I've given this quite a bit of thought in light of the Iraqi situation. As horrible and tyrannical as Hussien was, the county was controlled. Aside from the obvious negatives that come along with a dictatorship, is the world more stable/better off if some countries are run by dictators? Assuming the US has some kind of a relationship with said dictator, I would say the world is better off, or at least more stable when some countries are under dictator rule.
As far as I know, Israel is the only stable democracy in the middle east. So it may not be a matter of being "better off", it might just be the only arrangement that is viable.
They the only ones stable cause they dont have 3 main branches spouting doctrine and Hate about each other . They just have God.Originally Posted by BoulderSooner79
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
[/QUOTE]
They the only ones stable cause they dont have 3 main branches spouting doctrine and Hate about each other . They just have God.[/QUOTE]
So what you are saying is,,,,the American Ideal is over? Or,, do you have a better Ideal? Not putting words,,just assuming!
They the only ones stable cause they dont have 3 main branches spouting doctrine and Hate about each other . They just have God.[/QUOTE]
So what you are saying is,,,,the American Ideal is over? Or,, do you have a better Ideal? Not putting words,,just assuming![/QUOTE]
Dont Have an Idear about the American Ideal, Just sayin thy a country with ONE religion and no Factions in that ONE.
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
This is very true vet. I would guess 99% of the hatred/conflict in that region is religion based. This sect hates that sect because a million years ago that sect's leader said god hated them, blah, blah, blah.
Perzackery Bro.
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
That's what all countries have to decide. I was telling my son the other day that's how dictatorships happen. The population finally gets so fed up with the chaos they willingly give up some of their freedoms to stabilize their existence. When you are afraid to go out in the street, or you don't have enough to eat, you don't have a problem with things like freedom of the press anymore.
See Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Basic "safety" is only the second level of needs and the theory is that humans can not advance to higher level needs until the lower level needs are met. I'd put caring about freedom of press at the fourth level under "esteem".
Posting Permissions
