Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (158936)	3/9/2005 9:13:02 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If Hizbullah should decide to play by the democratic rulebook, which means first and foremost disarming, then let them try their luck at the ballot box. Nasrallah is a shrewd customer, he knows perfectly well such a course would lessen his power, so he'd much rather stay a warlord. But warlordism is incompatible with democracy. Imagine an America where half the military served not the US government, but the GOP! And the Democrats had none! (there, that vision should feed your paranoia...) No, democracy may produce results I don't like, and what do to about parties running on a "one man, one vote, one time" platform remains a problem. But on the other hand, there is no cure for theocracy so thorough as its success. People get tired of it in a big hurry! The Syrians wouldn't be too happy if Nasrallah shut down Lebanon's economy because all the educated people left! The Syrians are in deep doo-doo without Lebanon's economy to feed off of. But much more likely, Hizbullah would not even win all the Shia vote, which is only 40% of the population, so they would be forced to compromise with the Sunni, Druse and Maronite factions...that is the genius of democracy, compromise, which makes it less bad than any other system.