Any other advantages or disadvantages? Thanks.
2007-07-02 10:42:37 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It would depend on who lead such a coupe. If they were supporting a right wing replacement we might have less crime at home. If they were supporting a left wing replacement we might have less as well depending on how serious they took the crime issue. Foreign policy being "better" is a question of opinion - better for who foreigners or the US is the question there. My guess is we'd have a better one for the US but not for foreigners.
2007-07-02 10:47:41 · answer #1 · answered by netjr 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Different foreign policy maybe. Don't forget, W put a retired general in charge of the State Department. Bet Colin Powell was no accident and it sent a message to the rest of the world.
Less crime? Sure! Dictatorships always have less crime, fewer civil rights, more government sanctioned death squads to eliminate the undesirable members of the society.
Sounds like a good trade off to me.
2007-07-02 17:49:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you advocating a military junta?
I believe this makes you a traitor to democracy...
But I think the answer is complex. There are always good and bad people in every organization: I guess it would depend on which Generals did the taking over. The ones Bush fired for telling the truth, or the ones who went along with his little coup...
___________
I find naysayers answer (below) to be a hoot. He declares Sparta, he says, had a military government and they did well, whereas Rome had some kind of democracy and... what? They didn't do well?
Of course we all know about the greatness and breadth of the Spartan empire... to bad the Romans didn't have such a famous empire!!!!!!
Man, people have odd opinions (;?)
2007-07-02 17:47:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Who would lead? the Generals in charge were put there by the president and have a loyalty to him, and he still would be in control as he is now, so there is no real change.
It would eliminate our checks and balances and that is not a good thing at all, consider the freedom to say that the presidents actions are wrong, you could be thrown in jail and possibly shot on site, it would no longer be a democracy it would be, how so many, dictatorships started.
That's exactly how Castro came to power in Cuba.
2007-07-02 17:48:15 · answer #4 · answered by m d 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good question, Sparta had a military state and they fared well for a while. The Romans had different classes, the Senate and the military and ended up over reaching.
2007-07-02 17:51:20 · answer #5 · answered by naysayer 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not really...that's called "Martial Law" and Clinton probably toyed with the idea to stay in power. If 9/11 had happened on his watch as he encouraged..he could have called off the election as an "Emergency".
That "shadow gov't thing" is related to facilities built for emergencies. Some of the tunnel dust even got on Ron Foster's body before Ft. Marcey Park...
2007-07-02 17:49:12 · answer #6 · answered by acct10132002 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
What you are describing is a Military State....like North Korea.
2007-07-02 17:53:49 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, I see the U.S. military as just as bureaucratic as the government. I don't see a vast improvement.
2007-07-02 17:46:53 · answer #8 · answered by Fred 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
We'd have a military dictatorship. That would be bad.
2007-07-02 17:46:51 · answer #9 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
this question is so dumb it shouldn't even need asking
what you just described is a military junta, one step away from a dictatorship
2007-07-02 17:47:09 · answer #10 · answered by Nick F 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