You are saying the same thing as the above sentence in the past two days or so, and I am saying that is NOT A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION OF LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT.
That's like saying saying there are no such things as inalienable rights of mankind, bestowed upon them by their creator... not by the rey d'jour...
Yes Zonder.. There is a difference in the American attitude about the world. And yes.. we (at least I) have a different opinion about what constitutes a truly legitimate government.
And you cannot accept, or agree with, that definition by the implicit moral logic underlying it, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Thus, our debate will center upon whether democratic governments, who have been instrumental in the creation of the United Nations, are not anymore legitimate than dictatorships. And maybe we need to adopt Monaco's example of a "benevolent dictator", who's "elected" council meets a couple of times a year, while power ultimately rests in his hands. (it seems only 5,000 of 30,000 Monaco residents are actually voting citizens).
As for Brits not supporting the war, if this opinion is more evidence of the fearful herd, then Blair will not suffer and the government not fall... But if they really feel that strongly, Blair will not be re-elected..
I stated that I was for representative democratic government, not mob rule.
Hawk |
