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: kumar who wrote (94796)	4/19/2003 5:54:25 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I disagree. It is not our land (unless we want to build an empire). The people of Iraq are capable of choosing what style of government they want. If it turns out to be different from Jefforsonian Democracy - so be it. The people of Iraq have spoken. Not if it means we'll have to be back there in 10 or 20 years, doing this all over again. We have an interest in steering them towards a liberal democracy, and away from autocracy. Derek

To: kumar who wrote (94796)	4/19/2003 9:16:12 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I disagree. It is not our land (unless we want to build an empire). We find ourselves disagreeing on this a lot Kumar.. :0) But the reality is that neither Germany, nor Japan had much, if any, history with democratic governments when we imposed such conditions upon them (or at least "encouraged strongly" such a democratic structure). After all, the Germans outlawed the Nazi party, didn't they? The same is the case with Iraq. In principle what you say might be ethical.. If they want to live under an authoritarian or totalitarian state, they have the right to vote such a government in. But that THEN prevents their having the ability to change their minds since the democratic process would have been destroyed in that act of electoral "suicide", giving up their right to vote. No.. only when the government is subject to be held accountable through the voting process, can any country feel secure that Iraq's future will be more focused upon taking care of its own people than in assaulting and invading its neighbors. At least the government will need to win the approval of a majority of its people to engage in such acts.. That means politicians, now matter what their ideological or religious bent, will have to seek and win support from their voting constituency. I know you'll likely never agree with that, and that's your right. But in ANY vote to surrender one's democratic rights for the purpose of creating an authoritarian government, the minority will ALSO be disenfranchised. Those who might be in the majority (the shia of Iraq) would be voting to revoke the rights of non-shia Iraqis. And democratic institutions are only democratic is the rights and desires of the minority are guaranteed against the tyranny of the majority. Of course, you live in a location where you're free to voice such an opinion.. And isn't that the point? No one in the US can pass a law stating that the US will be run by judeo-christian legal principles. No one can pass a law that only people of a particular race, creed, or belief, can vote. Even the minority must remain capable of politically expressing their views. And voting in a tyranny denies them. Thus, all parties MUST be subjugated and subservient to the principle that the government exists to preserve the rights of everyone, minority or majority. Hawk