Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
So you're essentially arguing argumentum ad populum.Originally Posted by Thunder
You must consider the Congo Free State to have been "legitimate" as well, who was recognized as "legitimate" by the majority of European nations at the Berlin Conference.
Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 04-29-12 at 10:44 AM.
"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."
Well, then Thunder, let's review what started this back and forth, because after some 12 damned pages of denial, and attack, some may not know what the hell you are talking about here....
So without me parsing what you are saying here, why don't you explain it further so that we can be clear.Originally Posted by Thunder
Saddam Hussein being legitimate or not had nothing to do with his threat to the oil flow from the Middle East to the rest of the world. He was obviously legitimate enough to preserve for over a decade later. The Taliban siezing power of Afghanistan (their country) made their power legitimate. Were it not for 9/11, Osama Bin Laden's power resided in blowing up our embassies (unmolested) and murdering our troops abroad. Attacking New York City in front of the world made his power legitimate.
Our ideas of legitimacy, soveriegnty, and stability have been so twisted over the course of history that we haven't come to the realization that today's modern era demands a modern defintion. A surgeon wouldn't insist on open heart surgery with the surgical tool of the 19th century. Why in hell do we keep insisting that we approach international issues with 17th century laws and perspectives?
Last edited by MSgt; 04-29-12 at 12:16 PM.