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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (13868)	2/28/2003 8:54:09 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Re: Legitimate Government: A government whose leader is elected by a majority of voters, not by the Supreme Court. Art

To: zonder who wrote (13868)	2/28/2003 2:54:01 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Aah, finally. The unmistakable, clear manifestation of hypocricy. How so?? Hypocrisy is someone who treats a brutal tyranny with the same legitimacy as a representative democracy answerable to its people.. You've just rendered the entire concept of democracy to the realm of political accessory.. Nice to have, but not really all that special.. All I've said is that democracies are forever threatened by authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.. They are like domesticated kitties thrown into a pack of feral wildcats.. If they don't defend themselves and deal with their undomesticated siblings on the same wild basis, they will be destroyed. In that, they will form various alliances with other beasts so that they rise to the top and dominate the others... But only rational and civilized (wo)man understands that reverting to his/her primal instincts is no way to live. Thus, preserving the very civilization we've created often requires uncivilized behavior exercised against non-democratic tyrannies. In contrast, the domesticated beast will revert to instinctive savagery.. if it manages to survive at all.. 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 Sure.. But in this case, the United States entered into an agreement to provide $5 Billion in food, oil, and light-water nuclear reactor technology to N. Korea, IN EXCHANGE for their ending their nuclear program... But Kim Jong Il reneged on the agreement and forced the US hand with regard to isolating him and denying him the ability to force this as a "mano a mano" confrontation with the US.. Thus, we are denying him the esteem he perceives he would gain by being blatantly Anti-US.. And if anything, that was the primary mistake Carter/Clinton made.. They made the agreement between two states, rather than forcing N. Korea to deal with a broad alliance of united countries unwilling to tolerate his activities. Now he will be required to deter up to 10 nations, not just the US.. N. Korea has few options, except to moderate, or escalate. And escalation will ensure their regimes destruction, potentially with nuclear weapons, should we perceive they are readying a launch. Thus, I don't worry about them too much.. But we have to be vigilant. Pakistan.. Well, we halted all sales of military equipment to Pakistan for years after they detonated their first nuclear warhead. I would say that was pretty negative to Pakistan. Maybe not as harsh as we could have been, but then we had India detering any nuclear ambitions and our major goal was to prevent those two nations from destroying one another. It's not hypocrisy for the US to recognize that it has to deal with non-democratic governments. Because it reflects the world we live in. But we shouldn't "give them a pass" when they act in a manner that violates international norms of behavior as Iraq has done in Kuwait, as well as since. Right now, the US is one of a few countries really detering Saddam, outside of Israel (which we would rather not have involved).. It's not France, and it's not Germany.. And we're doing it on OUR DIME with no financial support from anyone else. But IT IS France and Germany, who have done little to deter Saddam, who are trying to deter the US from enforcing UNSC resolution 1441.. That's hypocrisy.. Vote to have him disarmed and then make sure that any enforcement of that mandate is detered and obstructed. With all due respect, Hawk, there is no such definition of a "legitimate government" anywhere but in your personal world, and you know it. Depends on what world you live in Zonder.. My world is not one of fantasy laden visions of Utopia, or a touchie-feelie belief that completes ignores the harsh reality.. I'd love to see the world disarm too.. I'd love it if no American ever had to wear a military uniform again... But even more than that.. I'd love it if I could walk safely at any time of the night without having to worry about some mugging me, or just plaing shooting me for "kicks".. I wish no one had to wear a police uniform.. Or that we didn't have to have courts or prisons, or orphanages.. Or that we spent our day worrying about nothing more than catching that plane for a well earned vacation, rather than that plane "catching me" as the result of a suicide bombing... I'd like to be able to grab a coffee or a pizza, or maybe do some grocery shopping without worrying about whether the person next to me wearing the heavy coat is a suicide bomber, or actually is cold.. There are a lot of things I would like to have in MY WORLD. If you have them in yours, I envy you... But more than likely, it's only because someone is bearing the cost of civilized society on your behalf. Others are paying the cost for the blanket of freedom and security you enjoy on a daily basis. And yes.. the government of Monaco is illegitimate. The only rights you have are the rights that the Prince has graciously decided to grant you.. And those rights, under the right circumstances, can be arbitrarily taken away... Thus, you are not citizens.. but subjects. Not participants, but merely occupants who are permitted to remain there at the prince's leisure.. And if you like living in a gilded cage, that's all well and good... If you don't like it, you can move somewhere else... if they will grant you entrance. So while it may be an excellent place to live, it's still not legitimate from the perspective of inalienable rights of mankind. You do believe in inalienable rights, don't you?? Hawk