I mean a real dictator would be rounding up his enemies, stripping them of wealth, forcing the women into brothels and killing the men. Is he really a dictator or are liberals flaming mollys without a clue?
2007-04-09 11:04:54 · 14 answers · asked by cladiusneroimperator 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because he is not a dictator.
2007-04-09 11:09:22 · answer #1 · answered by B aka PE 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Bush is going against the will of the American people as far as Iraq is concerned - in fact, he is going against he whole world (and no, the Iraqis do not want him or his army there), so in that sense he is a dictator. Then you have Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, ignoring the UN and International Law, putting various friends and supporters into positions of power...
If you ask me (which you did when you stuck that question on here) the US has nothing to do with democracy or freedom and is being run by a consortium of rich business people - they are the real dictators and Bush is just one of their minions.
2007-04-09 11:20:20 · answer #2 · answered by airmonkey1001 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He is not a dictator, may not be the most intelligent person though. Yea, a lot of Iraqi's died, it's war, doesn't make him a dictator. People die during war, it happened in Vietnam, WWII, WWI, and our own civil war. The difference today is now we have a media to tell us everyday how many people died, before there weren't so many different media coverages. Now, the Iraqi's are in civil war, I doubt we can stop it, but Bush didn't kill all those people, they are killing themselves.
2007-04-09 11:19:59 · answer #3 · answered by joseph 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And dictators typically seize power by becoming popular amongst the subjects and making them think they'd be better with him in power. If Bush truly is a dictator then he is failing miserably, however as a President he is do a great job.
2007-04-09 11:17:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
So, you want to wait until it gets to that? How much of your freedoms are you going to give up until you decide it's a sham, or don't you value your freedoms?
Unlike you, I'm not willing to give up my freedoms just because a gang of Salafist villains played Roger Ramjet with some 757's. I don't need a paternalistic government to keep me safe. I'm one of those people who believes security is found in an armed, well informed public. Had even 1 member of each of the crew or passengers on each plane been armed and allowed to exert their 2nd amendment rights, there wouldn't have been a 9/11.
Only cowards give up their freedoms to government in exchange for the illusion of security.
2007-04-09 11:31:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Rounding up his enemies?
He did it alright (War)
Stripping them of wealth?
He did again (Consequence of War)
Forcing the women into brothels?
He indirectly did it (Consequence of globalization)
Killing men?
He indirectly did it again (Sending troops to Iraq)
oops... He's a dictator to your narrow-minded standards of dictatorism
2007-04-09 11:20:32 · answer #6 · answered by OK guy 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Oh, there have certainly been proscriptions. But the rest of your propositions are somewhat extreme.
2007-04-09 11:16:42 · answer #7 · answered by mattzcoz 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what century are using for your example?? In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power.
that sounds like Bush to me.
2007-04-09 11:10:04 · answer #8 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Just curious, where do you think he would put the brothels?
2007-04-09 11:11:03 · answer #9 · answered by Carpe diem 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Their view of what the terms "Patriotism" and "Dictator" are are so perverted you couldn't get more perversion by googling "naked white chicks".
2007-04-09 11:11:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
DICTATOR ABUSES POWER- IAW bushy wacker.
2007-04-09 11:16:12 · answer #11 · answered by cork 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