We dont want war with Iran. We dont need wars or mass violence of any kind. We need a non violent world.

My first step suggestion is that international law should outlaw violence in every situation, with very limited exceptions - reasonable and immediate self defence & reasonable police measures, providing the force used is proportionate. This new world law should apply to every person, group and government, no opting out, a peremptory norm of law. It should extend from the purely domestic level to the international level, of superior force to every other law.

From this measure, the necessary machinery can be established by international agreement to enforce the law & prevent further violence anywhere in the world, also to mediate or adjudicate on claims of violence in breach of the law.

We particularly do not need a war with Iran. Iran was once the centre of world civilization & Zoroastrianism. It has a great culture going way back. Think of the poetry of Hafiz & Sadi. It has many educated & civilised people in Iran & in the Diaspora. It is now in an unhealthy state & needs to come back into the family of nations, international law and fundamental human rights so that it can be a responsible and fully participating member of the global community. It requires an adjustment of governmental attitudes, a more peaceable and tolerant approach and some vision. This can be done to the benefit of all Iranians. Diplomacy is not enough. Threats of violence will not do this. It needs some common sense by its leaders & understanding by others. The leaders have to be persuaded that Iran's best interests are to rejoin the world community & become an active part in making the world a better place. We must not attack Shi'i Muslim religion, as this is in its pure form a great religion to be respected. Iran & the Farsi language have a great future. Iran will become a world leader again. But a war will put this back & lead to much suffering, both in Iran & elsewhere.

This was why the United nations was formed after world war two. It was hoped that countries would combine to outlaw war, but the globe is made up of so many conflicting cultures and ambitions and attitudes and religions, with democracies and dictatorships, it makes it very tribal. So what to us seems a simple solution in theory has proved to be almost impossible to achieve in practice. Listen to the speakers in the General Assembly and it illustrates how far apart we all are. We can't even agree about what is to be done in Syria.

GR: We dont need wars or mass violence of any kind. We need a non violent world.

I, for one, couldn't agree more.

GR: My first step suggestion is that international law should outlaw violence in every situation, etc,

Somewhat nieve, but a sensible suggestion never-the-less. I would hope that this suggestion would apply to the Islamic agressors not just the West.

GR: This new world law should apply to every person, group and government, no opting out,

How are you going to get the thousands of Islamic groups to agree to this. Oh, & the Yanks, who only like to recognize their own soventry.

Wait a minute... Hasn't this already been done to some extent. There is a World Law Court. Each Country has exceptions they won't agree to. eg; The Yanks won't agree to one of their citizens being dealt with by any body but their own Law Courts & the miriad of Islamic Terrorist Groups can't be contacted. Eg; Bin Laden. The Russians still hate the Yanks & their attitude is, "What ever you're for we're against." The Chinese haven't changed their position on the world for two & a half thousand years. China is the centre of the World so every Country must Kowtow to China.

RG, this is a great idea in theory mate but, unworkable, unfortunatly. Unless you can suggest some way that every country can be persuaded to act in a responsible manner. I ain't gonna happen.

GR you are falling into the old trap, rightly you say:
" We need a non violent world. My first step suggestion is that international law should outlaw violence in every situation."
But then you go on to say "with very limited exceptions - reasonable and immediate self defence & reasonable police measures, providing the force used is proportionate." Now all wars and violent acts are justified. Country A justified their invasion of country B, as country B was being unreasonable with their oil embargo on country A. The police had to open fire on those protesters in the city square, they were getting out of hand, the police said the situation required reasonable police action.
You can not have a universal law, and then qualify it with a series of exceptions. All actions will be justified by these exceptions. On another thread I was asked if it was justified in killing Hitler on the grounds of his evilness, I answered no, why because I thought he was a 'good bloke' no he was an evil b. My reason was once you justify the killing of Hitler, you then justify the killing of Himmler, another evil b, then Goering another evil b, next thing is you justify killing 20 million people on the grounds they are all evil b's.(p/s I know Hitler, Himmler and Goering all committed suicide,) For that post I was accused of being pro NAZI. They could have asked me if the Romans were justified in killing Christ, the answer would still be no. I see no case for the deliberate killing of another human being, be it murder or state sanctioned murder, its all murder.

The world is doing its best with diplomacy. We can't have a country with a dictatorial govt; with WMD.
So far diplomacy has failed.

