Until Bush and the Neo-Cons came along, most liberals considered him the worst of the worst...half a step above an actual Klansman.

Let me make it easier...how many examples can you think of in the last Century.

(And btw...I dont consider a lot of those older "democracies" to be real...for example, the US was not a real democracy before the 20th century IMO, because minorities and women couldnt vote)

The alternative is worse. It is a war of attrition. Non-democracies have no right to exist.

I thought this might help.


Hope that helps. No need to thank me.

Short answer: Yes. Why on Earth would it be a bad thing to hate oppressive governments?

have the dictionary to 'hand', look-up sophistry.

I was about to suggest 'try' sophistry - but you are well practiced there.

And all non-US governments are, by definition 'oppressive'? What an strange world you inhabit. I may choose to leave you there, for now.

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Please quote me where I said all non-US governments were, by definition, oppressive.

My confusion might have been avoided if I were a mind-reader. You posted a different quote than the one you were attempting to respond to, and I drew the obvious conclusion. The only mistake I made was taking you at your word.

Apology accepted. And it is not necessary for you to provide road signs - just don't provide road blocks.

This was in the 1920's.
Which is the last Century. And after Bloody Sunday there was a danger of conflict. And that was only 30 years ago.
Im not 100% but India and Pakistan have fought on and off and both were democracies during one of those clashes.
Wars tend to lead to authoritharian leaders. And to be fair there aren't a great many democracies in the world.

As to Pat.
I know people who would be far worse than he.
As to Liberals in the US, i don't know how they feel, don't seem to have much say in things.

As to democracies. Yes but actively trying to topple regiemes only inreases the power of the dictators. People see you as an aggressor and rally to the flag.
And many of those democracies will be damaging to the US and therefore there are vested interested within the liberators to prevent true democracy. Its a laudable goal but as Afghanistan and Iraq has shown its devils bargains that are struck.
Uzbeckistan, Pakistan, Belorussia, even Saudi. The hardliners have gotten stronger. And in the case of Pakistan a military dictator that overthrew a democractic government. So i am somewhat doubtful of the intentions of neo-cons. Plus the reactions to Chavez shows that democracies are not always going to be supported by the US. Because the national interests of nations often conflict.
People free themselves. it is Right taken not a Privilege given.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

Are you sure they were real democracies at the time? Pakistan is technically not democratic...the military has siezed power and suspended elections.

Would you like to compare ratios then?

As opposed to what? Cooperating with them? Legitimizing them via the UN? Leaving them alone?

And yet we are no longer doing that...show me an example in the last 10 years.

There is no self-interest greater than defense.

The alternatives were worse. And we will deal with them eventually.

Because you are liberal and European. You would be "doubtful" no matter what they did.

We once toppled democracies yet we are no longer doing so. And this started happening around the time the Neo-Cons gained power. Coincidence?

I'm not a Liberal. Wouldn't bother me if I was, much more honourable position the US Neo-Coms.
Im a Christian/Social Deomcrat, and Im hardly a pacifist.
I actively support EU military integration, a joint foriegn policy, and the crushing of any threats to our collective sovergnity. So you attempts label me as some sort of liberal anti-American pacifist is bit odd to say the least.

What I don't actively propose is active military aggression against nations, while morally regunatant, are no threat to my nations soverignty.
If Iraq had had WMD they would have used them or you would have found the relevent weapons project data. Government projects are quite large and you captured the Iraqi government intact.
As to Pakistan, at the moment it is a dictatorship but prior to that it was a democratic government which supported the Taliban.
Funnily enough you have no problem with that insidence, and in the fact that this nation has actually atomic weaponary.Well recently, theres the coup attempt against Chavez, the support given to Pakistan, support of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where by supporting dictatorial governments you are de-facto undermining democratic movements.
The undermining of the reformers in the Iranian government, and the strenghtening of the hardline element by treating both as identical.
The attack on poppy culivation in Afghabistan which is a prime source of income for many people there (yes war on drugs, but just destroying peasant farmers livelihoods without an alternative is encouraging dictatorial powers). The active support of the Columbian government for the same reasons.
Since the Neo-Cons have gained power more damage has been done to spreading deomocracy than at any point in the past.

Active financial pressure.
Simply put don't trade with them till get democratic.
Im quite will to pay my way for freedom.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

I'm only labelling you as I see you. I didnt expect that you would agree.

At least not at the moment. And the moment is all you see. Because you know if push comes to shove, the US will fly in to rescue you.

If we fall, there is no one to fly in to rescue us. We have no choice but to think about the future.

Again, the point is that we didnt KNOW. Saddam would not let us look. We were unwilling to roll the dice and hope he was not lying...as you apparently were.

Why would you care even if he DID have WMDs? After all...he wasnt a threat to you. Right?

We cant do anything about it after the fact. That was the point of Iraq.

As long as someone else assumes the risk...

Don't see you hopping on a plane to Iraq.
I have no desire to occupy another country after my own nations experience.
Evidently your more willing to send US soldiers to there deaths than to make sacrifices to your lifestyle.

And I have no right to enforce my views on others.
It is for them to free themselves.
Its is Right taken, not a privilage given.

No I doubt the US would come to the rescue.
Primarily because the EU weak as it is could crush just about any nation head on in European and north African theathres, save China & Russia.
Thats what France and Britain have nukes for. MAD.

Well he didn't have WMD, so we were right, and you were wrong.
He wasn't a threat. North Korea is by far a greater threat.
And the day the US dismanatles its atomic arsenal is the day I take any of you disarmerrmant policies seriuosly.
I don't trust Iran with nukes. And I don't trust the US either.

Actually the US claimed he had WMD ready to use and were launch capable. So stop trying to change your arguement to suit.
He either had WMD or he didn't.

As to labeling me.
Well your definition of what a liberal is anyone doesn't have similar views to you. Which is a very broad spectrum.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

You would not know if I was. This is an annonymous forum.

As a nation, the US is assuming most of the risk.

If by lifestyle you mean safe from our enemies, then I agree.

So if you see your neighbor beating his wife, you would not interfere...because you have no right to force your views on others. Right?

Except for Japan and Germany eh? Are they not legitimate democracies because their freedom was handed to them?

Mad only works if the other nation is afraid of retaliation.

You would have rolled the dice and got lucky. We were correct, even in hindsight, not to have rolled the dice and taken him at his word.

I apply a double standard. You do not. You apparently see despotic nations as equals.

We had reason to believe he did, and he would not let us look to verify. We assumed the worst. We were right to assume the worst. Europe's naive idiocy is dangerous. Despots cannot be trusted to behave rationally...they are not answerable to anyone but themselves.

What views do you hold that are NOT liberal?