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: Neocon who wrote (105496)	7/15/2003 2:26:53 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<We did not invade Afghanistan or Iraq to impose democracy.> So, you're no longer a NeoCon? You no longer believe, as the AEI says, and as you said before the invasion, that promoting liberal democracy was a necessary goal in Iraq, and throughout the Arab world? You've become a Realist? In the Cold War, the Realists would back any dictator who called himself anti-communist. And "destabilize" any democracy that was anti-American. In the War on Islamists, Realists will back anyone who calls themselves anti-Islamist. Even those, like Saudi Arabia, who use it as a cover to promote violent Islamism. In the U.S. Constitutional Convention, there were anti-democratic voices like yours. People who didn't trust the unwashed masses, leaders who thought the will of the people needed to be "guided". That's why, for a long time, we didn't have direct election of Senators, and still don't have direct election of the President. It took until the 1920s before the majority of adult Americans had the right to vote. Democracy is continually under attack, from those like you who don't trust the citizenry to make the "right" decisions. I'll tell you, what our Founding Fathers told King George: If you don't allow peaceful methods to end tyranny, then you'll get violent methods. If we don't allow elections in Iraq, the Iraqis will vote with their RPGs.