Get your very own Lenin statue for only $300! - Mongolian capital's historical statue for sale - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Bobie;38046064]what certain people?[/QUOTE] People who would harm others if they aren't killed or otherwise neutralized

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;38046087]People who would harm others if they aren't killed or otherwise neutralized[/QUOTE] and what situation in history has this been justified in

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38046068]Yea, those sub-human Japanese civilians just deserved to be slaughtered, didn't they?[/QUOTE] No they didn't. I never said anything about killing civilians, only dangerous people like Breivik or something

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;38046107]No they didn't. I never said anything about killing civilians, only dangerous people like Breivik or something[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the firebombings and use of nuclear weaponry in Japan, not Breivik(where the fuck did that come from anyways?).

[QUOTE=Bobie;38046105]and what situation in history has this been justified in[/QUOTE] Historical examples are irrelevant

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;38046125]Historical examples are irrelevant[/QUOTE] it would help me to understand your argument a little better. give me a hypothetical example in which pre-emptive execution is justified

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38046123]I'm talking about the firebombings and use of nuclear weaponry in Japan, not Breivik(where the fuck did that come from anyways?).[/QUOTE] And I'm talking about the fact that if killing a dangerous man would save 5, then it's entirely justified. Where the fuck did this discussion come from anyways, this is a thread about a goddamn Lenin statue

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;38046140]And I'm talking about the fact that if killing a dangerous man would save 5, then it's entirely justified. [/QUOTE] No one here is talking about what you are

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38036439]And by that logic every head of state is a murderer.[/QUOTE] nope. they're indirectly killers, not necessarily murderers. states do have to utilize violence, it's just a question of whether it's viewed as legal and legitimate violence or not. If it isn't (such as the case is for technical genocide like the indirect murdering done by lenin) then it is considered murder. Additionally, a head of state can only be held accountable if they make no efforts to combat impunity in their government - ie, if a head of state gives the order to the judicial system to try and punish violators of international humanitarian / human rights law, as long as the HOS did not order said violation themselves, they're generally absolved. you need to be complicit and benefit from the violence to be considered legally liable. [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Vodkavia;38037331]Well if the killing of a person is legal under the state, it's not murder at all.[/QUOTE] also false, all states have customary obligation not to murder people extrajudicially or in crimes of agression

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;38048503]nope. they're indirectly killers, not necessarily murderers. states do have to utilize violence, it's just a question of whether it's viewed as legal and legitimate violence or not. If it isn't (such as the case is for technical genocide like the indirect murdering done by lenin) then it is considered murder. [/QUOTE] This sounds like an incredibly convoluted way of saying "Well, if we don't see it as murder, it isn't murder." This is an attitude that absolves the USA and the West of a lot of incidences of what would otherwise be murder if committed by another nation. [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] And the legal definition of murder isn't necessarily what we are talking about. I don't view the use of nuclear weapons as legitimate violence, it is murder in my eyes. Obviously no one has been prosecuted for the use of nuclear weapons in 1945, but I still believe that it was an atrocity.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38048606]This sounds like an incredibly convoluted way of saying "Well, if we don't see it as murder, it isn't murder." This is an attitude that absolves the USA and the West of a lot of incidences of what would otherwise be murder if committed by another nation. [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] And the legal definition of murder isn't necessarily what we are talking about. I don't view the use of nuclear weapons as legitimate violence, it is murder in my eyes. Obviously no one has been prosecuted for the use of nuclear weapons in 1945, but I still believe that it was an atrocity.[/QUOTE] i'd advise against getting too into this because i know much more about it than you (don't take this as an insult), take this very simple graph to illustrate that the "we" we're talking about is basically the whole world (minus states in gray. light green are signatories, dark green are ratified) [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/ICCPR-members.PNG[/img] [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] saudi arabia hasn't signed the legislation because they don't like the shit about freedom of religion, same for UAE & Oman & Yemen (also because of Arabian pressures) idk why morocco hasn't signed in i kinda want to know why now (edit: oops i guess that isn't COMPLETELY moroccan territory, very ambiguous)

I don't get what you are trying to say. A lot of those green nations are also nations that murder their own people.

oh and you're totally right the use of nuclear weapons is completely a war crime that breaks so much humanitarian law it's not even funny lmao the whole set of nuremberg trials was a complete farce, totally victors justice. violated a bunch of customary law at the time (solitary confinement, refusal to recognize offenders' rank, lack of due process, etc) it's not even a question. the allies just needed to create one cohesive narrative for the future that defined the actions taken by the nazis as evil and unacceptable, while their holding hands with the devil as a necessary evil. this wouldn't fly in present day lmao [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;38048761]I don't get what you are trying to say. A lot of those green nations are also nations that murder their own people.[/QUOTE] combating the notion that international law and definition of murder is a "western imperial" ideal. it's not and it's a bit silly to accuse it of such

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;38048786] combating the notion that international law and definition of murder is a "western imperial" ideal. it's not and it's a bit silly to accuse it of such[/QUOTE] I would call it less silly considering the USA openly deals with nations that act against their own populace(Saudi Arabia, DRC, Yemen). International law is not just "western imperial" by definition, but it is generally enforced only when it would prove useful to the west in some way. It's a bit of a double standard.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38048846]I would call it less silly considering the USA openly deals with nations that act against their own populace(Saudi Arabia, DRC, Yemen). International law is not just "western imperial" by definition, but it is generally enforced only when it would prove useful to the west in some way. It's a bit of a double standard.[/QUOTE] that's not entirely accurate. many of the cases in the ICJ deal are with western powers actually, because they're on the whole significantly more accountable. and the reason that you see more intervention and public accusation of violators of international human rights law in subsaharan & north africa and asia is that (believe it or not) they violate the law significantly more than any western power and lack the domestic remedies to deal with it and if you think that us officials don't call out those powers for violating international norms & law [url=http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/]you're 100% wrong[/url]

