Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an issue that I have disagreed with fellow liberals about because I think such an organization would be a good idea. If we formed a LOD, that does not mean that we are abandoning the United Nations. It just means that like minded nations that value freedom and democracy can form an organization to discuss issues and make policy without having the listen to the tirades of tin horn dictators and de facto religious nutcase heads of states. I don't know why people would oppose that.
When did liberals start believing in freedom and democracy?
It would not be either racist or elitist. Any democracy that values human rights would be invited to be a member. Iraq is a democracy now so it would be in. Jamaica is a democracy so it would be in too.
I didn't say it WOULD be; I said it would be PERCIEVED to be. As I said, I think it's a perfectly fine idea..I just don't think it would be 'kindly recieved'. In effect, when you set up a "League of Democracies", you're inferring that others..(those who aren't invited) are NOT democracies...and NOBODY'S going to take THAT lying down.
It would be like trying to set up a "League of Honest, Hardworking, Productive Citizens". Good idea, but try convincing those who didn't qualify...see what THEY'D say. I can guarantee you, there'd be an outcry.
Originally posted by Kevk
This is an issue that I have disagreed with fellow liberals about because I think such an organization would be a good idea. If we formed a LOD, that does not mean that we are abandoning the United Nations. It just means that like minded nations that value freedom and democracy can form an organization to discuss issues and make policy without having the listen to the tirades of tin horn dictators and de facto religious nutcase heads of states. I don't know why people would oppose that.
I agree with you Kev. Sometimes I think the U.N. is a little too accommodating toward states that abuse human rights and freedom. I can understand why, but I think a league of Democracies, (and most leading nations of the world are Democracies) would be a good idea to present a unified force for freedom around the world.
Don't know how good it'd be in real life, but it sounds good on paper at least.
"Neutral" in regard to what, exactly? The Cold War is over. So is World War II. So Switzerland is neutral...so what? If I'm not mistaken, so is Sweden. Do you compare these places with the USA? These places (if they can even be CALLED neutral anymore) are more-or-less 'squeezed' between big, powerful neighbors. NONE of their neighbors wants them invaded by their OTHER neighbors, so effectively, they 'cancel each other out'.
The US is in a far different position. We're not surrounded by 'bigger, more powerful neighbors'. We're surrounded by TWO neighbors...one of whom is mostly 'empty space', and has NO interest in "defending" us,.... and the other, which is APPARENTLY in the process, (as we speak) of loudly and regularly insisting on the inherent right of ITS citizens to cross our border and LIVE HERE.
That's a WHOLE lot different than Switzerland, Sweden, or any other supposedly "neutral" place. Neutral places are "allowed" to exist by the balance of powerful, competing neighbors. Take away that balance, and how long do you think these places would be 'left alone'?
Your argument fails. Not even Hitler invaded Switzerland. A gun in each home, literally. That was the approach our founders wanted to take to ensure a strong defense while staying out of others' affairs: the original MIlitia Acts required all able bodied males to own firearms and ammunition, and of course Washington famously warned against foreign entanglements...if it weren't for meddling in European affairs in WWI we wouldn't be in this situation where we're nearly forced into the corner to be the world's "policeman." Neutral doesn't mean weak, it means we mind our own business...
I'll go for that. We can call it the LNN - League of Nonchalant Nations or better, the MOOBN - Mind Our Own Business Nations.
I vote for that. We need to get along with everyone in the world, not just the nice guys.
As to the OP, democracy and freedom are NOT the same thing, not at all, and they are VERY OFTEN conflicting "values" within a society.
We have a very powerful judiciary in this country that frequently overturns democratically-enacted laws. I'm glad we do, even if I disagree with them about this or that decision. How does that fact fit into your scheme. Does a country have to be both liberal and democratic to join the LoD? What if it's only much more liberal than democratic or much more democratic than liberal?
Washington famously warned against foreign entanglements...if it weren't for meddling in European affairs in WWI we wouldn't be in this situation where we're nearly forced into the corner to be the world's "policeman." Neutral doesn't mean weak, it means we mind our own business...
QFT. A lot of the more intervention-minded liberals seem to think minding our own business is a mark of grave immorality, however.
I just don't think it would be 'kindly recieved'. In effect, when you set up a "League of Democracies", you're inferring that others..(those who aren't invited) are NOT democracies...and NOBODY'S going to take THAT lying down.
Not necessarily. Nations that aren't democracies probably aren't going to care what anyone else thinks of them. If anything, a League of Democracies would probably inspire them to form their own "league." All of these leagues would wind up undercutting the UN, and eventually, the only thing you'd be able to take for granted is that with all the different leagues, there wouldn't be a World Series!
(1) The ONLY way a rich and affluent nation can make sure it has no enemies, is to become poor, weak, powerless, and irrelevant. THEN you don't have enemies, because you have nothing anyone wants.
(2) The other point is, what POSSIBLE connection does your post have with the formation of a "League of Democracies", anyway? "Leagues" are 'meddling'?...If that's your point, it isn't clear.
1. So countries like Switzerland are weak, powerless and irrelevant?
2. Simply, league of democracies is unnecessary. Next thing you know, democratic nation a, is telling democratic nation b what to do. Kind of like the european union...
Your argument fails. Not even Hitler invaded Switzerland. A gun in each home, literally. That was the approach our founders wanted to take to ensure a strong defense while staying out of others' affairs: the original MIlitia Acts required all able bodied males to own firearms and ammunition, and of course Washington famously warned against foreign entanglements...if it weren't for meddling in European affairs in WWI we wouldn't be in this situation where we're nearly forced into the corner to be the world's "policeman." Neutral doesn't mean weak, it means we mind our own business...
OK, my argument fails. So be it. If you think we're like Switzerland; if you think we're all willing to do the civic duties to America that the Swiss do for Switzerland; if you think we're ready to do mandatory miltary training, and that WE (and I mean every ONE of us) could keep a gun in our home, and never USE it except on a foreign invader, then OK, we're like Switzerland. Let's give up our Navy and close our ports (after all, Switzerland has no ports, OR coastline...right?) Let's close off our southern border (after all, Switzerland borders ONLY on affluent, first-world nations...right?). Let's give up Alaska and Hawaii (Switzerland is all in "one piece", right?)....and lets get rid of our native-born racial minorities AND our inner-city ghettos (After all, the only minorities in Switzerland are the immigrants...and Switzerland HAS no poverty, and no illiteracy..right?).
OK, you've convince me...we're just like Switzerland, and there's no reason for any foreign 'entanglements'. Bring home the troops...LET'S BE NEUTRAL !!
Makes sense to ME, alright !....
PS...I know my argument fails, but one more thing...Hitler didn't invade Switzerland, because he was deeply entangled in a war at the time. Had he WON that war, I'm not too sure how much credence he'd have given to Swiss neutrality. Something tells me he MIGHT have decided to invade it anyway, had he had the chance later.
1. So countries like Switzerland are weak, powerless and irrelevant?...
Of course not; Switzerland is a world power..EVERYONE knows that ! Makes one hell of a chocolate, too!....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
