English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Ok, I'm in Ireland, but what about British and American views, on this, and especially soldiers' views. It seems as if things never get done.

2007-04-09 09:26:17 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

But George Bush went ahead with a war on Iraq and he was a politician. Don't people stateside, feel angry about it?

2007-04-09 09:33:55 · update #1

For Granny, yes I do think we should fix our own problems first. The HSE has let people down in County Monaghan recently. I want to fix that before talking about the US or the UK. Perhaps if there were smart people running our country instead of incompetents, we would have a decent health service. Why does the ordinary person suffer, while the ones with power do nothing.
It's time for change.

2007-04-09 11:10:46 · update #2

23 answers

No I do not think this would be a good idea simply because the military are trained to fight with lethal weapons and this method of rule is called 'military law' and is used only when a state of emergency has been declared.

Politicians govern by the will of the people who elected them democratically.

The choice is simple. We only have to look at those countries that have military rule to see what kind of lives the ordinary people have to endure.

2007-04-09 09:38:51 · answer #1 · answered by oldtimer 3 · 0 0

In the US, ours is a civilian government. As President, Mr. Bush is also Commander-in-chief of the US military. But he is still a civilian.
Our government is set up specifically so the military cannot be in charge. Even when a military man takes over a government, he becomes a politician. Governing by the use of force is virtually impossible.
Winston Churchill once said ours is the worst government on earth, except for all of the others.
Usually it is better if politicians don't do anything. When legislators pass new laws, they usually screw things up. When we have political gridlock, our country continues to move along, and it does not cost us more money.
We never get money saving laws out of our legislature.

2007-04-09 16:40:37 · answer #2 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0 0

The only advantage with having the military in charge, as you put it, would be that the military rule book doesn't change. this would mean that political spin should be a thing of the past. However have the military in charge give the rulers all the guns from the beginning, and anyway just look at Argentina where they have had such and what happened there.

2007-04-10 02:39:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well look what we have at the moment..A government who don't have a clue. Who believe that increasing taxes is a cure for everything from rising crime to earths natural cycle of climate change, A government that Lie's to the public and sends our soldiers into a no win situation in Iraq. while handing over your "democracy" to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels

2007-04-09 16:49:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The possibility is an idea but we do need people at the top, who know how to run things (books and stuff).

I think however, normal people should be empoyed to make most of the decissions because we know and understand, the real problems of life!!!

Good Question.

2007-04-09 16:35:25 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 0 0

As a former US Marine my answer is this..

Absolutely not..

I think maybe there should be voting requirements, such as involvement in public service in order to qualify to vote or hold office. Maybe being a veteran in order to vote, or run for office, just to show that you are willing to put your life at risk for your country. Even that idea is dangerous in my opinion.

Dictatorships usually suck. Military dictatorships are the worst kind.

2007-04-09 16:32:54 · answer #6 · answered by h h 5 · 2 0

Sounds good but....... every sector has those people who are only concerned with their own advancement. To include the military. The biggest problem we have are making lawyers politicians. Who are they working for? really?. To me its like putting the fox in charge of guarding the chickens.

2007-04-09 16:32:20 · answer #7 · answered by horgurce 3 · 1 0

Yes, perhaps a military junta that will ruthlessly suppress the voices of opposition and reason while dismantling 200 years of civil liberties.

2007-04-09 16:30:41 · answer #8 · answered by Studbolt Slickrock Deux 4 · 0 0

Absolutely NOT.

The military works for the citizenry, not the other way around. Any attempt change that will result in a lousy military (as people join to become part of the "ruling class" instead of to serve) and lousy government.

Sincerely,
Retired military guy

2007-04-09 16:28:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

I'm really thinking in the same lines as you, they talk about democracy, but were moving backwards. Let the military take over, bro. Its in our best interest.

2007-04-10 09:27:43 · answer #10 · answered by dino 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers