

Sorry, dictators do not deserve respect. We shouldn't be part of an organization that encourages such a charade. I am not a dictator, neither are you. That's a dumb analogy, and one not worthy of respect.

 

But diplomacy isn't about what people deserve. That's for god and judges. Diplomacy is about what is effective in terms of convincing the other guys to do what you want them to do.

 

This isn't about diplomacy, which I have stated we should engage in and you continually misrepresent what I have said.

This is about whether we should create or be part of a club that encourages and enables dictators: I say we should not, you say we should.

I say there are far better routes to go than the one taken. You like the status quo.

again, you fail to see the point.

you wont get rid of dictators by ignoring them, you will just make them suspicios and encourage them to buy weapons from russia or china.

ask fidel castro.

Originally posted by Antipathy

Originally posted by sniperg

Vastly different countries have no common ground and very little chance to find a diplomatic way without anyone backing up.

Think for example Turkey and Greece. 2 completely different countries in attitudes and governance.

Totalitarian governments don't agree even at the basics with Democratic ones, hence diplomacy cannot be achieved by putting them all in the same place.

 

Complete rubbish. Nation states can take positions on huge numbers of issues, many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with whether a country is democratic or a dictatorship.

 

For example, some of the current allies of America are dictatorships (e.g. Thailand), whilst many less friendly countries practice some form of democracy (e.g. Russia).

 

You claim that diplomacy cannot take place between a democratic country and a totalitarian one. This flies in the face of the facts. There are many many cases where exactly that has occurred. For example, consider Kissingers visit to communist China, or the many treaties signed between the US and communist Russia during the cold war. How were they achieved, if not by diplomacy?

 

It's interesting that both the countries you named (Greece and Turkey) are democracies.

 

It's one thing to compare the diplomacy achieved between 2 or more countries and one to compare the diplomacy that is being done in the UN. Did these treaties between US and com. Russia were part of the UN diplomatic efforts? I am not saying that individual countries can not use diplomacy, but in the context of UN is very difficult if not impossible.

I mentioned Greece and Turkey because although both are technically democracies one of them has ignored or went against a lot of international treaties even with the intervention of the UN. Also both of them have little to no common ground hence for any diplomatic effort to be achieved one of them have to step back.

Originally posted by Troneas

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Antipathy

Originally posted by Fishermage 

Sorry, dictators do not deserve respect. We shouldn't be part of an organization that encourages such a charade. I am not a dictator, neither are you. That's a dumb analogy, and one not worthy of respect.

 

But diplomacy isn't about what people deserve. That's for god and judges. Diplomacy is about what is effective in terms of convincing the other guys to do what you want them to do.

 

This isn't about diplomacy, which I have stated we should engage in and you continually misrepresent what I have said.

This is about whether we should create or be part of a club that encourages and enables dictators: I say we should not, you say we should.

I say there are far better routes to go than the one taken. You like the status quo.

 

again, you fail to see the point.

you wont get rid of dictators by ignoring them, you will just make them suspicios and encourage them to buy weapons from russia or china.

ask fidel castro.

Again you miss MY point. I never said we should ignore anyone, just that inviting them into a club that grants them legitimacy is not the way to go about successful diplomacy. It HELPS the dictators stay dictators, and hurts us all in the long run.

This has nothing to do with selling weapons, trade embargoes, or anything else. This is about whether the UN is a proper and effective vehicle for diplomacy. I say it isn't, because it favors tyranny over freedom. You say it's a good thing, for whatever reason.

No one -- I repeat -- no one said anything about ignoring anyone. I simply don't want to help them abuse their people by granting them a legitimacy they do not have.

basically you are saying, similar to antipathy's -- it's the UN or WAR!!! silliness.

Now you are saying -- It's the UN or we are ignoring people! Just as silly. False choices in both case.

You guys can create all the false dichotomies you want -- it doesn't even remotely make your case.

Originally posted by sniperg 

It's one thing to compare the diplomacy achieved between 2 or more countries and one to compare the diplomacy that is being done in the UN. Did these treaties between US and com. Russia were part of the UN diplomatic efforts? I am not saying that individual countries can not use diplomacy, but in the context of UN is very difficult if not impossible.

I mentioned Greece and Turkey because although both are technically democracies one of them has ignored or went against a lot of international treaties even with the intervention of the UN. Also both of them have little to no common ground hence for any diplomatic effort to be achieved one of them have to step back.

I was only responding to the words you used. You claimed diplomacy was impossible between a totalitarian state and a democracy, I showed that it is quite possible, and gave examples. These examples were designed to counter your point, not to demonstrate UN diplomacy. Hence you are taking them out of context.

However, the UN is a place where diplomacy can continously occur between nation states. Some of it is visible (e.g. the speeches), however much of it occurs behind closed doors and cannot be accurately measured. So who knows what was discussed? All we do know is that discussions regularly do take place at the UN, and IMO, talking is an important part of diplomacy, and the more opportunities we give for it to occur, the better.

Btw - your knowledge of relations between Greece and Turkey is severely lacking. The two countries differ on a couple of key points (Cyprus + Immigration), however there are many other areas where the two countries work together. For example, both are part of NATO.

Originally posted by Antipathy

Originally posted by sniperg 

It's one thing to compare the diplomacy achieved between 2 or more countries and one to compare the diplomacy that is being done in the UN. Did these treaties between US and com. Russia were part of the UN diplomatic efforts? I am not saying that individual countries can not use diplomacy, but in the context of UN is very difficult if not impossible.

I mentioned Greece and Turkey because although both are technically democracies one of them has ignored or went against a lot of international treaties even with the intervention of the UN. Also both of them have little to no common ground hence for any diplomatic effort to be achieved one of them have to step back.

 

I was only responding to the words you used. You claimed diplomacy was impossible between a totalitarian state and a democracy, I showed that it is quite possible, and gave examples. These examples were designed to counter your point, not to demonstrate UN diplomacy. Hence you are taking them out of context.

However, the UN is a place where diplomacy can continously occur between nation states. Some of it is visible (e.g. the speeches), however much of it occurs behind closed doors and cannot be accurately measured. So who knows what was discussed? All we do know is that discussions regularly do take place at the UN, and IMO, talking is an important part of diplomacy, and the more opportunities we give for it to occur, the better.

 

Btw - your knowledge of relations between Greece and Turkey is severely lacking. The two countries differ on a couple of key points (Cyprus + Immigration), however there are many other areas where the two countries work together. For example, both are part of NATO.

Diplomacy without the ability to enforce any of the agreements can not be achieved. Your examples didn't cover that.

You are right though behind closed doors we can not see what's happening hence we cannot judge whether it is useful or if it is just a fancy club. But since the UN can not enforce any of its decisions then their diplomatic ways can be questioned.

On your last part it seems you are a bit misinformed. Greece and Turkey differ on many key points including Cyprus, Immigration, sea territory, air territory, violation of borders to name a few.

There are very few areas that these countries work together and in most cases it's only because UN pressures Greece over Turkey to "discuss" it.

Out of curiosity, if Gadaffi had made a completely inoccuous and harmless speech at the UN, would you have had the same objections? Would this thread have even been started? In which case I find it odd that you haven't said anything before, since various third world dictators give UN speeches on a regular basis.

Or was your objection at least partly based on his words. In other words you aren't just objecting to the person, but to what he said. Aren't you really saying that the main thing you object to is Gadaffi's freedom of speech?

How can you claim to defend freedom, whilst simultaneously attempting to remove it?

Originally posted by Antipathy

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Hugo Chavez smells hope at the UN now.

That wasn't hope, Hugo, that was the Algerian delegation.  Its members hadn't showered in two days.

 

So what you're basically saying is that foreign people are smelly. Sounds a lot like racism to me.

Well that's because you're an overly-sensitive, politcally correct race-baiter.  Funny how you get racism out of that when you have no idea what my thought process was.  Perhaps my intention was to allude that the UN was engaged in a marathon session.  Seems to me like race is more of an issue for you than it is for me.

Originally posted by sniperg 

Diplomacy without the ability to enforce any of the agreements can not be achieved. Your examples didn't cover that.

You are right though behind closed doors we can not see what's happening hence we cannot judge whether it is useful or if it is just a fancy club. But since the UN can not enforce any of its decisions then their diplomatic ways can be questioned.

On your last part it seems you are a bit misinformed. Greece and Turkey differ on many key points including Cyprus, Immigration, sea territory, air territory, violation of borders to name a few.

There are very few areas that these countries work together and in most cases it's only because UN pressures Greece over Turkey to "discuss" it.

Of course the UN isn't designed to enforce agreements between superpowers. It would have to be a superpower itself in order to do so.

That doesn't mean that the UN doesn't take an active hand in helping to enforce treaties between lesser powers - for example, consider the many UN peacekeeping operations that have occurred. And it also doesn't mean that UN observers can't play the role of neutral third parties in order to ensure any treaties are being obeyed (including those between superpowers).

However, the main function of the UN General Assembly is as a meeting place where diplomacy can occur. If the member states thought this diplomacy was worthless, then they wouldn't bother to attend - the fact they do suggests they are getting something out of it.

Btw - did you know that Greece currently supports Turkey's bid to enter the EU?

Originally posted by Zindaihas
 

Well that's because you're an overly-sensitive, politcally correct race-baiter.  Funny how you get racism out of that when you have no idea what my thought process was.  Perhaps my intention was to allude that the UN was engaged in a marathon session.  Seems to me like race is more of an issue for you than it is for me.

Was your intention to allude to a marathon session? Honestly? I sincerely doubt it. You're just throwing up a smoke screen in order to try to cover your tracks. However, if that was your intention, then you could have done so perfectly well without drawing attention to a particular ethnic group.

Your comment was racist. It's perfectly possible that it wasn't intentionally racist, and that it appeared to you to be normal due to the upbringing you received and the society you live in, but it was racist nonetheless.

Originally posted by Antipathy

Originally posted by Zindaihas
 

Well that's because you're an overly-sensitive, politcally correct race-baiter.  Funny how you get racism out of that when you have no idea what my thought process was.  Perhaps my intention was to allude that the UN was engaged in a marathon session.  Seems to me like race is more of an issue for you than it is for me.

 

Was your intention to allude to a marathon session? Honestly? I sincerely doubt it. You're just throwing up a smoke screen in order to try to cover your tracks. However, if that was your intention, then you could have done so perfectly well without drawing attention to a particular ethnic group.

 

Your comment was racist. It's perfectly possible that it wasn't intentionally racist, and that it appeared to you to be normal due to the upbringing you received and the society you live in, but it was racist nonetheless.

Ah, I see.  So now you can read my mind.  How did you come by this incredible power because I'd really love to get in on it?

You're a new guy on this forum it seems to me.  I haven't seen any posts before the last couple days, so I'll let your ignorance slide for now.  If you could point to any racists posts I've made to back up your claim, I'll shut my mouth immediately.  Perhaps you can find someone else on this board who can back up your accusation.  They are free to weigh in.

If not, then I'll thank you to stop this baseless charge before you embarrass yourself.

Originally posted by Antipathy

Originally posted by Zindaihas
 

Well that's because you're an overly-sensitive, politcally correct race-baiter.  Funny how you get racism out of that when you have no idea what my thought process was.  Perhaps my intention was to allude that the UN was engaged in a marathon session.  Seems to me like race is more of an issue for you than it is for me.

 

Was your intention to allude to a marathon session? Honestly? I sincerely doubt it. You're just throwing up a smoke screen in order to try to cover your tracks. However, if that was your intention, then you could have done so perfectly well without drawing attention to a particular ethnic group.

 

Your comment was racist. It's perfectly possible that it wasn't intentionally racist, and that it appeared to you to be normal due to the upbringing you received and the society you live in, but it was racist nonetheless.

Antipathy - please watch this video "Everyones a little bit racist" by Avenue Q.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbud8rLejLM&feature=fvste2

Clearly everyone is a little bit racist :)  The quicker we all realize this, and ditch the PC crap the better off we will all be.  Yes what he said was racist, but it was meant in a sarcastic way and was pretty funny.  And yes, I'm sorry many foreignors have different standards of hygene and sometimes smell to Americans.  And just as true some European countries lavish themselves in beautiful perfumes and think American's smell relatively bad too!  So please, it wasn't a personal attack, don't take it seriously!!

