A challenge for all Bush-Haters

[Scytano]

I think Democracy, and it's immediate family, is the only form of legitimate government in the world today. Sure, it's important for the US too.

Two questions before I launch into another screaming rant that no-one wants to read:
a) What do you mean by, "Democracy, and it's immediate family"?
b) What make a form of government, any form of government, "legitimate"?

a) Democracy's immediate family meaning those different flavors of Democracy... like pure Democracy (Athenian), US-style Representative Democracy, and the various Parliamentary systems across the globe.
b) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Without that last part in particular, there is no legitimacy.

[Guido Finucci]

a) Democracy's immediate family meaning those different flavors of Democracy... like pure Democracy (Athenian), US-style Representative Democracy, and the various Parliamentary systems across the globe.

And you think that these are all, basically, the same? Particularly -- do you think that all of these are examples of systems where those who govern do so only with the consent of the governed?

(and to pre-empt a possible next question: do you consider apathy on behalf of the governed to indicate consent?)

b) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Without that last part in particular, there is no legitimacy.

Okay -- it is my opinion that the truths mentioned are neither necessarily true, nor are they self-evident, but that's just me and has no real bearing on this argument.

Let us, just for a moment, assume that this ODWG was onto something and consent is the single necessary and sufficent condition for legitimate government. What do you think he meant by consent? Unanimous consent? Majority consent? Do you think that wahtever it was they meant can both provide a basis for a legititmate system of government and actually occur in practice, in the real world, even when some people are trying to fuck the system?

Or to put it another way -- how much dissent do you need before a democratic government ceases to hold legitimate power?

[Scytano]

I'm going to bow out of this.

[Guido Finucci]

I'm going to bow out of this.

Awwwww! Come back. I'll play nicely. Promise.

[Voice of Truth]

Well all I can say is every time a U.S. President has made the war cry, or even strong rhetoric for that matter, since WWII there has been an outcry from many in the world that America is out of control and trying to cause a nuclear war and blah blah blah...  Also you people keep on with your "breaking the rules of the U.N".  We broke NO RULES.  We, in fact, had resoutions that supported what we did, IF ANYTHING.  There was no resolution stating "Iraq cannot be invaded" or "The U.S. must seek permission from the security council before invading Iraq".  You all keep telling yourselves that happened to make this war seem even more illegal, but it just didn't go down that way.  Resolution 1441 threatened the "use of force" if Saddam did not comply.  As to whether or not he was complying, that is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, and I'm sure we would disagree on that, but on this basic argument, you guys are simply wrong.

As to the "end of American civilization", well the way I look at, as more and more democracies prop up all over the world because they have seen the great success of democracy, "American civlization" is expanding tenfold.  American civilization is freedom and liberty.  It's not something people usually want to get rid of too fast.  At best, I'd concede that in maybe a hundred+ years we could see a world body gaining a lot more centralized power (scary thought) and nations losing theirs.  Keep your eye on how the EU plays out over the next couple decades to get a better grasp on whether or not that will happen.  Either way, this talk of the U.S. marking their end because of this Iraq war is plain stupid.  Seriously.  Did Vietnam spell our end, which was far less successful and had just as little worldwide support.

Finally, that article was great propaganda, agent c.  What exactly was I supposed to learn from it?  So it took Rice's comments out of context (if you saw those lines in the entire comments they were part of, they didn't come off near that way, but big surprise this article... ).  It also did the usual, attack us for the death of civilians during a military campaign.  Many more died in the liberation of France, an ally, during WWII.  The fact is our military campaigns continue to be increasingly more effective at curbing innocent deaths and increasing enemy deaths, but war is never perfect.  Even in a 100% "legitimate" war this same article could be written by a war opponent.  In affect, this falls on deaf ears to those who support the war.  Am I happy that innocent people have lost their lives; No.  Do I wish we could have killed none of them and only 100% enemies; Yes.  Is that realistic; No.  That article was a steaming pile of shit.  It's stinking up Discordia.  You should shovel it out.

[Cain]

"breaking the rules of the U.N".  We broke NO RULES.  

Incorrect.  Article 52 says you may only use military force in self-defence.  The latest UN resolution against Iraq was drafted so that there would be a legitmate way of delaring war, however the conditions were not met in a sufficient fashion to warrant military action.

[gnimbley]

::puts on his other hat::

a) Democracy's immediate family meaning those different flavors of Democracy... like pure Democracy (Athenian), US-style Representative Democracy, and the various Parliamentary systems across the globe.

And you think that these are all, basically, the same? Particularly -- do you think that all of these are examples of systems where those who govern do so only with the consent of the governed?

(and to pre-empt a possible next question: do you consider apathy on behalf of the governed to indicate consent?)

OMG< I"M DEVASTED BY YOUR LOGIC!!11!

::puts hat away::

Sorry, got a little carried away.

I seemed to remember that Athens was based on a slave labor economy.
Not really true democracy for anyone not a "citizen." However, we
quibble. All of these are better than one person rule. Somewhat better
than military dictatorship. Etc., etc.

I do think that apathy can be considered consent, but is it apathy or
resignation because they believe they are fucked regardless of who's
in power?

b) "We hold these truths....

Okay... What do you think he meant by consent? ...how much dissent do you need before a democratic government ceases to hold legitimate power?

Enough dissent to cause the government to become unfunctional.
Function = legitimacy. Or, to put it another way, there is no legitimacy,
only power.

All power to the poeples!

Now, if I only knew what a poeple was, I would have it all figured out.

(I think Jefferson meant the majority of those in the Continental
Congress when he wrote consent. Don't you? I also think he believed
that translated into the will of the whole people. Well, those who were
permitted to vote, anyway.)

[LMNO]

::
All power to the poeples!

Now, if I only knew what a poeple was, I would have it all figured out.

you must have meant the POEples.

Y'know, the Purity Of Essence party.

[gnimbley]

::puts on his VoT hat so he only has to respond to those things he
wishes to respond to and is allowed to change the subject AND
bring up allusions to WWII to justify all aggressive American foreign
military actions until the end of time::

Well all I can say is every time a U.S. President has made the war cry, or even strong rhetoric for that matter, since WWII there has been an outcry from many in the world that America is out of control and trying to cause a nuclear war and blah blah blah...  

Where did anyone here say that America is trying to cause a nuclear
war? You know, VoT, this sounds a lot like the Clinton tactic of dismissing
all criticism as "old news." Oh, wait. He wasn't a conservative. Sorry.

Also you people keep on with your "breaking the rules of the U.N".  We broke NO RULES... that is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, and I'm sure we would disagree on that, but on this basic argument, you guys are simply wrong.

VoT. You argue that people can legitimately have different
interpretations and then argue that anyone who has a different
interpretation from you is "simply wrong." Which is it?

As to the "end of American civilization", well the way I look at, as more and more democracies prop up all over the world because they have seen the great success of democracy, "American civlization" is expanding tenfold.  American civilization is freedom and liberty...

I will agree that the "end" of American civilization will come, some day.
It may be hundreds of years from now, so saying that Iraq or the
War on Terror will bring it is a real stretch.

However, I must disagree that "American civilization is freedom and
liberty." Americans pride themselves as being free, but they do not
have a monopoly on defining the term. It is a typical political tactic to
define movements or institutions as being a particluar idea (i.e.
Democrats are liberal, America is freedom, Wal-Mart is low prices)
but it is disengenious at best and propaganda at worse. American
civilization is more than it's self defined political image. It is American
culture, American corporate business practices, American economic
forces, American attitudes towards the world. Saying that we are
freedom and liberty, is like saying France is equality and China is
progressive.

Finally, that article was great propaganda, agent c.  

Yup. Excellent writing. A bit overboard at times, but nice nevertheless.
Almost as good as Bush's Inaugural address.

Many more died in the liberation of France, an ally, during WWII.  

Does this justify anything? Gee, more died over there, so I guess what
happened over here is okay?

The fact is our military campaigns continue to be increasingly more effective at curbing innocent deaths and increasing enemy deaths, but war is never perfect.  

I guess we should look forward to more smart wars then, huh? After all,
if we can only kill those we want to kill, then killing people is a great
way for a democracy to pass its time. If we could invent a bomb that
could kill only those people who hate democracy, then, wow!, wouldn't
that be a great weapon. And then, maybe if we tweak it just a little bit,
we could create a bomb that would only kill those who hate baby Jesus.
And then a bomb to kill all those who like that sucky music Turd is always
ranting against. And then...

[East Coast Hustle]

there is one, and only one thing that makes a government legitimate.

they have the most guns.

and for you fucking MORONS who think this is actually about spreading democracy, please explain to me why we didn't try this first in Sudan, or East Timor, or Spanish Sahara, or even Yemen, for fuck's sake? I'll tell you why. None of those countries had any strategic significance for American interests whatsoever...none of those countries had HUGE OIL RESERVES. It's not about anything else, no matter what mindless propaganda you choose to swallow. Turn off your TV and go think for yourselves for a minute...

[Cain]

When do we get to spread democracy to Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan?  Oh I forget, those are "benevolent dictatorships".  Yeah right.  Believe that and you'll believe anything.

[Lord Trout]

Benevolent Dictatorship. That almost sounds like an oxymoron, to me.

[Anonymous]

Well to those who won't watch it, feel free to never use the "close-minded" label on me ever again.

he had four years to make people listen,then they did,and he did fuck all but start a war. didnt he say that he was a war president? freedom means you can do what you want,which is what i believe the iraq nation did. hes now only got two years really before the candidates start doing their lying bit. wouldn't be surprised if colon powell won, oh or that clinton bird. thats gonna take the shine off bush and blackman and a women in the same year...hhehhheheheh...his horns couldn't fit through the door.

[Bob the Mediocre]

It also did the usual, attack us for the death of civilians during a military campaign.  Many more died in the liberation of France, an ally, during WWII.  The fact is our military campaigns continue to be increasingly more effective at curbing innocent deaths and increasing enemy deaths, but war is never perfect.  Even in a 100% "legitimate" war this same article could be written by a war opponent.  In affect, this falls on deaf ears to those who support the war.  Am I happy that innocent people have lost their lives; No.  Do I wish we could have killed none of them and only 100% enemies; Yes.  Is that realistic; No.  That article was a steaming pile of shit.

I've been thinking about something related to the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" cliche for a while. In the specific case of deciding who lives and dies, even without any accidental death, it's certainly true. "Kill them because they're trying to kill us." "These people have to die because they pose a future threat to our security." "This democratically elected leader has policies that will indirectly oppose the spread of our ideologies. We must replace him with someone more friendly." Each only takes slightly more justification than the last. Even in a case comparible to medical triage, this applies. If the only way to save some lives is to let others be killed, how do you decide? You want to talk about Vietnam, okay. Sometimes "we had to destroy the city to save it." Where the fuck does that kind of logic come from? "We had to amputate his head so he could survive. I'm sorry."
The American military is very good at smashing things. Not so much at being a doctor.

[illusion]

I don't think there's ever been a military that was good at being a doctor. It kind of goes against the purpose for which they were created in the first place. Which is to be the most effective killing machine possible.