There will be an anti-war protest on this Saturday 24th March outside the Sydney Town Hall at 12:00 noon.

The way to stop wars is to have a proper constitution which Obama has trashed.Congress is up in arms because Obama now says he does no need their approval to expand the wars.Obama is taking his orders from the UN and NATO.This is their world Govt in action controlled by the financial elites.

I don't think they will attack Iran yet.The more pressing issues are containing China in Africa.The want to invade Sudan and Uganda to starve China of energy.

Thanks you for the comments so far. I am not sure that they have directly answered the point I am making. I do not suggest that violence will disappear just because there is a new international law outlawing violence at ever level. All that I am suggesting at this stage is to get the various interested parties to agree that we want a violence free world, that this is absolutely vital for human society to survive and prosper, that all disputes should be settled by non-violent means, and that this understanding should be put into comprehensive law, with limited exceptions and with superior effect at every level. This is achievable in the 21st century. At the moment there are various legal constraints on the use of violence at various levels, domestic, regional and international, but no comprehensive ban at every level applicable to everyone. Even the United Nations Charter is not comprehensive at the international level. It needs a clear statement of non violence (not just force or the threat of force involving member states except in self-defence), with new definitions of the permissable exceptions, and with the extension of the ban to every aspect of society, individuals, groups, all states and other national, regional and international institutions. My view is that the mere existence of a comprehensive legal ban will provide the necessary impetus for the effective implementation of the ban over time and the provision of the necessary machinery for this purpose. But this will take time. The greatest thing we can leave to our children is the vision of a non violent world.

Welcome GR I have always found views such as yours extreme.
Nice but both extreme and unrealistic.
I think almost every human wants peace, no wars ever.
But if every current world power disarmed, totally,war would be the only result.
In away armed forces and arms stop wars, it can be said both sides know even winners suffer.
Hence, so far no Nuclear war after the end of ww2.
Would you take the locks off your home and car?

Belly,

It's sometimes necessary for our intelligent species to occasionally ponder its higher self, especially as we are so capable of cold-blooded savagery on our own kind.

However, I'm beginning to agree with the biologist, Ernst Mayr, who considered that homo sapiens might have been a "biological mistake."

Arjay: The way to stop wars is to have a proper constitution which Obama has trashed.

? Obama has trashed. Obama can't do anything without the approval of the American Senate. Even if he "orders" it. If my memory serves me correctly, Obama's Party doesn't have control of the Senate. I may be wrong.

The world seen through the eyes of the Radical Greenies & the Politicaly Correct. Then goaded on by the very people who take advantage of their naivety. The very people who would do anything not to be held accountable in a World Court.

Ahhh... Isn't the World a wondeful place. All sweetness & light. Let put on our Rose coloured glasses & all go sit in the corner & say, "Ommmmmm......" After, we'll have a rousing chorus of, "Kumbyah"

It's a lovely thought & I wish it could be like that, but it isn't & we have to accept that fact.

Just recently one of the African Leaders said that Wars in Africa were nessesary to keep the population small enough to be able to feed the people. I forget which one said it.

Considering all the sabre-rattling going on it seems that some sort of conflict will be inevitable.

It seems we have seen this all before.

Before Kuwait was liberated, we saw the nurse addressing the UN about how invading Iraqi soldiers left babies on the concrete hospital floor and stole their humidicribs.

Before Afghanistan was invaded we saw no less than US Secretary-of-State Colin Powell solemnly displaying artists impressions of Bin Ladens hollowed-out air-conditioned mountain fortresses, complete with elevators and missile silos.

As for Iraq, as well as the alleged WMDs, we were told about Saddams's people shredder and mobile chemical labs plus countless other atrocities and threats to world peace.

Years before, even Granada was building runways for bombers and potentially holding US agricultural students as hostages with contrived satellite images and heresay evidence to heighten the threat.

As well as being precursors to invasions, all these things has something else in common.

They were all were lies and designed to soften public opinion.

If we ignore Iran's economic role as a major producer and exporter of electricty to nearby countries then obviously any nuclear power stations are designed soley for military purposes.

Throw in some media misquoting and intemperate remarks of their leader toward an equally hostile neighbour and it seems fairly obvious that it will be just a matter of time.

Perhaps it will just depend on who the next US President is going to be.

