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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (119928)	11/18/2003 8:10:50 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

> OK, I'll accept that definition. Interesting. Then do you consider Bush's government a legitimate government? Clearly much less than half the population voted for him. And I don't think Bush feels he is accountable to anyone.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (119928)	11/18/2003 8:12:28 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

OK, I'll accept that definition. No you don't.. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such a fuss over the US enforcing over 17 UNSC binding resolutions when France, Germany, and Russia did not. Saddam's government was not legitimate, except perhaps amongst those privileged Sunnis. But there is no way to know whether the people "clearly support" a government, without a free and fair election. No Sht Sherlock.. The only reason I included the example is because some countries, such as Monaco, Jordan, and perhaps Kuwait, seem to have popular support from their overall populations. I have an objective, concrete, and verifiable standard by which to measure the "consent of the governed": a free and fair election.* Hey.. Saddam was "elected" with 99.9% of the vote.. Was that "free and fair"? But you can never be REALLY sure until there are fair and objective elections, with VIABLE (and not just token) opposition/alternatives. You say the S. Vietnamese government was legitimate, and had the "clear support" of the S. Vietnamese people. I did? I don't think I said that. In fact, I said that S. Vietnam was NOT a sparkling example of democracy. What IS clear is that N. Vietnam NEVER HAS BEEN a democracy. Totalitarian regimes are not elected. Nor do they stand for any viable opposition once they have assumed power. And that's what happened to N. Vietnam, and after we "cut and ran", S. Vietnam as well. I don't expect democratic miracles overnight like you and your French heroes seem to. Democracies are difficult governments to create, let alone maintain. And some people claim that Arabs are not compatible with democratic values.. I personally believe that's incredibly racist. But we're never going to ever know unless we attempt to take the first step. And that's one of the things, IMO, Iraq is all about.. Trying to attempt the commencement of that journey. Hawk