If I may make a suggestion.  If you want to be taken seriously in your debates (and you are definately a smart guy and I enjoy reading your posts) lay off the race card, it only undermines your position and you immediately lose credibility.  Again please watch this video, it will make so much sense to you :)

Originally posted by Antipathy

However, the main function of the UN General Assembly is as a meeting place where diplomacy can occur. If the member states thought this diplomacy was worthless, then they wouldn't bother to attend - the fact they do suggests they are getting something out of it.

 

Btw - did you know that Greece currently supports Turkey's bid to enter the EU?

That's quite an assumption though and it is really quite questionable what they do get out of it. So far the UN serves only very specific interests, so it is not just a meeting place, but more like a ground for advancing specific agendas under a cover of legitimacy.

Βtw - I am very aware of that bad decision. But did you know that US supports Turkey to enter the EU?

Originally posted by Troneas

not as irritating as the sarcastic tone of the "i know i all crowd", such as yourself.

the main purpose which lead to nato's creation is now obsolete, since the cold war has ended.

and nato has become a tool used by the US to legitimise its wars and foreign occupation. the US has rallied its members into bosnia, afghanistan and iraq. 90% if not more of the stationned troops in those nations are US troops and i sincerely doubt the UK, or Spain, or France or whomever would have attacked those countries where it not to please the wishes of the US.  < 100% Agree with this

so its still a usefull tool, hence i stated that it was obsolete in "many ways", but the main original idea for nato has been made obsolete.  < 100% Agree with this.

Sorry sometimes I have a hard time keeping that in check. 

I can assure you that my sarcasism has nothing to do with "thinking I know it all" on the contrary its because I know I don't know it all that I found your other post irritating.  You talk of NATO being in many ways obsolete because you were weighing them based on their "cold war" mission, I challenge you to think outside of the box and recognize that they have and do much more than that.... that being said and in response to some of the posts that Fish has made I suggested that NATO, in my opinion, are that democratic organization ("club").

As an aside have you read the NAT and the UN Charter as I has suggested?  I found them both enlightening and helpful in informing my opinions.

Originally posted by sniperg That's quite an assumption though and it is really quite questionable what they do get out of it. So far the UN serves only very specific interests, so it is not just a meeting place, but more like a ground for advancing specific agendas under a cover of legitimacy.

Βtw - I am very aware of that bad decision. But did you know that US supports Turkey to enter the EU?

 

Diplomacy is all about advancing specific agendas. That's what diplomacy is !

I am aware of US support. What I am curious about is why you brought up the example of Greece and Turkey as two opposed states when we are both aware they have at least some agendas in common? I guess it just proves my point - diplomacy is possible between anyone !

Actually, I though Khadafi's speech was sheer genius.

Look, sitting in those seats at the UN listening to all those political windbags had to be boring as hell.

Along comes Khadafi, his speech was so riveting. Nobody wanted to interrupt him and hold him to his time allotment because they were all just to darn interested in hearing what was going to come out of his mouth next.

When Khadafi was speaking there wasn't a bored person in the house. Each and every person sat breathless wondering what was next.

He gave all of us a UN meeting we are going to remember for a long, long time. Grabbed the headlines of the world news organizations too.

Pure genius, I tell you!
 

Originally posted by Antipathy

Originally posted by sniperg That's quite an assumption though and it is really quite questionable what they do get out of it. So far the UN serves only very specific interests, so it is not just a meeting place, but more like a ground for advancing specific agendas under a cover of legitimacy.

Βtw - I am very aware of that bad decision. But did you know that US supports Turkey to enter the EU?

 

 

Diplomacy is all about advancing specific agendas. That's what diplomacy is !

 

I am aware of US support. What I am curious about is why you brought up the example of Greece and Turkey as two opposed states when we are both aware they have at least some agendas in common? I guess it just proves my point - diplomacy is possible between anyone !

If by diplomacy you mean that one super power and a couple more countries  try to force a militaristic, totalitarian country known for its aggressiveness and expansionists tactics + a genocide, to get into the EU, by using gang tactics. Then yeah I guess diplomacy is possible. But for me ,to quote another forum user here, "my gang is bigger than your gang" is not exactly "diplomacy".

I'd say that having a bigger gang is the result of successful diplomacy, not the cause.

Originally posted by Antipathy

I'd say that having a bigger gang is the result of successful diplomacy, not the cause.

Let's accept that as true.

Now according to that and the previous thing we were discussing, UN is giving legitimate grounds for countries to gang on one another and execute their agenda much easier. Bigger countries have much more means to back up their diplomacy thus creating a bigger gang.

Forgive me but right now I fail to see where Fisher was wrong in his statement that UN is in the wrong to give equal validity to democratic countries and tyrannies. Because what I see is a fertile ground where tyrannies are used and promoted.

The UN is fertile ground for what? Ghadaffi may grab a few headlines - but you can blame the media for those as much as the man. But I can't think of a single country that's become a dicatorship just because of a UN speech. Personally, I believe in freedom and democracy - not as some abstract cause to be championed, but as an actual and effective system. One of the main reasons why democracy has become more and more powerful as a form of government over the last 300 years is that we're simply better at persuading people to join our cause than the dictatorships are.

So let those windbags spout off a little. Because if you truely believe in your cause, then you should be confident that in the end our arguments will triumph. I've raised the freedom of speech argument several times - I'm surprised neither of you have responded to it. But to me, this is exactly the same thing. Just as we may allow people we don't like to speak out on the local stage, and even on their own TV channels, we can similarly allow dictators we don't like to speak out on the international stage. Because we know that when their ideas are exposed to the light of day, when they are seriously debated, they will lose.

And by allowing  these dictators to make their ineffective speeches, we gain a measure of power in return. They also have to sit around and listen to our speeches, visit our countries, enjoy our culture. We can influence them in return. To me, your position is a position of cowardice. You seem to be saying "we are too scared to let these people speak because we are afraid of their power". Well they will speak anyway, on one stage or other, and those who enjoy hearing such things will listen. What we can do is bring them to a venue where we can speak back, and challenge them.

Originally posted by Antipathy

The UN is fertile ground for what? Ghadaffi may grab a few headlines - but you can blame the media for those as much as the man. But I can't think of a single country that's become a dicatorship just because of a UN speech. Personally, I believe in freedom and democracy - not as some abstract cause to be championed, but as an actual and effective system. One of the main reasons why democracy has become more and more powerful as a form of government over the last 300 years is that we're simply better at persuading people to join our cause than the dictatorships are.

 

So let those windbags spout off a little. Because if you truely believe in your cause, then you should be confident that in the end our arguments will triumph. I've raised the freedom of speech argument several times - I'm surprised neither of you have responded to it. But to me, this is exactly the same thing. Just as we may allow people we don't like to speak out on the local stage, and even on their own TV channels, we can similarly allow dictators we don't like to speak out on the international stage. Because we know that when their ideas are exposed to the light of day, when they are seriously debated, they will lose.

 

And by allowing  these dictators to make their ineffective speeches, we gain a measure of power in return. They also have to sit around and listen to our speeches, visit our countries, enjoy our culture. We can influence them in return. To me, your position is a position of cowardice. You seem to be saying "we are too scared to let these people speak because we are afraid of their power". Well they will speak anyway, on one stage or other, and those who enjoy hearing such things will listen. What we can do is bring them to a venue where we can speak back, and challenge them.

It's not a position of cowardice or bravery for that matter. You have the position that the UN is something useful, I find it that it doesn't promote anything resembling democracy but rather providing a legitimate excuse for bigger countries to promote dictatorships without fear. If that's your version of freedom and democracy I am afraid I have to disagree.

First of all their ideas won't be exposed. Even you that seems like an informed guy, you thought that the problem with Turkey lied only in the immigration + Cyprus. What's interesting is that you didn't mention anything of what actually goes inside their country and what are the politics that they do follow.

Secondly one of the main reasons democracy has became stronger as you put it the last 300 year is not because it became more effective in persuading anyone, it has became in many places a mobocracy. So the persuasion you are speaking of is just "we have more numbers hence we are right".

Thirdly can you provide for me an example of exactly what power we have gained in return that was not preexisting?