Obama is being extremely diplomatic about Iran. So far Iran have not relented. Action will happen if Iran does not change course. They have been given every doubt possible, so far nothing has changed.
Iran is a supporter of terrorism, and can not be trusted with neuks.

I think a few attending arjays protest on the weekend may get a look at why the man is so anti west.
No reflection on any person in attendance , but such silliness must be addressed.
Poirot, well, sorry but I remain convinced history shows, war is part of us.
Stopping them will only be achieved if we have only one world government.
And very Little freedom.
Take the time to look with eyes open at Israel.
A brilliant man has said.
*If terrorist lay down their guns there will be no war.
If Israel does there will be no Israel*
Harsh? maybe not the answer the pole dancing greens want.
But undoubtedly true.
Humanity is no mistake,we have come a long way and have a long way ahead.
In asking us to lay in a bed of flowers talking peace is like the peace in our time Nevile Chamberland, he almost took his country's freedom away, ours with it.

G R,

I agree with your sentiments in principle, however, a necessary condition for the emergence of a truly peaceful world is a universal democratic community of nations. As a rule, democratic nations do not go to war with other democratic nations, in fact I can't think of any instance when that has occurred.

It's naive to think that war never solves problems-it's simply "policy by other means".

The existence of authoritarian regimes will always undermine any attempts to introduce the ideas you're promoting, so even the governments of democratic nations will negotiate in bad faith.

Belly,

I didn't make myself very clear. I happen to agree that it's innate in man's tribal psychology to make war. Instinctively, he will always decide in favour of his own territorial or resource interests.

Yet, we do congratulate ourselves on our intellectual/spiritual ascendancy over the other species. I can only see, however, that our supremacy of intellect makes us a more threatening and diabolical entity to ourselves and the rest of the natural world.

Iran is a cancer. Cancers must be excised. Nuke Iran, before they nuke us.

Arjay: There will be an anti-war protest on this Saturday 24th March outside the Sydney Town Hall at 12:00.

Who is running the Protest? Who are the Protestors protesting against? Let me guess. No, forgone conclusion.

GR: Iran was once the centre of world civilization & Zoroastrianism. It has a great culture going way back.

Yes it was. Many different peoples & Cultures went to make up Persia in it's first 4000 years. But since the 12th. Century the entire area of the Middle East has been in decline & is still going downhill. The first 400 years of Islam saw a rise in science & technology because of Islam, then a dramatic collapse for the same reason.

GR: The leaders have to be persuaded that Iran's best interests are to rejoin the world community.

Which world Leaders? The Wests or the Countries of the Middle East?

RG: We must not attack Shi'i Muslim religion, as this is in its pure form a great religion to be respected.

I agree. So are the Sunni, Jewish religion, Christianity, Hindu, Budhism, Jane & many others. I can't see Islam having respect for any religion except one of the two dominate sects & even then they don't respect one another.

RG: Iran will become a world leader again.

I very much doubt this & the same with all the Countries of the Middle East with the exception of Isreal. Until Their religion allows them to emerge form their Middle Ages. I can't envisiage that happening anytime in the near future.

As far as I'm aware making war has been a crime for nearly a hundred years, on the premise of "crimes against peace" the NS government of Germany was found guilty and forced to pay reparations to the countries it had occupied during WW2.
There's no reason to think that the Obama and Netanyahu Regimes couldn't be prosecuted at some point in the future if they attack Iran and end up losing.
War with Iran would be a disaster, it'd mean the end of Liberal imperialism and the dominance of the London/New York/Tel Aviv axis of globalist power, they can't contain the Islamic world or China, Russia will rise again and Europe will again be dominated by her and Germany.

AP: The population of Iran is about 75 million, how many do you propose we should nuke. Just cutting out the cancer as you put it. After all they are not like us, not even white, don't speak English, not even christian. these people don't have feelings, they don't love, they can't feel pain, they don't suffer from emotions, they feel no grief at the loss of their children and family, they can't even cry, not like us of the superior race, more like some kind of animal to be dealt with. North Korea population about 25 million a bit more cancer to cut out there. The list goes on, I'm sure by the time people such as yourself have finished cutting out the cancer a billion or three of humanity will be wiped from the face of the earth. That would not be a problem after all they are not like you and me. I'm feeling sick!

whoooaah! Do I detect the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia coming in from the Right. I think so. :-(

Jayb"Obama can do nothing without approval of the senate"You have not heard of presidential signing orders which Bush instigated.Obama uses these to be a virtual dictator.Show me where he got permission from the Senate for the Defence Authorisation Act?

