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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (205989)	10/10/2004 5:27:56 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573540

Now about these Afghan elections.......allegations of voting irregularities, but that's not my major beef with their election. If you ask me they shouldn't have let Karzai run. One of the primary problems with 3rd world autocratic governments (Egypt comes to mind) is that the individual in charge doesn't get the idea that pasing control to someone else (chosen by the people) is a good thing. One main reason for democracy is to let an orderly transition of power occur, and let a variety of leaders have a say in how the country should be run. Karzai has the unfair advantage of being put in place (and getting all the name recognition and influence that that includes) following the fall of the Taliban, and he should have left the elections open to the people's choice of OTHER leaders. In Iraq, I don't think Allawi should be allowed to run in the upcoming elections as well. It would serve to illustrate tha government service is for the people, not for Allawi. Allawi should do his best to fulfill his mandate (stabilize the country, hold the elections) and then step aside. This would both show the value of a successful, peaceful transfer of power to someone who is not related to the former ruler (not sure this has happened in the Middle East in the past century), and reduce the claims of voter fraud. My two cents.