Democracy versus Totalitarian Regimes?

Question

Scholars around the world concur that a fundamental lesson of the twenty-first century is that democracies cannot coexist indefinitely with powerful and ambitious totalitarian regimes. Sooner or later the competing goals and ideologies bring conflict until one or the other side prevails.

To understand that statement you need to know what the definitions of democracy and totalitarian regime are.

Democracy- government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Totalitarian Regime- (regime) a government in power- (totalitarian) exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others.

If you are a member of the Democracy, how far are you willing to go, what are you willing to sacrifice to protect that Democracy from Totalitarianism?

Answer 1

I would be willing to sacrifice everything, including my life, to protect my democracy from subjugation by any totalitarian regime. I simply refuse to accept rule by any totalitarian regime.

As long as you preserve the democracy you can sacrifice almost anything else on a temporary basis. Once the threat is removed, if it is the will of the people, any lost freedoms can be returned.

Do we bring preemption into this? How much does the handwriting need to be on the wall before you do something about a totalitarian threat? Go back 67 years, Hitler invades Czechoslovakia and then Poland in 1939. Britain and France declare war on Germany, but don't fight Hitler. Hitler invades Denmark and Norway in 1940. Neville Chamberlain resigns when it is clear that appeasing Hitler is not going to keep Britain safe. Let's rewind the clock almost two years to September of 1938. Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier of France and Mussolini of Italy met in Munich and signed the Treaty of Munich. They basically appeased Hitler by giving him the Sudetanland of Czechoslovakia without the Czechs being represented at their little meeting. What if they had stated in no uncertain terms that if Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia the rest of Europe would crush him? What if the United States hadn't been isolationist at the time and had joined Britain, France and Italy, pledging our support in defense of Europe? Let's say Hitler then invades Czechoslovakia and we all respond by defending Czechoslovakia and push Hitler back into Germany. Would that have been a justifiable defense of democracy through preemption? I think so.

Fast forward back to 2006. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, uncategorically states that Iran will not stop enrichment of uranium and states that Iran has the right to pursue nuclear technology and that it is for peaceful purposes. All evidence indicates that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology in order to build nuclear weapons. It is known that Iran is a fundamentalist islamofascist totalitarian regime which is furthermore a state sponsor of terror. There is clear evidence, from other statements by Ahmadinejad himself, that he believes Iran is an instrument of apocalypse and that the "12th imam," Muhammad al-Mahdi, can be induced to return early in order to ensure that Iran is protected as part of the global relilgion of islam, the last religion on earth. In muslim beliefs, denied by governments, but widely believed, the 12th imam al-Mahdi is supposed to return at the "End of Days." Considering all that, is Mutually Assured Destruction a deterrent or an incentive? Is preemptive war justified against the totalitarian regime of Iran and possibly even desirable in order to prevent future nuclear destruction? Iran has been using all negotiation offers from all nations as a delaying tactic, apparently hoping that they can get that first bomb built. They well know that once they have a nuclear bomb they can then further redefine the rules of the game. Do we, as free people, want Iran to set the rules for us?

How far will you go to prevent Iran from precipitating the return of the 12th imam so that, as the ilamofascists believe, islam can be the only religion left in the world?

Answer 2

im back!they tried,bless um! there is a massive shift in the way democracy in uk right now,like 90 days without trial,profiling asains....the government say to protect our rights they must take some of our rights away...how the *** dos that work.we need a new democray...think about it...its not that mad. its almost time to stand up my friend....when they start to stop your questions going on a yahoo site,,you know they are shittin it! go in peace kev uk

Answer 3

the BIG question is are you willing to sacrifice to defend that democracy from a threat from within? take a look around you ... when are americans going to say "no more" and we arnt buying ur bs about protecting us from terrorists anymore when our freedom is being ate up by a treasonous administration in the whitehouse.

Answer 4

wow... so whats the question I want neither, they each and each have their reward, and that i do belive, the democracy interior the top will loose. for that reason, why safeguard it, whilst with the help of doing so, you basically boost the grip of the wealthy few who wield the potential..

Answer 5

Depends on the kind of democracy, totalitarianism and peoples of both.

Answer 6

To me it's worth my life. It should be to you as well.