As regards WMD.
And my been a liberal.
See you don't seem to grasp that making an assertion does not make it the truth. The onus is upon you to prove you your point rather than to simply state something as truth without adequate supporting evidence.
It was rolling the dice in your case as your policies actively encourage rogue states to develop WMD as you are applying the double standard of supporting Pakistan which has WMD, leaving North Korea in peace but attacking Iraq which was a threat to no one, let alone threathening you.
Yes I do see a double standard in that you as a nation are with the largest stockpile of WMD, a doctrine to use it, an emphasis on using atomic arms in battlefield situations, a government seeming willing to remove civil rights in the name of national security and a human rights record that is dreadful, yet at the same time claims to be doing it for human welfare.
And the behaviour of the US indicates that your nation cannot be shown to respect the soverginty of others and the willingness to undermine international coalitions is worrying.
I do not trust despots, but I will not trust those who have consistantly lied, or at best been severly flawed in their judgement.
So I assume your stating the Soviet dictatorship was somehow more rational and reasonable than modern dictators?
A despot is despot either way.
As to forcing others. See theres a difference to preventing others forcing their will on others and doing it yourself.
For example what if they are involved in S&M or some weird kinky stuff and this is part of it.
You rush in and kill the husband and save the day. Or not in this case.
As to Japan and Germany, they started aggressive wars so democracy took hold in the athmosphere of defeat of dictatorship.

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

The world political spectrum is much wider than Liberal vs. Conservative by the American standards. Though in this forum it's much more of a "you're with us or against us" thing with the conservative and liberal labels.

As for the democracies don't fight democracies thing, Finland was at war with the UK and the Commonwealth during WWII.

Not really...a lot of the things I have seen Europeans claim that are not liberal or conservative, most Americans would label them liberal. Care to give us an example?

In other words...you wanted to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, I dont agree. Why are we obligated to treat a known despot as an equal?

It was not a request It was not a trial. It was an ultimatum. He refused to comply. We were correct not to give him the benefit of the doubt.

North Korea wasnt attacking anyone either...remember?

The point was to prevent another North Korea. Once they actually obtain WMDs, the process of removing them becomes exponentially more difficult and dangerous. Why take chances?

And the double standard is not mine...I agree we should not be collaborating with ANY non-democracies. The fact that we didnt attack NK or Pakistan does not mean it was wrong to attack Iraq. Attacking one despot > attacking no despots.

I do have a double standard; Despotic governments are not equal to democracies. I apply a different standard to non-demcoracies. I dont have a problem with that double standard.

Yes. Any act is justifiable in self defense. However I have not seen any civil rights removed so far.

But...you just said you dont apply a double standard. If that is true, then it means you DO trust despots.

Less volitile, yeah. Oligarchies are more stable than dictatorships, because they require a consensus. Neither are good. The only reason we treated the Soviets as equals is because we had no choice.

Your implication is that they like being oppressed. I dont see evidence of this. Therefore, yes, I assume the wife doesnt want to be beaten.

Why will Iraq be different?

As to Saddam.
Well if your reason had been the toppling of a dictator well I'd most likely have supported you. Though Iraq would have been low down on the list.
But your reasoning for war was WMD.
You asserted there was WMD. Therefore it is up to you to prove so when Democratic governments state you are incorrect and flouting international law. It is not about Saddam, it is about your trustworthiness and ability to be truthful.

Well Iraq wasn't attacking anyway were they? That is not a reason when your discussing WMD. The US sated Iraq had WMD capable abilities. Therefore in the sane class as North Korea.
If you are saying you did not attack NK because they had WMD but attacked Iraq, then you are claiming Iraq hadnot got WMD, and the US was by extension lying about its reasoning for war.
Also supporting Pakistan rather than undermining it shows that democracy is only supported when it is in your national interests. Showing that an impossed democracy cannot be truely free.

Ah but Iran is democracy (as you count them). Are you arguing that they should posses WMD?
So if the democratic government of Iraq seeks to gain access to WMD in the name of "dedending against the Yankees" you'd be totally supportive?

I suspect those who have been detained in the name of national security would be inclined to disagree.
Just because your rights haven't been impinged doesn't mean those of others have not.

But unlike you I am not supporting military dictatorships.
You encouage supporting dictatorships that help you, I support active undermining of dictaorships by financial means and to use force in self defence. The inherent superiority of democracy will win out in the end.

See there is your problem, you are making assumptions based on your beliefs and forcing them upon others rather than merely preventing another from forcing their will upon others.
As to been oppressed. No I don't think they do. But you are financially supporting those who oppress them so your actions suggest other than your words.

Iraq was not been aggressive. The US was the invading power.
Much like Germany did to Poland your claiming they started the war by attempting to invade the homeland?
Again you make an assertion as if it were truth purely because you asseted it.

As toyour reply to Sporklord. Well those wh have a differeing stance to you on fiscal and socil policies that would not be defined as liberal if you bothered to look up the meaning of the word.

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

AH so thats who said that! Thanks for the headsup, dreamer.


--


BTW, good read this thread

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

Ah good'ol Emilio, while I wouldn't the same way minded idealogically you have to admire his determination (and lets face it those he fought against were no saints) and courage in a trying time.

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

Sort of like Che in Cuba.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois

..sort of like 'give me liberty or give me death'.

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

...it's Emiliano Zapata; not Emilio Zapata.

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?

I think you need to wake up and stop with the excuses for Communism's failure in the Soviet Union and other places. The Communist Manifesto was written by an acedemic egghead who never worked at a real job in his life.

In reality, Communism in the Soviet Union meant that the people running the country were "living large" off the sweat of the proletariat. What kind of Utopian life is that?

Capitalism is a natural human activity which is the highest manifestation of the basic animal will to survive, generation after generation. Are evil acts done by capitalists? Of course they are. Is that the fault of Capitalism? Hell no! It is the fault of people who are unable to control their own sin nature.

It has been evident for a long time that nations which have the combination of democracy and capitalism generally enjoy the highest standard of living, most notably the U.S. and Japan, and western Europe. Personally, I cannot see how anybody in this day and age can still say that communism is a good thing.

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?