If so, why? If not, why not?
2007-05-01 02:18:39 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
thank you, lots of good answers. I am a little disappointed in the very little support for a Dem prez from the left side. I, as most of you, think it is impossible to attain world peace. human nature and nature in general are not conducive to peace, for goodness sake, even ants will attack and kill each other. True peace will only be found when we are 6 feet under ground.
2007-05-01 05:07:46 · update #1
If A Democrat becomes president there might be peace.If we totally surrender and let them turn America into a third world country ready to be taken over by the Islamofascists they might have peace with that and all real Americans would maybe be killed in the process.
If you are talking about real peace,the kind where America stays America,no way.
2007-05-01 02:31:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, because it doesn't depend on who the president is. Neither party has the capability to bring world peace ... and here's the reason. The president of the U.S. is not the president of the world. The decisions made regarding American political institutions do not change the fact that there are bad people out there who want to hurt others. What is important is what the next president does for the United States of America. Frankly, in this time of terrorism and cultural clashing, I don't think the Dems have the backbone to do what is necessary to protect this nation. Look at their plan for Iraq: the war isn't popular but we are making progress (did you know the insurgents are now fighting each other?), and the best they can come up with in 5 months of legislative control is to pronounce the war in Iraq lost and retreat. Good plan guys ... that should really help to discourage the terrorists. They think we're weak and want to wipe us off the earth, and you want to give credence to those ideas, that should really help. At least Bush has the courage to stand his ground when everyone else buckles under the pressure. We supported this war in the beginning. George Tenet's book criticizes Bush, but his CIA provided the intelligence that everyone used to decide to go to war.
2007-05-01 02:31:13 · answer #2 · answered by Been There 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
How are you defining world peace? Since when is world peace a valid goal of the US presidency?
I do not deceive myself into believing world peace will be achieved without a one-world government headed by a tyrant. I do not think peace is even desirable if that is how it is achieved.
2007-05-01 02:35:34 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Much more so if one is elected. Tell me how many times world peace has been acheived??? zero times, good answer, so that makes your question invalid of the get go. Second, diplomacy has always been the way to handle things. If and only if that does work, then you resort to wars, this has always been the way and should always be.
2007-05-01 02:29:56 · answer #4 · answered by bs b 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. And we won't have it with a Republican either. It's time to be realistic about world peace. We've never ever had it. Someone will always hate someone else. It's naive to think that peace is directly affected by political persuasion. The best we can do is to ensure peace within our own borders and those of our allies.
2007-05-01 02:22:48 · answer #5 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
In the prophetic book of Revelations, a peace treaty among the whole world, is the beginning of the end of days.
2007-05-01 02:21:49 · answer #6 · answered by corEy marsh 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
We've just had 6 years of total republican rule, where is the world peace?
2007-05-01 02:24:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
The rest of the world doesnt give a crap if we have a democrat , republican, or alien for president. They have their own agenda. So NO NO NO
2007-05-01 02:22:59 · answer #8 · answered by chris m 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, the terrorist states will launch an all out attack on Israel and Saudi Arabia/Kiuwait.
2007-05-01 02:24:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
well, since a democrat would concentrate on domestic policy. there would most likely be another attck in the US. our foreign policy would go down the toilette and world peace would not be possible. end of story
2007-05-01 02:22:56 · answer #10 · answered by cliftonstewart11 2 · 3⤊ 4⤋