Growing similarities between the USSR and USA (As told to me by 2 former Soviets)

[Sunseeker]

No, it can't. It can refuse to abide by it, but that doesn't mean it can't be forced to. International law typically applies only to pretty major situations, not minor personal matters, but I can guarantee that Iraq never agreed to constant inspections post-Gulf-War. It couldn't just "opt out", and when they tried to, it sparked the Iraq War.

Just to pick an obvious recent example.

No, a sovereign nation has the right to neither ratify nor sign any treaty. A nation cannot be governed by a law it does not consent to be governed under.

Iraq agreed to the laws, but then didn't follow them. If it had never agreed, it would never be subject.

[Deleted]

What if there were no police at all, and nobody ever did anything bad?

Why are we talking in pointless hypotheticals that have no basis in reality?

Because that hypothetical was a reality for most of human history. People just take their freedom and rights for granted.

Whoever is in charge can make the laws if no one has the power to stop them.

Democracy is always "tyranny of the majority". Because, again, the only alternatives are "tyranny of the minority".

"Tyranny" is a biased and ridiculous word to use, though, because having your vote overruled by the majority does not mean you're being oppressed by some tyrannical force.

Leaders can be replaced, and people can learn from their mistakes and vote to change course.

Pure democracy is a terrible form of government partly because the majority will always vote for other people's money until no one has any left.

[tru]

watch the end of " the dictator " when he gives the speach at that meeting or w/e that pretty much sums it up

[Felya]

http://www.davno.ru/assets/images/posters/propaganda/big/poster-10.jpg

This is where I disagree.

This one is the one that resonates the most:

http://danamellerio.files.wordpress....re-blog-21.jpg (image too large, just click, work safe)

I took the image from this site, has a little story of him looking for it:
http://danamellerio.wordpress.com/20...ve-farm-woman/

[Kasierith]

No, a sovereign nation has the right to neither ratify nor sign any treaty. A nation cannot be governed by a law it does not consent to be governed under.

Iraq agreed to the laws, but then didn't follow them. If it had never agreed, it would never be subject.

What he means is that while a nation can ignore international law, it can still be held responsible for doing so. Once you get into that area, it isn't a matter of international sovereignty; it's a matter of might means right. Georgia (the country) ignored international law and attacked Russia, and was held accountable for its actions by a retaliatory occupation, for another example.

As for not agreeing... kind of. It still goes into the might equals right area. It's hard to hold the US accountable for anything, but if the US wants something signed, and this tiny country is completely dependent on US aid... you can bet that the country is going to sign onto the bill unless it is completely disastrous for them, or they'll have something to talk to the US ambassador about. It's a bit dirty, but it is how the US operates on the international level.

[Felya]

I would like for you to explain to me how using a quote about a Government violating people's rights and arresting them for their opinions is any different when there is a different opinion being used. It still has the same meaning.

You do not see a distinction between that basis being communist or later versions Jews versus terrorist? This would be true if it was Muslims and not terrorist. This is why I speak out when ever anyone asserts Muslims are terrorist.

My opinion is so prevalent because of most of our rights being violated, abused, and completely disregarded. My opinion is prevalent because it is based of fact. The steps needed to be taken to become a Tyrannical Government have already been taken. Luckily, I can say and try and do something about it, which I will try to do. However, it may be too late to really make a big enough impact. And when you think about it, that's basically what the quote is about.

Your opinion is so prevalent, because your rights are not being trampled on. The fact that this opinion is prevalent, should be the clearest indication possible that we are not becoming tyrannical. The crux of everything that happened in USSR, is it made sure people like you did not exist. I do mean this as a complement, even if I disagree with the opinion I am complementing.

---------- Post added 2013-05-18 at 11:57 PM ----------

If anyone is interested in more talking points for US turning into USSR. You can read this to find more:

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascis.../dp/0767917189

If you read the above, you can be almost clairvoyant when watching/reading/listening to our popular political doomsday prophets.

[Sunseeker]

What he means is that while a nation can ignore international law, it can still be held responsible for doing so. Once you get into that area, it isn't a matter of international sovereignty; it's a matter of might means right. Georgia (the country) ignored international law and attacked Russia, and was held accountable for its actions by a retaliatory occupation, for another example.

Except....Georgia is a signer on numerous international laws. What most people forget is that Georgia had SUPPORT from most of the international community, even when their government was doing horrible, evil things to it's own people. There was international outrage over Russia's defense of South Ossetia and what were then officially Russian citizens and INTERNATIONAL LAW should have recognized Georgia as egregiously in violation of, should have had international support FOR Russia....but no, there was no coalition, there was no international support for Russia or the South Ossetians.

As for not agreeing... kind of. It still goes into the might equals right area. It's hard to hold the US accountable for anything, but if the US wants something signed, and this tiny country is completely dependent on US aid... you can bet that the country is going to sign onto the bill unless it is completely disastrous for them, or they'll have something to talk to the US ambassador about. It's a bit dirty, but it is how the US operates on the international level.

If might makes right, then law means nothing. We don't need laws if we can simply kill anyone who holds a different opinion than us.

[Kasierith]

Except you're wrong. What Georgia signed was international agreements to do certain things within their own borders. Russia's violation of Georgia's territorial integrity is a much more egregious breach of international law than whatever "horrible evil things" you think Georgia did to its own people. Even if it is true (I have no idea) International Law is principally concerned with regulating the interactions between states and governments, not between governments and their own people.

Georgia launched military strikes against Russian peacekeepers. It was a retaliatory strike, and therefore well within the bounds of international laws.

[GreatOak]

Seems like the jellyfish had a profound epiphany

[Kasierith]

If might makes right, then law means nothing. We don't need laws if we can simply kill anyone who holds a different opinion than us.

I understand what you mean, and I agree with you in a sense... but how else do you really think you'll work around international sovereignty?

And I am also referring to right makes right in the sense of economic or political clout, not just military.

[Sunseeker]

Except you're wrong. What Georgia signed was international agreements to do certain things within their own borders. Russia's violation of Georgia's territorial integrity is a much more egregious breach of international law than whatever "horrible evil things" you think Georgia did to its own people. Even if it is true (I have no idea) International Law is principally concerned with regulating the interactions between states and governments, not between governments and their own people.

I don't think I have to imagine that Georgia decided to bomb it's own people until they submitted to Georgian rule(which frankly sucked and their leader was a known dictator.), S Ossetia had declared it's desire to be independent, and Russia was already making them citizens. Legally Russia was in it's rights to grant their citizenship request, which made Tiblisi's actions an international incident.

[Sunseeker]

They launched an artillery strike. IIRC that was in retaliation to the attack by Ossetian military. An unwarranted attack under international law, to be sure, but you are blowing it rather out of proportions.

Ossetian military? What military would that be? The Russian peacekeepers?

[Cybran]

I'm not going to criticize this like the couple before me tried to, because you're entirely correct. If you have an issue with how Americans are voting, the blame for that lies with the American voter. If they wanted to, they could vote for the little guy, rather than anyone in the Democratic or Republican parties. They choose not to. That's not a breach of democratic ideals, it's the culmination of them. It isn't corporations to blame. It isn't money. It's the will of the people. You may think the people are too easily led by money, through the power of campaign ads and the like, but again, that is the fault of the people. Not those making the ads.

You might not like how the majority vote, but that's too bad. That's democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/wo...hout.html?_r=0

You ignore the point we were making. The problem isn't the people's political views, but the intentions of politicians. We are used to hearing about corruption in Eastern and Southern europe, but the recent scandal in Germany shows that politicians everywhere are prone to corruption.

Also there is also the problem with conformist voters that are afraid of wasting their vote. They chose to play it safe and keep voting for the bigger parties despite them not representing him.

Still you are correct. The biggest problem is that people rely on ads to tell them who they should vote for instead of using their own head.