At the university we study the problem of state legitimacy: when it can be considered legitimate? Answer: when it is based on citizens' consent. Then, a tyrannical state is illegitimate? Depends: even a tyrant can have consensus, democracy is not the only possible form of government, certain that if deported, killed, imprisoned, if in fact ruled by terror, then his rule is illegitimate.
Even then I happened to think of Mussolini, Hitler and Franco, all dictators with a strong popular support, and Stalin, who deported and instead killed millions of people. My professor would consider the first three legitimate governments, and the last unlawful. Now there's Gaddafi international intervention, and I've made me some ideas.
Gaddafi is certainly a tyrant, a primitive culture and racist, no different from other presidents for life, sultans, sheiks, kings, princes and priest-kings of that broad region from the Caspian Sea to the Sahara: civil approximate values (in particular women and "infidels"), cult of personality, questionable distribution of national resources.
I do not like to live in Libya. Evidently did not like many others, and they thought of rebelling. But to many others Gaddafi is fine: the army, aviation, marine, are with him and the citizens who are serving there are in the ideal situation to oppose the tyrant, as have weapons and organizational structures.
Many tribes are on his side. In short, an important part of the Libyan people is with him, I do not know if the majority or the minority, but I think this does not know anyone. And, if so, what right other nations intervene in favor of one side and against each other? Of course, it is said, Gaddafi began to shoot and bomb, killing a lot of people.
True. But I wonder if the opposition in Italy to rally his forces (see it unlikely, I say it now) and a significant proportion of people marched on Rome to depose B, shouting slogans to the fact that this is the person who committed a lot of offense, which uses the State as its own thing, for the benefit of his business and his friends, who leads an immoral and dissolute life, which is unworthy to rule, which basically has only a low 20% of popular support .
If all this happen, it would be so strange if the legitimate government, though disgusted by a large body of citizens, the police did act before then if not enough, the army to quell what was, in effect, a addressed or, at best, a revolution? I think not, for the truth I think that if Facta, in 1922, had deployed the Royal Carabinieri (would have been enough) and had stopped Mussolini and his henchmen, certainly with some dead on both sides, would have done just fine.
And I would not like it one bit if some foreign state had intervened to support the fascists, perhaps for fear of comunistizzazione Italy. And then: but how is it that in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Iran, China, especially China, is not involved anyone? Gaddafi is to me ... on my stomach.
But I like even less selective cross. , April 1, 2011 
Even then I happened to think of Mussolini, Hitler and Franco, all dictators with a strong popular support, and Stalin, who deported and instead killed millions of people. My professor would consider the first three legitimate governments, and the last unlawful. Now there's Gaddafi international intervention, and I've made me some ideas.
Gaddafi is certainly a tyrant, a primitive culture and racist, no different from other presidents for life, sultans, sheiks, kings, princes and priest-kings of that broad region from the Caspian Sea to the Sahara: civil approximate values (in particular women and "infidels"), cult of personality, questionable distribution of national resources.
I do not like to live in Libya. Evidently did not like many others, and they thought of rebelling. But to many others Gaddafi is fine: the army, aviation, marine, are with him and the citizens who are serving there are in the ideal situation to oppose the tyrant, as have weapons and organizational structures.
Many tribes are on his side. In short, an important part of the Libyan people is with him, I do not know if the majority or the minority, but I think this does not know anyone. And, if so, what right other nations intervene in favor of one side and against each other? Of course, it is said, Gaddafi began to shoot and bomb, killing a lot of people.
True. But I wonder if the opposition in Italy to rally his forces (see it unlikely, I say it now) and a significant proportion of people marched on Rome to depose B, shouting slogans to the fact that this is the person who committed a lot of offense, which uses the State as its own thing, for the benefit of his business and his friends, who leads an immoral and dissolute life, which is unworthy to rule, which basically has only a low 20% of popular support .
If all this happen, it would be so strange if the legitimate government, though disgusted by a large body of citizens, the police did act before then if not enough, the army to quell what was, in effect, a addressed or, at best, a revolution? I think not, for the truth I think that if Facta, in 1922, had deployed the Royal Carabinieri (would have been enough) and had stopped Mussolini and his henchmen, certainly with some dead on both sides, would have done just fine.
And I would not like it one bit if some foreign state had intervened to support the fascists, perhaps for fear of comunistizzazione Italy. And then: but how is it that in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Iran, China, especially China, is not involved anyone? Gaddafi is to me ... on my stomach.
But I like even less selective cross. , April 1, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment