With democracy nearly everything is subjective and depends on the hierarchy democratically instituted among peoples.
First of all : there are the democratic people and the undemocratic people.
Everything that democratic people do must be analysed a different way compared to undemocratic people's actions. One example is that there is no corruption in democracies because this is by definition impossible.
After that, there is a gang hierarchy among democratic people themselves. One ganglord, several more or less appreciated lieutnants and at the very bottom, henchmen who are often not that separated with the condition of undemocratic people.

@TFBM

What you are pointing at are not the failings of democracy, they are the failings of mankind. Give it a rest.

Not really, I think. At least when speaking of wars, who else but the US have ever spoken of doing Right, simply because they are doing it? I guess that would be Blair, the second politician I have ever heard to defend an action of war with the words "It was the right thing to do". Admittedly, during the Kosovo campaign, many of our politicians said much the same thing, but they also said: "and this is because....", and then disagreed or agreed with the action taken because of these reasons. The difference is that they didn't refer to the superiority of the democratic system as guarantee for their rightness.

Of course, this kind of argument will probably be seen as a trick by the people who unfortunately think in the way tfbm is schetcing(at least if they dared to embroider their arguments), and I will be told to step down of my high horse since the cases mentioned obviously are identical when you come right down to it. "You too say the exact same thing as us". No mind the argumentation and the reasons, these are just politician speak and so on.

Well. This is my suggestion for an interpretation, at least.

Typical of democratic people.Failings of mankind?
It must be remembered that other regimes were denied the excuse of human nature by democratic people. In those times, democratic people, they used to say 'human nature is diverse, human nature is all, only the society leads them to do this or that. This or that regime leads to corruption, brutality, frustration and so on', everything they could find to install the democratic project.
And again, sorry to be repeatitive, but easy to see that in democracy, the problem is no longer the regime, the problem is the human being hence the lurking needs of reforming the nature of the human being hence offspring like nazism that simply stressed a bit too much the democratic feature that some, the salvages, the unpures, the underdogs must be excluded from the human species to allow true and genuine human beings to enjoy democracy.
On the contrary, it all boils down to democracy.
French, bow down to the power of democracy, your puny country, so big an actor in the rise and spread of democracy is now agonising from it. Mark those words because somehow soon your country must be torn apart by a civil war.
This would represent the climax as an undeniable evidence of the true nature of democracy.

@TFBM

Yeah, and what civil war would that be? Arabs against all the rest? I'm probably wrong there because that would be the shortest civil war in history. The US are permanently closer to civil war than any other democracy I know of.

Anyway, what do you suggest we do? Stick the king's head back on his shoulders? Elect a new king? Vote ourselves to be subjects again? Better still, let's vote to be deported, gassed, and cremated. ..

Why bring a pseudo-racial issue when not needed?
The next step in democracy is to maintain the poors to their wished position or make them understand where their wished position is. And in france, this wont go out without domestic unrest.
The democratic us close to civil war? A democratic country able of waging wars outside its borders is saved from a civil war for a while.

I dont have to suggest something else to democracy. Democracy makes me right every second I'm living, able to make predictions for such a large amount of people.
Out of democracy, in another regime, I will totally be lost.
Democracy is and democracy will ever be.

Huh? Isn't that the definition of unilateralism - when one side decides to go it alone?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Save that, apparently, they went through a long period of discussion and were unable to find an aggreement except they could no longer keep working together.
Divorce is not everytime a unilateral process. Repudiation is.
Deciding alone to rise this or that trade fees with no consultation with the other parties and despite of a previous aggreement is unilateral, especially if the one breaking that part of the contract insists on that all the other clauses in the previous aggreements must continue to apply. Etc, etc...

Yes, I suppose that's true for people who have no argument and have to resort to personal attacks.
Are you even getting news on this issue in Europe?
Hilarious. Wouldn't want any facts to get in the way of your bias, Muspell.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

This sheds a more even light on the subject: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4044895.stm

Notice that there has been a year of negotiations already. Also I get the impression the actual point of the ultimatum (without actual date), is to speed up the decision process and preferable not to go it alone.

The need for multilateralism here is not because of moral issues, but to get the cash together.

__________________