Re: Saddam |
Posted by
Arrow
(Guest)
- Monday, November 7 2011, 20:42:03 (UTC) from 80.239.242.159 - v09-16.opera-mini.net Network - Linux - Opera Website: Website title: |
>...this democratic nation managed to blunder into Vietnam, and Iraq, and Afghanistan.... = But those were not a catastrophe on a national scale as was the case in Iraq. The problem was not just dictatorship, but Saddam as well. There are so many democratic nations other than the United States. Why are you so pessimistic? I presume all or most of them are working fine, n'est-ce pas?! > democracy by itself is no promise of anything. = What is the alternative then, dictatorship? At least in a democracy there's a chance to do something. Those in power in the US government are elected. If the American people decide one day to elect, say Ralph Nader or the communist party, they can... Yes They Can! > Hitler was democratically elected to office. = He lost elections twice, then he was appointed vice president and then he took over. He then abolished opposition parties, freedom of the press, elections... so on. The Germans did not elect dictatorship. > democracy can simply become a tyranny of the majority... = You prefer the tyranny of the minority then? > whatever you want to say about Saddam and Iraq under Saddam....I venture to say 99.9% of the Iraqi people had better lives then and would rather have those lives back...especially the dead ones. = 99.9% of the Iraqi people had better lives before Saddam came to power... So? --------------------- |
The full topic:
|
Host: www.insideassyria.com Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?Re_Saddam-56Un.DKTo.QUOTE Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Cookie: *hidded* Accept: text/html, application/xml;q=0.9, application/xhtml+xml, image/png, image/webp, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, ... User-agent: Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.9.168 Version/11.51 Accept-language: en-US,en;q=0.9 X-forwarded-for: 94.249.8.93 Content-length: 1722 Connection: close |