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 Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (79802)	10/9/2006 9:07:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Having spent quite a bit of time in Sweden, and knowing the people fairly well, I'd say the country would remain stable for quite a while. I doubt it. No use of force means no arrest for any crimes. No use of force means anarchy. Perhaps the Swedish citizenry would be disciplined enough to keep some order themselves but then you have vigilantism and again the use of force. "No use of force" means anarchy. A country like Sweden can get by with less use of force than most (even adjusting for its below average population), partially because of its social stability and relative wealth, but also partially because it the implied threat of force should someone act out enough to require such force is generally believed and respected. In Iraq the implied use of force is less respected, the government has less control, and others want to take control or break away, so instead of subtle implied and indirect threats in most cases combined with occasional use of force, it has to use more direct threats, and often actual force in large doses. And as you point out it often requires the assistance of foreign powers to apply force. There's a big difference between what is going on in Iraq today and what goes on in what I would consider a free society. Your right I wouldn't call Iraq a free country at this point. It is more free than it used to be, and far more democratic, but also less secure (which is saying a lot considering how Saddam's citizens faced a strong degree of insecurity from the actions of his regime). A lot of times all three criteria (or at least freedom and democracy) get lumped together, but they really should be. If the country is a democracy but it is at war or in a state of chaos you can be very insecure. If its a democracy but the government doesn't respect individual rights then you might not be very free. Bush would focus on the democracy part, and try to imply that means everything else is better. That isn't accurate. His critics focus on the lack of security, and they may also take the fact that the country isn't extremely free (or to put in another way it hasn't established a tradition of respecting individual liberty) and try to say it isn't a democracy. That is just as incorrect. Now the democracy itself isn't perfect, and with the lack of stability and security its possible that it won't stay a democracy in the future, but at this point it is. Which does not mean that everything is ok in Iraq, or even that Iraq is on a clear path towards everything becoming ok.