Use it as a scare crow.

additionally you actually do a disservice to people on the ground by not interacting with a state. it was pretty popular back in the carter years to think that by giving less money you encourage a state to improve its human rights situation, but it's actually the opposite. without that money states have less ability to respect people's rights, because it actually costs a fair amount of money to do so. courts are expensive, especially when I can just use a bullet. if we up and left Saudi Arabia it'd probably be so much worse, as it is now, they have accountability to the international community to not completely fuck up their population. [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] this conversation might be a bit too serious in a thread concerning the purchasing of a lenin statue but wHATEVER

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;38048975]that's not entirely accurate. many of the cases in the ICJ deal are with western powers actually, because they're on the whole significantly more accountable. and the reason that you see more intervention and public accusation of violators of international human rights law in subsaharan & north africa and asia is that (believe it or not) they violate the law significantly more than any western power and lack the domestic remedies to deal with it and if you think that us officials don't call out those powers for violating international norms & law [url=http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/]you're 100% wrong[/url][/QUOTE] My point is that the USA and west deal with nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, nations that were known to oppress and murder their own people, but then countries like Iran and leaders like Lenin are denounced as murderous. I'm talking about a very clear double standard, that as long as the nation plays ball with the west it is free to continue the oppression of its people to a great extent. [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BrickInHead;38049027]additionally you actually do a disservice to people on the ground by not interacting with a state. it was pretty popular back in the carter years to think that by giving less money you encourage a state to improve its human rights situation, but it's actually the opposite. without that money states have less ability to respect people's rights, because it actually costs a fair amount of money to do so. courts are expensive, especially when I can just use a bullet. if we up and left Saudi Arabia it'd probably be so much worse, as it is now, they have accountability to the international community to not completely fuck up their population. [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] this conversation might be a bit too serious in a thread concerning the purchasing of a lenin statue but wHATEVER[/QUOTE] So it's alright to isolate Iran, but it is not alright to isolate Saudi Arabia?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38049078]My point is that the USA and west deal with nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, nations that were known to oppress and murder their own people, but then countries like Iran and leaders like Lenin are denounced as murderous. I'm talking about a very clear double standard, that as long as the nation plays ball with the west it is free to continue the oppression of its people to a great extent.[/QUOTE] did you go to the link? because it shows you there that we actually do call them out. pretty extensively. obviously not as publicly as Iran, because saudi arabia, egypt, and Libya don't really have any sort of impetus to cause widespread international conflict like Iran is talking about right now. and most of the time we're not talking about iran's human rights violations or murder, we're talking about preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons because we know how destabilizing they can be. [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;38049078]So it's alright to isolate Iran, but it is not alright to isolate Saudi Arabia?[/QUOTE] when did i even come close to implying that? [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] bbl off to class

[QUOTE=Bobie;38035703]lenin is a murderer now?[/QUOTE] Yeah. Understandable that people don't know this since that fucking Stalin just pushing the murder meter into a whole new level.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;38049027]additionally you actually do a disservice to people on the ground by not interacting with a state. it was pretty popular back in the carter years to think that by giving less money you encourage a state to improve its human rights situation, but it's actually the opposite. without that money states have less ability to respect people's rights, because it actually costs a fair amount of money to do so. courts are expensive, especially when I can just use a bullet. if we up and left Saudi Arabia it'd probably be so much worse, as it is now, they have accountability to the international community to not completely fuck up their population. [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] this conversation might be a bit too serious in a thread concerning the purchasing of a lenin statue but wHATEVER[/QUOTE] In the old days we'd just send a gunboat.

hey guys lets stop discussing whether vlad lenin killed people or not and instead put together a budgetplan on how to buy this swagalicious statue

He's a 'murderer' yet Ghengis khan's statue remains. I think we know the real reason it was taken down.

[QUOTE=Conscript;38054118]He's a 'murderer' yet Ghengis khan's statue remains. I think we know the real reason it was taken down.[/QUOTE] Well old Genghis is the direct ancestor of a large fraction of Mongolia's population, there's the sentimental aspect.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38056879]Well old Genghis is the direct ancestor of a large fraction of Mongolia's population, there's the sentimental aspect.[/QUOTE] So much for the murder-o-meter. Now it's as laughable and ridiculous as a state opposing something because it's related to violence. What about 'mongolian sentiment' to other things communist, like a city named after a very pro-stalin leader (choibalsan) and a statue of him in front of the main university, or the capital being named Ulaanbaatar, which was given by communists and means 'red hero'. Are these bad or good things in your book?

[QUOTE=Conscript;38059909]So much for the murder-o-meter. Now it's as laughable and ridiculous as a state opposing something because it's related to violence.[/quote] It's nationalism, plain and simple. Genghis is revered in the same way that Napoleon, Caesar and Alexander the Great are revered in their respective countries. [quote]What about 'mongolian sentiment' to other things communist, like a city named after a very pro-stalin leader (choibalsan) and a statue of him in front of the main university, or the capital being named Ulaanbaatar, which was given by communists and means 'red hero'. Are these bad or good things in your book?[/QUOTE] I'm not Mongolian, but yeah I think they're bad things. Remember that they're selling this statue to raise quick money though, it would be expensive to change all the road signs and things.