Very good point. A terror group can always get elected, control the nation, and the people would be subject to their power.
At times, Democracy has elected terrible people....like Hezbolah. Democracies aren't perfect by any means.
2007-03-23 05:39:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Villain 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
the idea that anyone would want a full fledged escapes me. i am sorry to be different, but i still believe in my REPUBLIC> nothing said by rhe founding fathers about a democratic republic . the onlly thing that happened was after george washington served as president, they came up with another party called the democratic republican party, and the federalist party. washington had no party, but he was a federalist of a sort. sorry to get on my soapbox, but i, for one am afraid of a democracy. history does not speak well of it. so. iraq will not survive as a democracy of any sort. it is too islamic for too long. wont happen. my opinion, of course.
2007-03-23 05:57:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by oldtimer 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nothing. Nor does it have any effect on the other terrorists anywhere else in the world.
The only possible argument is that if the new Iraq govt is anti-terrorist, there will be fewer opportunities for terrorists to be based there. But it's not going to eliminate them.
2007-03-23 05:39:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Woth all due admire, i might take concern with the suggestion that the U. S. grew to become into "the 1st democracy" or that Iraq shows itself interior an identical place as our forefathers did interior the founding of our us of a, i might propose, instead, that that's valid to question the concept that Iraq might desire to abruptly get up and alter right into a comparably functioning "democratic government" given their situations. The arbitrary (or in line with possibility intentional) national borders imposed on the populous after the autumn of the Ottoman empire, with the help of layout i've got faith, sure mutually disparate communities (tribes) of individuals who had traditionally been at odds with one yet another. Their us of a grew to become into no longer defined based upon their very own determination (as us of a grew to become into.) To assume those distinctive communities to abruptly hit upon a feeling of 'national purpose', under the situations, constantly strikes me as extremely naive. i might in basic terms wish that people who 'lead' us will by some ability come to grips with this fact and start to dictate 'national coverage' with a extra decerning standpoint...reward
2016-10-20 07:15:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
And to you go the kudos!! You're catching on, laddy! This whole idea of democracy and freedoms to do whatever one pleases is only a ground, or soap box, to allow for more of the same! Do you really think we WANT to end this charade?
There's plenty of money and power to be had by all who know where to hide that needle in which hay-stack.
2007-03-23 05:42:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
That's a very good point Mr. Pip. A Democratic government could still sympathize and be a safe haven for terrorist.
2007-03-23 05:39:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Bush's policy makes no sense.
We get another Saddam 2 years after we pull out anyway. Or worse, some cleric-run fundamentalist theocracy.
Either way. After we leave, Iraq will fall in with it's Mid East neighbors and be our enemy once again.
2007-03-23 05:37:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I know what you were dreaming last night. like bush had a dream becoming Alexander the great..
2007-03-23 05:39:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by eviot44 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
AT LEAST WE TRIED. THERE ARE TERRORISTS ALL OVER THE WORLD & UNTIL EVERYBODY RELIZES THAT
THIS IS WORLD WAR III WE WILL GET NO WHERE FAST.
2007-03-23 05:50:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