How many of you out there agree with this man, who is a "scholar" from an influential neocon think tank?

Question

This guy is dead serious, and I'm certain he'll find some supporters here.

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.
Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
#
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilisation.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at [e-mail].
read full author bio here

Answer 1

It is my hope that president Bush leaves office at the designated time. However, our Congress has failed miserably in protecting the rights of Americans. While some of the programs may be necessary, oversight should be used to prevent the abuse of power by our government. I don't think any but the most lily livered are ready for the type of government suggested by this person.

Answer 2

The man is correct. I even agree that every thing he said should happen right up to the Julius Caesar stuff. I do not want a president for life nor do I think Mister Bush would desire it.
That fact that a democracy is severely handicapped when it comes to decision making is not new. I believe that is why the president was written into our constitution as commander and chief. It was to prevent the inevitable quagmire of congress trying to direct a war. In our past presidents have restricted information of war just for the reason that in the best interests of the country the public did not need to know the details of the death toll or set backs. Along about Korea things changed and we have been handicapped in every conflict since. It is suicidal to let the public decide the way we prosecute a war once in it. When war is entered into it must be prosecuted to when and kill the enemy. The idea of the high ground or moral superiority is a waste of time and the equivalent of slashing ones own wrists rather than fight the attacker at your door so that you will not be like him.

Answer 3

I'm a conservative. He lost me at "The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead." I don't know what this guy is but he doesn't sound like any conservative I know of. Maybe in England there are conservatives like that there.

Answer 4

I stopped reading the article at "The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead."

What the --?! No sane person would make such a claim. Either the author is crazy, the article is fake, or the article is pure sarcasm.

Answer 5

so I take it this nutcase is pro-Iran war then? Bombing Iraqis into oblivion and repopulating Iraq with Americans?

Bushie hasn't done a great job with the border HERE. How is that going to stop the Iranians from going into newly-populated-with-Americans Iraq?

This guy must huff oil fumes.

Answer 6

Bush is not Caesar & the US is not Rome. Remember the Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire?

Answer 7

Frightening! This appears to be the ravings of a megalomaniac

Answer 8

AAHHH He's a BRIT!

I thought that pro-imperialist propaganda sounded familiar

Answer 9

Are you crazy? I'm not reading all that ranting. sheesh