• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Legitimacy Of Governments

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
What do you consider a legitimate government?

Do you feel that a government that is controlled by a despot carries the same legitimacy as one that is elected or is some form of a representative democracy?

Any post that compare GWB to Saddam Hussein will instantly expose you as a non-thinking tool.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
I agree with Woodrow Wilson philosophy of governments, a government is legitamate if it is under the consent of the people.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,421
5,486
126
ummm... no, i don't. a republic is the most legitimate, protecting the interests of the minority while forging ahead.
 

Jolyon33

Member
Oct 27, 2002
153
0
0
Absolutely not. In a democracy or a republic the people at least have some say in their government.
A dictatorship on the other hand, is a government run by and for those in the government.
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Define legitimate, and there is your answer.
Deserving of recognition within the greater world community for starters.

A pithy, almost witty answer Hayabusarider, but hardly useful.

 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
Let us go one further and also state that it's sovereignty should be recognized and respected.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
OK after we depose Hussien and get rid of their ability to mass produce WMD's, is it really necessary to install a Democratic Government? In the recent past some of our most setermined enemies have been the Shiite Muslims who have a natural alliance with the Iranians who are our avowed enemies. Do you think that they are going to want to be allied with America who the Shiite Muslims consider the "Great Satan". Now do you think we would be successful winning their hearts over by installing a Government that is Pro America? What's to prevent them from allying themselves with the Shiite Theocracy in Iran (a Democratic Theocracy)? Even if we are successful in establishing a Pro America Government do you think that there won't be large factions of Anti America groups that would take up a Jihad against us and the government we install?

I'm all for deposing Hussien and taking out their ability to disrupt that region with WMD's or the threat of them but I'm not so sure that I would want any part of being an occupying country who oversees the government of that country. The Vichey Iraqi's
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
OK after we depose Hussien and get rid of their ability to mass produce WMD's, is it really necessary to install a Democratic Government? In the recent past some of our most setermined enemies have been the Shiite Muslims who have a natural alliance with the Iranians who are our avowed enemies. Do you think that they are going to want to be allied with America who the Shiite Muslims consider the "Great Satan". Now do you think we would be successful winning their hearts over by installing a Government that is Pro America? What's to prevent them from allying themselves with the Shiite Theocracy in Iran (a Democratic Theocracy)? Even if we are successful in establishing a Pro America Government do you think that there won't be large factions of Anti America groups that would take up a Jihad against us and the government we install?

I'm all for deposing Hussien and taking out their ability to disrupt that region with WMD's or the threat of them but I'm not so sure that I would want any part of being an occupying country who oversees the government of that country. The Vichey Iraqi's
An astute observation Red.

I don't think that democratic forms of governments are NECESSARY the correct way with much of the world's population, when a benign autocracy may yield better long term results.
But I would be remiss, if I could actually point out an instance of one that did not resort to, and eventually revert to tyranny.

It almost seems to be the elusive instance of benign communism where human rights were not disposed of in the interest of political expediency.


 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
OK after we depose Hussien and get rid of their ability to mass produce WMD's, is it really necessary to install a Democratic Government? In the recent past some of our most setermined enemies have been the Shiite Muslims who have a natural alliance with the Iranians who are our avowed enemies. Do you think that they are going to want to be allied with America who the Shiite Muslims consider the "Great Satan". Now do you think we would be successful winning their hearts over by installing a Government that is Pro America? What's to prevent them from allying themselves with the Shiite Theocracy in Iran (a Democratic Theocracy)? Even if we are successful in establishing a Pro America Government do you think that there won't be large factions of Anti America groups that would take up a Jihad against us and the government we install?

I'm all for deposing Hussien and taking out their ability to disrupt that region with WMD's or the threat of them but I'm not so sure that I would want any part of being an occupying country who oversees the government of that country. The Vichey Iraqi's
An astute observation Red.

I don't think that democratic forms of governments are NECESSARY the correct way with much of the world's population, when a benign autocracy may yield better long term results.
But I would be remiss, if I could actually point out an instance of one that did not resort to, and eventually revert to tyranny.

It almost seems to be the elusive instance of benign communism where human rights were not disposed of in the interest of political expediency.

You see I've gotten caught up with this speel out government has put forth about freeing the Iraqi's from Tyranny. But originally I was in support of Military action just to rid the world of Hussien and the WMD's and that was it. To me that was justification enough to over throw Husien with Military Force. I always figured when we were done we'd let the UN take other and Pull our troops out like we did in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Yeah I'm sorry we coward out in the last GW when the Original Bush went back on his word about helping those who rebelled against Hussien. I think we should leave it up to the people of Iraq, their Nieghbors and the UN to determine their future, not the Republican Party, Haliburton and Britian.
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
You see I've gotten caught up with this speel out government has put forth about freeing the Iraqi's from Tyranny. But originally I was in support of Military action just to rid the world of Hussien and the WMD's and that was it. To me that was justification enough to over throw Husien with Military Force. I always figured when we were done we'd let the UN take other and Pull our troops out like we did in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Regardless of your political affilation, a liberation of The Iraqi people is an inevitable, but happy, byproduct of overthrow of the Baathist party. To dismiss that outcome as Bush Administration political propanganda is to deny an element of truth to the situation.