Jayb is looking like a troll and tool of dis-information.He is playing this left/right paridgm to camouflage his hidden agenda.The Citizen's Electoral Council is neither left or right.It deals with the truth as does Ron Paul,Webster Tarpley,Neils Harritt,Alex Jones,Max Keiser,Gerald Celente,Judge Andrew Napolitano and many others.

You try to pigeon hole people with insideous simplistic notions of left and right.Try addressing the truth.

Poirot know I understand and respect you, always.
But too I understand and must disagree with the views put here.
An explorer of life I can tell of contact with the people of love in the 60,s and 70,s.
Isolated just as much as Naden was,in bush humpys, content to live in peace and thinking the world would one day follow.
Even their community's, some times, ended in war pain hurt betrayal.
We can not be assured of peace in any single family.
We all want better but we must remain aware it is reality that must be considered.
I see promise,in all views being seen ,treated as worth a look.
But our views have to be considered as just one view,and the right to have differing views keeps us aware.

Arjay my reference to the EC of A was in relation to the comment below. The EC of A has a vitorolic hatred of the British Government/The Obama Administration & Jews. I note it in their emails all the time. The comment below is straight out of their book.

Jay of M: the dominance of the London/New York/Tel Aviv axis of globalist power,

CArjay: Jayb "Obama can do nothing without approval of the senate" You have not heard of presidential signing orders

Yes I have &, of course, the responsility lays with the President. But, as with any Club/Council/Government, The President only signs off on what the Committee/Lord Mayor/Senate has approved. If what you say is correctthen he would have to be very careful about how he wields that power. The senate can impeach a President. So the President is not above the Law. As you say, Bush (a white guy) introduced the Act, now Obama (a black guy) is using it. Now that's just not on, is it.

As for the ideas & solutions offered by the EC of A. I do see a lot of merit in the solutions the EC of A has to offer, as with ideas the rest of the people you have mentioned have. That is all well & good. But along with those ideas comes the vitorolic hatred of the British, Blacks & Jews. To be PC, this is unacceptable.

Arjay: He is playing this left/right paridgm to camouflage his hidden agenda.

I don't have a hidden agenda. My only motive is to understand what's happening, why & what for. I offer information, which I know to be correct. If I'm wrong & you correct me, I can accept that. I will correct information which I know to be wrong as well. I ask for clarification of things I don't understand. That is all. As with my inquiry as to what Orgnization is organizing the protest & who in particular are the Protestors targeting? I think that is a resonable request. I live in Queensland not Sydney & I was unaware of any protest. No secret agenda.

I looked at the request & it did seem a little abrupt for some of the PC pundits, I suppose. It's the Platoon Sig. coming out in me. So I'll ask again.

Arjay, may I please have the information I asked for so I can reach an informed opinion of the planned protest.

Mac,

"As a rule, democratic nations do not go to war with other democratic nations, in fact I can't think of any instance when that has occurred".

There were a couple of big ones a while back that spring to mind - WW1 and WW2. Germany was indeed a democratic republic.

If you also care to look you'll find that virtually all despotic regimes resulted from the overthrow of previously democratic ones - including Iraq and Iran in particular - and in both of those cases as a result of actions instigated by the "free West" for it's own commercial interests.

Ah Ha! Don't bother with a reply to my request Arjay. You obviously received your CEC email before I received mine. I can see where you are getting your information now. Thanks anyway.

Rache: Germany was indeed a democratic republic.

Yes it was & it alowed itself to be persuaded, little by little, to relinquish that Democracy in favour of Nationalism. Hitler, a very smart evil man with very smart evil friends with an evil agenda.

Much like the CEC, I'm afraid Arjay. Remember the old addage, "If it sounds to good to be true, then it is." Anyway have fun at the Rally. Try not to get arrested.

A small, but telling, omission Arjay.

>>The Citizen's Electoral Council is neither left or right.It deals with the truth as does Ron Paul,Webster Tarpley,Neils Harritt,Alex Jones,Max Keiser,Gerald Celente,Judge Andrew Napolitano and many others.<<

You failed to mention the poster-child of the movement, Lyndon LaRouche.

Why was that? Are you a little chary of aligning yourself with such a noisy, unprepossessing character?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/main.htm

Odd. You're not normally that sensitive.

