Genocide Treaty

[JohnW]

They're not really governments though are they Garinda? They're dictatorships with the head honcho being a total bloody lunatic. Appeasing them and hoping they will go away does not work as we most certainly found out to our cost with Herr Hitler.

[garinda]

Hitler may have become a dictator, but he was voted in to power democratically.

[JohnW]

Originally Posted by garinda

Hitler may have become a dictator, but he was voted in to power democratically.

So then are you seriously suggesting we should have left him alone?

[garinda]

No of course not, I'd have been first on the train to the concentration camps.

But back to my original point. Western interference is selective, and not primarily about overthrowing evil dictatorships such as Mugabe's, but more to do with money or strategic gain. On that, from your past posts, we seem to agree.

[JohnW]

Yes we do agree and I'm glad it is selective. We have done our fair share of removing evildoers and I would hope we would continue to do so. However, we have to ensure our own wellbeing first or we won't be capable of removing them in the future.

[garinda]

I can't say I'm glad it's selective, tyranny should be opposed regardless of what we can gain from it.

[grannyclaret]

this is all a bit out of my league,,but you have all made good points,,
VERY INTERESTING TOPIC,,wish i was a bit more assertive ..

[garinda]

Originally Posted by grannyclaret

this is all a bit out of my league,,but you have all made good points,,
VERY INTERESTING TOPIC,,wish i was a bit more assertive ..

Granny C don't be daft, your opinion, as is everyone elses, is as just as valid.

[JohnW]

Originally Posted by garinda

I can't say I'm glad it's selective, tyranny should be opposed regardless of what we can gain from it.

I agree it should all be opposed. However, we can't do everything at once there's quite a bit of tyranny around you know. We're stretched pretty thin at the moment. Of course if some of the other clods in Europe would throw in a bit of help it would be easier don't you think? Why should it always be the Brits and the Yanks? Maybe you could persuade "Oh, so I'm a bin lid" (he says he doesn't like tyrants) to go and depose "Eee bah gum." Hell, if we get these b@ast@rds fighting each other, we could be in for an easy time for a change.

[garinda]

No, but what we do, and where we go, is governed by the advantages we as the West can gain, as we have both agreed.

Poorer, or less advantagously placed countries can apparently continue being ruled under leaders that have no concepts of human rights, without so much as a dimplomatic slap never mind military intervention costing millions and millions of pounds, and countless loss of lives.

[JohnW]

Originally Posted by garinda

No, but what we do, and where we go, is governed by the advantages we as the West can gain, as we have both agreed.

Poorer, or less advantagously placed countries can apparently continue being ruled under leaders that have no concepts of human rights, without so much as a dimplomatic slap never mind military intervention costing millions and millions of pounds, and countless loss of lives.

Well, we're just going around in circles now, I have never disputed that we look after our own interests first and I think that we should. I really don't think you and I can get any closer on this subject do you?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by JohnW

Well, we're just going around in circles now, I have never disputed that we look after our own interests first and I think that we should. I really don't think you and I can get any closer on this subject do you?

No. End of.

[Bazf]

Originally Posted by garinda

Those countries were quoted in answer to countries that had unappetising governments, not necessarily democratic elected.

In answer to one of your questions, Hitler and the Nazi party were democratically elected by the German people in 1932. 37% of the vote made gave the Nazis the most seats, and Hitler ultimate power.

Sorry to labor the point but Hitler never actually won enough votes to be elected Chancellor, In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were: Hindenburg 49.6 percent
Hitler 30.1 percent
Thaelmann 13.2 percent
Duesterberg 6.8 percent

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, almost 70 percent of the German people voted against Hitler, causing his supporter Joseph Goebbels, who would later become Hitler’s minister of propaganda, to lament in his journal, “We’re beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected.”
Since Hindenberg had not received a majority of the vote, however, a runoff election had to be held among the top three vote-getters. On April 19, 1932, the runoff results were:

Hindenburg 53.0 percent
Hitler 36.8 percent
Thaelmann 10.2 percent

Political deadlocks in the Reichstag soon brought a new election, this one in November 6, 1932. In that election, the Nazis lost two million votes and 34 seats. Thus, even though the National Socialist Party was still the largest political party, it had clearly lost ground among the voters.
On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power. With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task.
So if we say democraticaly elected it would be the same as PB winning in a run off and then declaring hIMself King.... oh He did.

[garinda]

Yes but he gained enough democratically gained seats in the Reichstag to seize power, a little like PB.

Hope you haven't been having sleepless nights about this.