Furthermore, if the entire country were turned over to the sole rule of Jessie Helms or Strom Thurman, I can hardly believe that they could ever come close to a Saddam Hussein level of brutality in any since of the word.

I think the stakes are a bit higher than they were in Kosovo to leave this to The UN.

Yeah I'm sorry we coward out in the last GW when the Original Bush went back on his word about helping those who rebelled against Hussien. I think we should leave it up to the people of Iraq, their Nieghbors and the UN to determine their future, not the Republican Party, Haliburton and Britian.
Really we did not coward out on our own accord in 1991. Remember that The UN mandate was NOT to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Had we stated that as our goal, there never would have been a UN resolution of any kind. Although I do agree with you that the United States should have tossed his butt out, I see that as more of a warning that we should not be as responsive to the UN as we have been in the past.
I believe that the post Cold War aim of The UN (similar to The EU) is to limit US power and authority in the world at the expense of their stated core values. They may occasionally be consulted, but they should never have veto power over what the US should do for the benefit of our own citizens.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: Jimbo
You see I've gotten caught up with this speel out government has put forth about freeing the Iraqi's from Tyranny. But originally I was in support of Military action just to rid the world of Hussien and the WMD's and that was it. To me that was justification enough to over throw Husien with Military Force. I always figured when we were done we'd let the UN take other and Pull our troops out like we did in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Regardless of your political affilation, a liberation of The Iraqi people is an inevitable, but happy, byproduct of overthrow of the Baathist party. To dismiss that outcome as Bush Administration political propanganda is to deny an element of truth to the situation.

Furthermore, if the entire country were turned over to the sole rule of Jessie Helms or Strom Thurman, I can hardly believe that they could ever come close to a Saddam Hussein level of brutality in any since of the word.

I think the stakes are a bit higher than they were in Kosovo to leave this to The UN.
I don't see were you addressed my point about us over seeing the interm government versus letting the Arab League or the UN. If you have a good rebuttal please feel free to give it as I'm always open to a progressive, enlightened and intelligent viewpoint which you seem very capable of giving!

Yeah I'm sorry we coward out in the last GW when the Original Bush went back on his word about helping those who rebelled against Hussien. I think we should leave it up to the people of Iraq, their Nieghbors and the UN to determine their future, not the Republican Party, Haliburton and Britian.
Really we did not coward out on our own accord in 1991. Remember that The UN mandate was NOT to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Had we stated that as our goal, there never would have been a UN resolution of any kind. Although I do agree with you that the United States should have tossed his butt out, I see that as more of a warning that we should not be as responsive to the UN as we have been in the past.
I believe that the post Cold War aim of The UN (similar to The EU) is to limit US power and authority in the world at the expense of their stated core values. They may occasionally be consulted, but they should never have veto power over what the US should do for the benefit of our own citizens.
I agree, it would have taken a leader with much more courage than the original Bush to go against that UN mandate to do the Honest, Moral and Right thing by making sure that were kept our word to those who we left most vunerable by making promises that we obviously never intended to keep!
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I don't see were you addressed my point about us over seeing the interm government versus letting the Arab League or the UN. If you have a good rebuttal please feel free to give it as I'm always open to a progressive, enlightened and intelligent viewpoint which you seem very capable of giving!
THAT'S A LIE RED, TAKE IT BACK YOU BASTARD!!!!!!!!!! ;)

I'm really hot, so I will keep it short before I wonder outside with a beer.

I think the Arab League is a non-starter. They seem to lack the ability to come to any consensus beyond "We Hate Israel". They are also comprised of some of the least free government on this planet outside of Africa. I feel it would be too much to expect a collection of Arab governments to dictate terms and conditions of freedom when they are universally incapable of doing that with their own countries.

I trust the UN only slightly better.

As far as an interim government goes, I really have full faith in The US's ability to do that on our own. I really don't see what The UN could add (beyond a veneer of political legitimacy). I think now is the time to care about positive results rather that popular world opinion. If we get it right, or even mostly right, they will come around.
Including a large UN presence to curry favor with countries that dislike us anyways is fruitless and potentially dangerous.

In short, I feel that neither should have a meaningful roll in a reconstructed (and reconstituted) Iraq.

I don't trust them to overcome their petty axe-grinding and trust in their better intentions do "the right thing".

OK, it's BEER time.

:)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: Jimbo
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I don't see were you addressed my point about us over seeing the interm government versus letting the Arab League or the UN. If you have a good rebuttal please feel free to give it as I'm always open to a progressive, enlightened and intelligent viewpoint which you seem very capable of giving!
THAT'S A LIE RED, TAKE IT BACK YOU BASTARD!!!!!!!!!! ;)

I'm really hot, so I will keep it short before I wonder outside with a beer.

I think the Arab League is a non-starter. They seem to lack the ability to come to any consensus beyond "We Hate Israel". They are also comprised of some of the least free government on this planet outside of Africa. I feel it would be too much to expect a collection of Arab governments to dictate terms and conditions of freedom when they are universally incapable of doing that with their own countries.

