Brasas, I'll start with your previous post. First of all about democracy. I don't think you have really understood me - now you say that the only right nescesary for democracy is the right to a free vote - and that this "freedom of the vote" can be ensured by secrecy. But Brasas, my critique of this view is this. If democracy is merely the "rule of the majority" then this respect for the secrecy of the minorities must be based in something else - othervise keeping the democracy would be irrational for the majority. I did some reading about another topic a couple of days ago, and actually found out that even the Athenese democracy was NOT simply rule by the majority in the assembly. Two institutions existed to limit the power of the assembly. The "Nomothetai" (or something similar) had the power to overrule suggestions put before the assembly, whereas the "Graphe Paranomon" could actually punish members of the assembly for decicions, even if they were supported by a majority of the assembly - so even some of the Greeks of old knew that there had to be limits to the power of the majority.

Now to more serious matters:
Quote:
You do not contend that preemption is not aggression... good.

There are a heck of a lot of negations in this:b - but I think you are missing my point completely. It is perfectly possible for a nation to engage in a preemptive war without seeing it as agression, true. But the country being attacked will see it as agression, no matter what. My point is that it is quite meaningless to try to rationalise whether an attack is preemption or agression - almost every attacker in the world history has claimed preemption, and everyone attacked has claimed agression - perception comes into play here. However, in the conflict we are currently discussing there seems to be very little proof that there was any threat in Iraq to preempt. Meaning that the American attack may have been preemptive in intent, but ended up not being it in result.

I agree with you that history seems to suggest that democracy is a better way of organizing a nation than religion. However, that is the civil-rights democracy that I am talking about - I dont think the rights-neutral democracy that you and bofin are talking about would do the trick. The western world did not prosper just because of a method of organization, but because of civil liberties. My critique of American actions is basically based in the fact that they ignore these liberties in pursuit of what they falsely consider to be security. The problem as I see it, is that terrorism cannot be stopped by invading countries. After all what caused Bin Laden to target the US in the first place? That they liberated Kuwait (he wanted to do it himself, the sad fool). Will invading Iraq damage Al Queda? Very unlikely, Bin Laden wanted to rid the world of Saddam more badly than the Bush family ever did. Is there a chance that American actions in Iraq will breed new terrorism? Yes, we are seeing that at the moment in Iraq. And even worse there is a risk that all these different groups in the Middle East will stop quarreling with each other and focus on making terrorist attacks on the US, which in turn will force the US o maintain a strong military prescence in the region.

The reason that I find preemptive strikes incompatible with democracy, is that I see much more efficient ways than war to spread democracy. Trade, for one. And war has the really big downside that it brings recent - wars breed nationalism and fanaticism, which leads to terrorism. Trade and negotiation do not have these side effects. If the US had spent the resources used in Iraq to raise living standards in Afganistan then it would have been an example of what free trade and civil liberties could accomplish. That would have been a very expensive PR stunt that would probably have changed perceptions of the US in the Middle East for the better. Instead the US proved those that said that she was only interested in warring Muslims, not in helping them, right. And it was done on reasons that a large number of American citizens are beginning to doubt. If that is not a setback for democracy, then I don't know what is.


Now for something completely different:
Quote:
And this idea that communism is dead... it is trying to come back disguised as socialism. The central state, the undemocratic tendencies... just look at the failed EU constitution... it's there for those that want to see it... in fact aren't you Danish? Did you read what Antonsen said about referenda the other day? Stalin would feel right at home...

First, some of the most fierce critics of communism have been socialists - at least since the second world war. Considering socialism and communism to be two sides of the same coin is an ancient conservative rethorical trick. It makes as much sense as seeing liberalism and conservatism as being the same. Second I am Danish - and maybe that is why I am very confused by what you say. Antonsen is a right-wing politician (the Dansih party usually called "liberal" when translated into English is right-wing) and she was probably talking about the Danish referendums about the Danish exemptions from the Maastricht treaty. I don't see what that has to do with communism comming back. Another Danish paradox, is that the EU is very much a right-wing project - the aforementioned exemptions were invented by the left-wing parties. But perhaps I've completely misunderstood whatever point you were trying to make here...

Gareth, some times I fell sorry for you that the Middle ages have passed - that "kill or be killed" attitude would have served you well there:b

And Brasas your last post - I think everybody believes in wealth redistribution, the question is just how much to redistribute, and how to deciede who are to benefit. However, I don't think modern socialists have a particular fondness for centralism - at least not more than modern conservatives have a dislike for it. I find your views on socialists a bit old fashioned (No, I'm not one myself), but you did state earlier that you have a personal reason for doing so.

qanatoli