Pericles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/main.htm

Interesting, I hadn't been to that one. It explains the history of the organization more fully. thanks.

I look at all the kookie sites, There are some strange sites with some strange peoplewith strange ideas. Yank Conspiracy sites are good too. I read a lot of the kookie magazines, Nexus & New Dawn are a couple of good ones, if you want a good laugh sometimes. They're a strange mix of fact & fiction & some, I must admit, some very interesting theories. It's the real kookie ones you have to watch. You never know which way their people will jump. ;-)

Arjay, come back, please.

Jayb,

The Germans didn't relinquish their democracy. It remained in place throughout the war.

What they did give up however, was their willingness to question what was presented to them as as the truth.
Like today, most just blindly accepted what was told to them by their leaders.

The Nazis were no different from any political group with an agenda.
It's been like this for practically every conflict throughout human history. Behind all the self-righteous window dressing is somebody simply trying to make money.
When a 2% return is not enough, the corporations follow the profits from war and the people and soldiers follow the flag.

"Naturally the common people don't want war, but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorsip or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice the people can be always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country".
- Reich-Marshal Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

rache: What they did give up however, was their willingness to question what was presented to them as as the truth.

Yes, technicaly you are right. I guess I was just looking at the obvious result.

rache: Like today, most just blindly accepted what was told to them by their leaders.

Hmmm... We're in for a bit of that in Queensland now for the next few years. My reckoning we'll be in for another "Fitzgerald Inquery" in about 6 years. Cambell may relinquish all of his holdings but you can just bet his wifes family does very well, "thank you very much," over the next few years.

Hey arjay, how did your rally go. I hope you didn't get arrested. Please get back to us. We are missing your input.

Rache,

Germany "a democratic republic" when it entered WW1 and WW2? Eh, are you defining the Nazi regime or the Kaiser's regime as democratic?

No, Germany wasn't a democratic republic in 1914 or 1938 or 1939.

After WWII wasn't East Germany a democracy? After all they did call themselves The German Democratic Republic can't get more democratic that have the word democratic in your name.
I think the greatest democracy of all times must go to Haiti when run by Papa Doc and Baby Doc. I recall something like Papa Doc had an election, there were about 4 million voters, After the election the votes were counted that night behind closed doors at the presidential palace by Papa Doc's cronies, the next day the result was decleared with something like 6 million votes for Papa Doc to nil for the opposition candidate, Papa Doc's brother-in-law and crony, When asked to explain, Papa Doc said some voters couldn't be stopped from voting 2 or 3 times for him as they just loved him so much hence 6 million votes from an electorate of 4 million. Even the opposition candidate voted for Papa Doc on the grounds Papa Doc was the best man for the job. I call that democracy in action. It makes yesterdays Queensland election a real cliff hanger.

mac.

The first federal election in Germany was held in 1871.
A further 13 elections were held under this regime and then another 9 elections during the years of the Weimar Republic.

Democracy under the Kaiser would have been much like democracy under the King of England.
Imperial but hardly what could be considered undemocratic.

Hitler "won" the election of 1933 and subsequently ended further elections under the Enabling Act he introduced following the (contrived) Reichstag Fire.

That phoney fire was the catalyst Hitler needed to convince the
population that they were in imminent danger and they willingly surrendered their rights.

The same strategy has been used as far back as Crassus in ancient Rome and right up to the US Patriot Act of 2001. Rights aren't taken away, people hand them back.

It's what is always used to win popular support for a military solution.

Paul1405,

The post-WW2 Communist East German Democratic Republic was obviously a republic in name only.

However under our Representative system of democracy, 26.6% of the vote only gets you 8% of the seats, 11.6% of the vote get you 2% of the seats, 7.6% of the vote can get you no seats, while the winner with (a slim minority of) 49.7% of the vote ends up with 87% of the seats.

Papa Doc was an amateur.

rache,

Yes, however, that still doesn't alter the fact that Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy in 1939. When did women get the vote in Germany? Elections before that date, are of course, undemocratic.

Mac,
"When did women get the vote in Germany?"

Women were awarded the right to vote in Germany in 1919 - about the same time as several other European States, about six years before Italy and about 10 years before women the UK had their voting age dropped from over 30 (with property restrictions) to being just over 21 years of age.

Despite what he did afterwards in banning other political parties and Trade Unions, Hitler first came to power democratically.