Is oppression the only way to rule certain people?

Inogenius

I'm writing a report on Venezuela from the start of it being a Spanish Colony to 1998 when Hugo Chavez was elected. Like many other countries, it suffered from brutal civil wars, terrible organization, and so on. It wasn't until the early 1900's when an authoritarian/oppressive leader took rule, found oil, were they able to organize the country. As others have pointed out with Iraq too, when Saddam lead the country, you didn't have problems with people blowing up themselves and others. So my question is, when the people fail to rule themselves in a democratic state, is oppression the only answer?

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

If it is not a Democracy, I would say to keep any order it would have to be based on oppression to keep chaos from breaking out.

I don't really see any alternative.

Hypocrisy at it's worst!

barfly467

It's kinda crazy to think that in this day, oppression is necessary for peace. Iraq is the prime example. I mean, Saddam was ruthless, but man, he kept control of his country. He also killed a lot of people, but he created the fear. There is a different fear now.

I think that in some countries, esp the middle eastern one, that oppression is needed, and we will have this conflict until we put another dictator in power.

Inogenius

On the flip side, perhaps the problem hasn't so much been with the people, but other political motives, such as implanted leaders by the USA. Or, the funding of militia's by other countries, like Iran funds Hezbollah. As Bush once said about Iraq, all the "Mandellas are dead." Maybe the people who could truly unite Iraq, or Sudan are not able to due to the oppression, and are killed off by the authoritarian regime.