2007-11-05 01:29:19 · 14 answers · asked by ali d 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
If we look at history, some dictators are necessary to hold countries together. Yugoslavia is a classic case. Teto held the country together for years, and after his death we see internal waring. Iraq is just the same, a country that was held together by a dictator.
So if we don`t like the dictators way of dealing with his people, perhaps it would be better to just stop selling weapons to him. America and England are the biggest suppliers of weapons in the world today so it is down to them to stop the supply. Of course they won`t because it is profitable. AND its even more profitable if they can in fact pressure other countries to join them in a war.
2007-11-05 02:02:51 · answer #1 · answered by Terry M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And risk being called Dictators as well?
Military intervention is not always the answer, only where its known that they are a danger to the Free World. And when asked, by a group action not just the USA, thats what the United Nations exist for.
2007-11-05 11:13:08 · answer #2 · answered by conranger1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unsuitable to whom, Mr Bush? Mr Brown, some countries need a dictator or a strong leader, If we had dictator in England we would have a lot less scroungers knocking at our door , And what about the famous European dictators at Brussels telling us what to do.
2007-11-05 09:42:45 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should act in our national interest.
If, based on all the factors involved, the benefits outweigh the costs, then yes.
If not, no.
And I'd include international support and world opinion as a factor, but not necessarily a deciding one.
2007-11-05 09:36:30 · answer #4 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if you want to make them pay for what all three of them are doing and planning. then vote with your heart for one of the outside parties. a vote from your heart is never wasted. its the only honest vote in a sea of opertunist question marks. i mean.... Q why did you vote for them?....A becouse they were most likely to win????....madness.
2007-11-05 12:04:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It is quite an undertaking and most people do not have the stomach for it.
2007-11-05 09:33:02 · answer #6 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. If they are unstable they won't last long anyway
2007-11-05 12:48:15 · answer #7 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats why our troops are far away. Gordan is scared.
Sorry, bottler brown.
2007-11-05 14:18:34 · answer #8 · answered by the boss 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah like what we did to iraq - that went well...
p.s. defecating on them won't work
2007-11-05 10:49:37 · answer #9 · answered by <><><> 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
like the usa?
2007-11-05 09:41:08 · answer #10 · answered by youngperksy56 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