Iran has some elections (certianly more than many of it's naibours not that that means much). Britian is still a monarchy.
Fine then. Use the term "Free Nations" instead. Britian is a free nation. Iran is not.
The closest you can get is a club of nations wich can be joined by invite only which tends to limit your size somewhat.
Yep. That's right. Criterion for invitation: being a free nation with respect for human rights. Britian is. Iran is not. And don't tell me you can't tell the difference.
In some cases you have to work with dictators whether you like it or not.
The less, the better. And in any case try to deal directly with the people than with the government.
(there are propbaly two dictatorships at the moment that have nuclear wepons).
"Negotiation" with NK over its nuclear arsenal only led it to develop more quickly in order to have more weapons to blackmail the world with, or to try and sell weapons to Iran & co. "Negotiations" with Pakistan did nothing to stop its scientists selling weapons to others, either.
In both cases, the "negotiations" were complete failure. The result was the same: any aid given to try and limit their nuclear power was simply pocketed, while their supposed requirements to stop the spread of weapons was simply ignored.
More generally, you are of course correct that sometimes there's no choice but to deal with dictators. But that should be a last resort action; you shouldn't have an entire organization, like the UN, whose main purpose is to facilitate and legitimize such negotiations, and is staffed mostly by the ass-lickers of various dictators who were rewarded for their toadiness with a job in New York City.
I mean, sure, sometimes it is--say--no choice but to deal with mafia hit men, too, to get information on others. But you don't have a "Mafia-Police friendship & undestanding society" division in the Police department, where hitmen are regularly invited to criticize the police, give speeches in front of assembled graduates of the Police academy about what police work should really be like, or demand to be treated the same as the chief of police when they visit, now do you?
That is, for all intents and purposes, is what the UN is like: it's a union of about 20 firemen and 200 arsonists that's there to decide, by vote, whose fault is it that fires are started. The UN voting record is clear: it's all the firemens' fault. But when the "anti-fire commission" is headed by the most notorious arsonist alive, these votes don't mean much, do they?
Fine then. Use the term "Free Nations" instead. Britian is a free nation. Iran is not.
The closest you can get is a club of nations wich can be joined by invite only which tends to limit your size somewhat.
Yep. That's right. Criterion for invitation: being a free nation with respect for human rights. Britian is. Iran is not. And don't tell me you can't tell the difference.
In some cases you have to work with dictators whether you like it or not.
The less, the better. And in any case try to deal directly with the people than with the government.
(there are propbaly two dictatorships at the moment that have nuclear wepons).
"Negotiation" with NK over its nuclear arsenal only led it to develop more quickly in order to have more weapons to blackmail the world with, or to try and sell weapons to Iran & co. "Negotiations" with Pakistan did nothing to stop its scientists selling weapons to others, either.
In both cases, the "negotiations" were complete failure. The result was the same: any aid given to try and limit their nuclear power was simply pocketed, while their supposed requirements to stop the spread of weapons was simply ignored.
More generally, you are of course correct that sometimes there's no choice but to deal with dictators. But that should be a last resort action; you shouldn't have an entire organization, like the UN, whose main purpose is to facilitate and legitimize such negotiations, and is staffed mostly by the ass-lickers of various dictators who were rewarded for their toadiness with a job in New York City.
I mean, sure, sometimes it is--say--no choice but to deal with mafia hit men, too, to get information on others. But you don't have a "Mafia-Police friendship & undestanding society" division in the Police department, where hitmen are regularly invited to criticize the police, give speeches in front of assembled graduates of the Police academy about what police work should really be like, or demand to be treated the same as the chief of police when they visit, now do you?
That is, for all intents and purposes, is what the UN is like: it's a union of about 20 firemen and 200 arsonists that's there to decide, by vote, whose fault is it that fires are started. The UN voting record is clear: it's all the firemens' fault. But when the "anti-fire commission" is headed by the most notorious arsonist alive, these votes don't mean much, do they?
