Ukrainian Government Acknowledges that Some of Its Leaders Are Nazis

a reply to: DJW001

Can you give us an example of a political system that does not imply a 'ranking of power' among political representatives ?

A republic has its President, a government its prime minister, a senate its chairman, a city council its mayor ...
There is a leader because the purpose of democracy is to elect one.

EDIT : Do I need to mention that Hitler was democratically elected ?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Can you give us an example of a political system that does not imply a 'ranking of power' among political representatives ?

No, because humans naturally establish hierarchies of dominance. The ideal society seeks to prevent the abuse of individual power.

A republic has its President, a government its prime minister, a senate its chairman, a city council its mayor ...
There is a leader because the purpose of democracy is to elect one.

No. The purpose of a democracy is to give people a voice in the way they are governed. In liberal democratic republics the legislators and executive officers have their powers limited by a set of checks and balances. In a fascist state, like Nazi Germany or Putin's Russia, there is no check on the power of the Leader.

EDIT : Do I need to mention that Hitler was democratically elected ?

This is a myth. He was elected Chancellor but proclaimed himself Fuehrer.

a reply to: DJW001

The þing could have been an answer ... but there too is a hierarchy. And the purpose of all selection process is to establish that hierarchy.
I guess it's more civilized to do it through voting than fist fight.

Once the leaders are chosen, are they responsible of their own actions or can they discharge themselves of their responsibilities upon those who elected them ?

"Some" lol.
Show me a "leader" that's NOT.
AND I proved the OP right 7 pages back so what are you talking about?
Can't be bothered to check lol

a reply to: KAOStheory

Your last post proved him right?? How's that??

1 battalion of fascist volunteers does not constitute any leadership of ht government!!

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: KAOStheory

Your last post proved him right?? How's that??

1 battalion of fascist volunteers does not constitute any leadership of ht government!!

yknow, only one thing is more annoying than repeating oneself, and that is being requested to do so in TEXT, which is already there, but ignored, then demanded to repeated. So, here ya go, you lazy, ignorant you-know-whats.

en.wikipedia.org...

art-for-a-change.com...

Good lord your google is broken! call your service provider you poor thing.
Tell them that you can't type a sentence and get a result. That must suck.
OR, did you just not bother? OH, nevermind.
Deny ignance indeed. As always here. Sheesh.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You do not understand how civil society works, do you? The hierarchies that exist in a liberal democratic society are psycho-social, not political. Constitutional government is designed to level out social power structures, not establish them.

a reply to: DJW001

I can recognize when something fits a particular definition ...
Now I'm not a fascist theoretician like some ...

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: DJW001

I can recognize when something fits a particular definition ...
Now I'm not a fascist theoretician like some ...

Please be more specific: what fits what definition? If you're talking about Fascism you need to define what you mean by the term. My experience here on ATS suggests that most fascists are offended by the term that best describes their political views.

a reply to: DJW001

originally posted by: DJW001
So much for freedom of expression and developing consensus through discussion. As for knowing nothing about fascism, why don't you correct me here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The correction was delivered 26 days ago ... pending reply from the thread owner.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

What's the point of having terms that say "Talk about disagreements" and then having one party unilaterally...and not even formally....saying the other has broken the treaty and they no longer hold to it?? I believe it is certainly possible for one or both parties to exit the treaty - they can do this on their own behalf regardless of what the treaty says........but then that still does not "justify" invasion.

So you are saying that one of the parties effectively broke the treaty and the other invaded?

So the Russian Federation agrees to never try to economically pressure Ukraine..........

It agrees to never engage in economic coercion that violates Ukraine's rights as a sovereign state.


So what did Russia actually do that you are refering to, that violates this article of that agreement(not a treaty), and when did this happen?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

No, you were attempting to derail the thread with anti-semitic propaganda. Thank you for illustrating one of my points.

a reply to: YouPeople

It agrees to never engage in economic coercion that violates Ukraine's rights as a sovereign state.


So what did Russia actually do that you are refering to, that violates this article of that agreement(not a treaty), and when did this happen?

Can you honestly not see how sending armed troops onto Ukrainian soil and demanding that Ukrainian troops surrender is not a violation of national sovereignty?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Ukraine is not joining the EU

Wow, you really haven't been paying attention.

After 21 March 2014 matters relating to trade integration were temporarily set aside (awaiting the results of the 25 May 2014 Ukrainian presidential elections) until the European Union and the new Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed the economic part of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement on 27 June 2014,[2] and described this as Ukraine's "first but most decisive step" towards EU membership.[

The Ukranian president sure seems to think they are joining. Sure seems they are in the process of changing into an EU member too.

The agreement commits Ukraine to economic, judicial, and financial reforms to converge its policies and legislation to those of the European Union. Ukraine committed to gradually conform to EU technical and consumer standards.[5] The EU agreed to provide Ukraine with political and financial support, access to research and knowledge, and preferential access to EU markets

en.wikipedia.org...

the EU is not actually a military pact

Well, I was refering to this,

The agreement commits both parties to promote a gradual convergence toward the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy and European Defence Agency policies.

Whatever rationale you think you are using is so unintelligible to me as to be gobbledygook now

That's ok, I'll explain later.

a reply to: DJW001

Can you honestly not see how sending armed troops onto Ukrainian soil and demanding that Ukrainian troops surrender is not a violation of national sovereignty?

Please don't jump in if you are ignorant of the proper context. He said Russia broke article 3 of that agreement. I responded to that.

I think that agreement was rendered worthless when a coup was setup btw.

a reply to: YouPeople

And what coup would that be? The one where Russia bought Ukraine's government for the sum of $15 billion?

a reply to: YouPeople

I think that agreement was rendered worthless when a coup was setup btw.

You mean when the head of state defected to Russia, forcing the government to reform? Agreed. Russia broke the agreement when they started bribing Yanukovych.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: DJW001

originally posted by: DJW001
So much for freedom of expression and developing consensus through discussion. As for knowing nothing about fascism, why don't you correct me here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The correction was delivered 26 days ago ... pending reply from the thread owner.

Here you go... corrected:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: YouPeople

And what coup would that be? The one where Russia bought Ukraine's government for the sum of $15 billion?

They bought the government for 15 billion? Can you back this claim up?