And, my dear Zonder, I don't feel that Musharraf is a truly legitimate government. But so long as he's not involved in committing aggression against the US, or our allies in the region, he's not our problem and we can work with him.
Aah, finally. The unmistakable, clear manifestation of hypocricy.
Thanks for that, Hawk.
And since Pakistan has nuclear weapons, there's not much we can do about them in the final analysis..
You think that is NOT clear? Well, it is. And that is why the two countries (Iran & North Korea) declared to be next on the list of Bush's warmongering have decided to deploy their shelved nuclear plans.
It is classic Game Theory analysis - of course they would grope for nuclear weapons, since that is obviously the ONLY way to deter the US war machine.
Legitimate governments in civilized nations are accountable to their people, not just to themselves and their "lead dog".
More than 80% of the public opposing the war in the UK and Spain might disagree with you on just how efficient this control sytem is. At least in the short term.
You don't think Blair has the hope of a snowball in hell of a reelection, do you?
However, no government is TRULY legitimate unless it is elected or has some other form of accountability to the people it governs
With all due respect, Hawk, there is no such definition of a "legitimate government" anywhere but in your personal world, and you know it.
Other Americans seem to have other definitions of what is a legitimate government:
legitgov.org
Again, my question remains: Who are you to say what a "legitimate government" is and what is not?
And as for the Principality of Monaco, where I live, I am still waiting for your argument of how we are suffering so, under the rule of our ILLEGITIMATE Prince.
When you come to invade Monaco for a regime change, I will be on the beach, laughing with a wine glass in my hand :-) |
