Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (20019)	2/26/2002 11:21:31 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If non-democratic members want to be non-voting "associate members", that would be fine. But only democratic governments should be permitted to vote in a democratic UN. Hawk, Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner on this post. I'm not as troubled by the UN as you are; I would prefer we give more money and have less influence. But I would have to defend that and I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it. But back to the Kaplan argument concerning security and stability over democracy. Best I can guess that argument will hinge on a benevolent dictatorship. It loses if you have the non-benevolent kind (g). If that's the case for the argument, how many benevolent dictators come rushing to mind? Not a lot. One could argue for a rather long time about Castro. Health statistics improved dramatically as did education levels. Economy goes nowhere; but that can be blamed on the embargo. Human rights is an issue. Civil liberties an issue but that's your point about liberal complaints. Any other candidates, even if they are controversial, for the benevolent dictators award? John