Voting for someone who will then "represent" you by doing whatever he or she wants regardless of how you feel about it isn't the same thing as a pure democracy. It's "rule by whatever mob is the biggest". A pure democracy is just anarchy with a few formalities. As long as the person/party that has the most people screaming for it is running our lives it can be classified as mob rule. Stability is stability, for better or for worse.
Mr. "Dubya" created those problems by starting his presidency with an agenda of meddling in the Middle East. Just like his father.
This may come as a huge surprise, but people in the Middle East hated one another long before Clinton or either of the Bush's were involved in presidential politics.
Voting for someone who will then "represent" you by doing whatever he or she wants regardless of how you feel about it isn't the same thing as a pure democracy. But that doesn't happen either; the whole purpose of a representative democracy is for the representative to listen to her constituent’s then vote on x law. I don't know about you, but that is how representative democracy works. It's "rule by whatever mob is the biggest". A pure democracy is just anarchy with a few formalities. Wouldn't "pure democracy" be the former not the latter? As long as the person/party that has the most people screaming for it is running our lives it can be classified as mob rule. Ok, I hate democracy personally but what system can be offered that is better? To me Platonism, but that's a different story. Stability is stability, for better or for worse. Well Mao was not "stability" needless to mention the Cultural Revolution; I'll leave it at that. There is no such thing as stability, especially in a comparison btwn "Communist"-Democratic systems, because to both stability means two totally different things.