I trust the UN only slightly better.

As far as an interim government goes, I really have full faith in The US's ability to do that on our own. I really don't see what The UN could add (beyond a veneer of political legitimacy). I think now is the time to care about positive results rather that popular world opinion. If we get it right, or even mostly right, they will come around.
Including a large UN presence to curry favor with countries that dislike us anyways is fruitless and potentially dangerous.

In short, I feel that neither should have a meaningful roll in a reconstructed (and reconstituted) Iraq.

I don't trust them to overcome their petty axe-grinding and trust in their better intentions do "the right thing".

OK, it's BEER time.

:)
Werll enjoy your suds Jimbo! I respectfully have to disagree with you. I am willing to wait for the positive outcome of this war to engage you and others who are intelligent enough to think for themselves in a spirited debate on this issue.
 

Morph

Banned
Oct 14, 1999
747
0
0
"Legitimate" is a loaded word. A government can be legitimate in one person's eyes but not in another.

In regards to Iraq, i think we established their legitimacy in the 80's when we enlisted them as our ally and supplied them with money/arms/(god knows what else).
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: Morph
"Legitimate" is a loaded word. A government can be legitimate in one person's eyes but not in another.

In regards to Iraq, i think we established their legitimacy in the 80's when we enlisted them as our ally and supplied them with money/arms/(god knows what else).
Who's we Kemosabe? You have a picture of RR in your Cod Piece?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
Counter question, and pithy is ok for me :p


What will the Iraqi's consider a legitimate government?

If they do not consider the US legitimate, and reject the Occupation, what are the legitimate limits of force? If they largely consider us invaders, which I think likely, what measures are you willing to abide to force this administration's will on them?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Counter question, and pithy is ok for me :p


What will the Iraqi's consider a legitimate government?

If they do not consider the US legitimate, and reject the Occupation, what are the legitimate limits of force? If they largely consider us invaders, which I think likely, what measures are you willing to abide to force this administration's will on them?
If we were true to our convictions the form of goverment the Iraqis choose to decide on whether Pro America or not would be the one we let them have.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,375
3,499
126
Tough question. I have lived under a Parliamentary Democracy all my life, so naturally I prefer a Democratically elected government, but is Democracy more legitimate than a Monarchy, Dictatorship, or other form? I think I'm in agreement with Hayabusrider, define "legitimate" , but also what is the purpose of deciding legitimacy?

Just as an aside: Is a Communist government Democratically(not as in the Soviet Union, but similar to US election) elected "legitimate"? Would "legitimacy" protect it(a Communist government) from foreign interference? (my choice of "Communist" is for effect, aka making the choice more difficult)
 

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
the only thing i'm worried about the UN is letting politics get aside when a new government is put into place. If the iraqis respect the US military after regime is done, and no wide resentment is seen (I don't think you can judge either way yet, i'm on the optimistic side), then a military rule/coalition rule will be ok, as long as that government is allowed to play without politics getting in the way (pro-anti American government). If however, we still have large resentment along the population, then the UN will be needed.

It's too hard to tell really how the iraqi people feel, whether the coalition is seen as a path to ousting the regime, to freedom, or food. In the US media, I've never seen an iraqi exile against freedom, however, in Jordan you have all these people going back to fight an invasion. I know one thing, the iraqi people want their freedom, and not one like Iran or a muslim nation.

I'm optimistic that the iraqi people will welcome US forces when the regime is dead and will trust a military rule. We have a proven track record, and military officials are the best to avoid political decisions. Also, rumsfeld and company must stop their influence almost completely. The question is whether the extremist in surrounding countries will prove too difficult to counter. As long as nationalism takes a firm hold, compared to tribal affiliation. Also, a lot will depend on their economy; a good economy for everyone will defeat anyone. They have a large educated public and an abundance of oil, so I think it's ok to assume a fast growing economy.
 

Morph

Banned
Oct 14, 1999
747
0
0
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
if there's only one candidate on the ballot, its not legitimate.
Haha, that would be funny if it was like that. Our puppet leader gets 100% of the vote just like Saddam.
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76
Originally posted by: Morph
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
if there's only one candidate on the ballot, its not legitimate.
Haha, that would be funny if it was like that. Our puppet leader gets 100% of the vote just like Saddam.
DING!

DING!

DING!

We have a weener in the non-thinking tool contest!

Stand up a give us all a wave Morph!

 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Interesting question. A country's government is legitmate if the majority of its people decide to keep it. Theoretically a monarchy can work provide the ruler is benevolent and has the love of his people and in that case it would be legitimate rule.

Who knows where Iraq will end up? I find it hard to believe there will be free elections there anytime soon.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,375
3,499
126
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Interesting question. A country's government is legitmate if the majority of its people decide to keep it. Theoretically a monarchy can work provide the ruler is benevolent and has the love of his people and in that case it would be legitimate rule.

Who knows where Iraq will end up? I find it hard to believe there will be free elections there anytime soon.
That seems like a reasonable definition, of course the trick in using that is how to ascertain "legitimacy" in a non-Democracy.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY