Nope.

I think of the leaders of countries as parental figure heads...they are responsible for making sure we're safe, just as we're responsible for making sure they're not bloody, soft bellied idiots who will run everyone into the ground. If the king's a moron, rebel, if the Prime Minister is a total idiot, elect the next best thing (or run yourself, and get yourself elected), and if you end up with a dictator who's killing his own people...get him the hell out of power, even if you die trying.

A family takes care of itself. I will fight to protect mine from school yard bullies, be them national powers or little bastards in a play ground. I expect the same from my government, if they are to be compared with a 'parent'.

After reading most of Starship Troopers, I've been wondering whether or not the system presented there would be better than the one we've got now. But, of course, in order for something like that to work, we have to have a military first in order to be vetrans of it. The whole point of that system, and the reason it works so well is that every single one of the voters has gone through service in the army, has *volunteered* to protect all other civilans and fight for their nation. The United States has this, to a degree, but Canada is certainly lacking in that department.

AND we can snipe from 2km away...

Damn but that's complicated!

I mean... I think of France. And a joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend France?" And the answer: "No one knows, they've never tried".

France surrended their COUNTRY... TWICE... last century. Can you say they did this because they didn't care about their people? I think not. I think they surrendered to SAVE their people. Surrender is not a pleseant option. Imagine if Canada had to surrender, and become occupied? Holy Mooses and Beavers Batman!

So whether or not a country uses it's defences or surrenders them, it is in the best interests of the country I say. So... you can't rule out the inherent responsibility of a nation's government to the security of the people. How... can a nation's government/leaders... refuse to accept responsibility?

I'm trying to think of an instance where this could occur. Let's try this:

Canada is invaded by the US (somehow we can't convert them into Canadians fast enough and we are overwhelmed), and the Government, not having deployed the military, says: "hey, we're not responsible for what has happened or what happens after!"

They're in charge... the leaders ALWAYS take 100% responsibility for outcomes. I just don't think anything else can be done. Sure, they could be immature and blame others below them, but that just doesn't make sense.

Queenie: aboot the dictator: try to leave the country; if enough people do, he'll have no one to dictator over and be reduced simply to: Dic(k)

No. I do not.
Simple enough?

Aye, simple and reassuring! :)

p.s. hey dude