Ok Qana... I actually think I understand you well so far.
We are talking continuously, a kind of argumentative discussion that isn't mined by a lack of will to understand the other, and what I say in later posts is not disconnected from the previous.
So if I said that secret vote is the only necessary condition for democracy I just hope you have mercy on me ;)
Anyway secret vote is the method of choice, if of course, it is free. The secrecy is meant to help it be free and frankly for that matter it seems to me almost the only necessity. So the secret voting pratically insures the individuality.
Now my rebate on your critique comes from when I said that democracy was equality of individuals, the majority will respect the minority (not in terms of rescinding it's power or attempting to balance power, it is afterall the majority, and yes... to me that is what democracy is) but it will respect it because they are equals and they may be minorities some day.
But of course there is in every instance a series of institutions to insure the proper functioning of the democracy, the separation of powers was also something in which the american democracy broke way and the others followed suit. This is a sort of debate on pratical democracy, or in it's pratical aspects, that is very interesting and if Intel wants to you'll probably be able to go farther in it.
Me I settle for a very basic, more abstract, democratic ideal, which I hope I expanded on sufficiently.
To repeat, I don't think it necessarily includes the totality of human rights as they commonly referred to, I do think that it's basis are individuality and equality, but the question of whose equality this refers to may very well deny all human rights, and since that is in fact the history of democracy, of how it spread, and sometimes only through force and violence to larger groups of people, then it sems to me blind to sweep this under the rug, assume democracy is some perfect construct instead of a form of doing that came through the ages, and will continue to change, and assume that force will never be necessary to protect it or enlarge the groups it refers to.


Preemption. I do see your point. We definitively disagree. Preemption is not agression regardless of what the attacked and the rest of the world perceived. Sure preemption may be claimed when in fact no threat exists. I think (I'll add at present because I think it desirable and possible that a future global political system does away with this need) it is worse to deny the possibility of preemption than it is to allow it even if it may be abused.
Now considering Kay said that Iraq posed a larger threat than assumed, considering Iraq was in breach of UN sanctions I just don't see how you can just dismiss the threat.
However I continue to think that the reason for war was: legally punitive, politically just but actually preemptive/punitive (depends on scale). If my reasoning is too subtle for you just ask me to explain.

PS: Of course preemption is aggression in a basic sense, but in that sense even defense is also aggression. (passive defense is only aggressive if you set aggressive traps, but if you don't then strictly it's not defense, it is acceptance) Aggresion versus preemption applies in a political sense.

And btw... I do not rationalise if it is or isn't something, it is or isn't something and I try to see or discover or figure out what it is... reality is real... I'm not creating it. Also it is not the majority's perception that defines reality, it may define or influence the future but whatever the perception it will certainly not magically change Bush's real past and present motives, etc...
This is something that has frustrated me a lot recently. It seems I only argue with idealists that although they are pragmatic in acting and never actually admit to it seem to think objective truth is inexistant and therefore an unworthy pursuit. It's all about perceptions.
It's all about finding a balance because these two completely antagonic ideas, because that have no inherent merit in them, they have to be equally valuable since someone believes in them.


Regarding your take on human rights and democracy. I have already stated my desire for the spread of western values and democracy together. That is precisely why I think some pressuring on Iraq decisors so that those liberties are safeguarded in their constitution is a good thing. And before you cry 'hypocryte' I'll say it already worked in Japan, so who's the hypocryte, I who see a possible tried way or you who deny it?
Now I agree that the western world did not prosper because of democracy, in fact modern democracy followed civil liberties, another reason for you to not necessarily glue them together. I'll take advantage of your statement to affirm what to me is the obvious birth of those civil liberties in the post middle ages, capitalism and the appearence of bourgeoisie, capitalism and it's demand for technical innovation. You may disagree but the broad brush causal historical chain is clear to me.

Now I would just like to know if the security constraints were real you would admit american actions, because I certainly do to a point which hasn't been crossed yet. I mean, what good are liberties if you are dead? Morality follows survival, if yours doesn't, it's your problem, you have no right to force me to put my survival beneath other considerations, and you also have no right to force america to put it's survival, or to a lesser degree it's security, beneath other considerations.

Now to directly address the issue. Does invading countries stop terrorism. It depends Qana... what I dislike somewhat in this is that you seem to want me to fit in some box you make. In Iraq's case I think it does, if they attacked France I'd disagree, although in a decade who knows...
Now although Bin Laden is just one terrorist, and although I have not read transcripts of his messages I think the reasons that motivate him are quite clear. Anyway since you don't offer an explanation I won't as well, I usually end up being called a racist when I do.

So: "Will invading Iraq damage Al Queda?"
Yes, apart from the fact that democratising Iraq is the long term answer in terms of insuring arabs don't want to become terrorists, there are short term positives as well. The links between the several terrorist organisations that Al Qaeda coordinates are actual and the inteliggence gathered already has borne fruits. Counter terrorism is a thankless task because no one notes it's sucess, however I have read many news reporting arrest and dismantlement of terrorism cells in Europe and several ME and Asian countries. Part of the info for that came from Iraq. Also inspite of threats AlQaeda has yet to achieve any major terrorist attack since Afghanistan and Iraq, it is obvious that they were hurt and Iraq was a step in the right direction. In fact you need just see how AlQaeda joined the Baath remnants to understand how their differences are small compared to their hatred of the west. And if you think this follows the invasion you are wrong, Bin Laden had previously mentioned the possibility of allying with the communist secular Saddam (his terms... but he is perceptive) against the Great Shaitan.
Just as news: having lost hope of defeating american coalition, they are now changing strategy and aim to attack the Shiite majority in hopes that the counter violence against Sunnis will undermine Iraq unifying in a democratic whole.

Next: "Is there a chance that American actions in Iraq will breed new terrorism?"
Well put in terms of chance there's only one answer to that. Yes.
However we are not seeing that. What we are seeing is what you fear, the unification of AlQaeda and Baath, both Syrian and Iraqui, with Palestinian cannon fodder in an attempt at resistance. (though using this word which has a noble anti-nazi conotation, when the resistants are fascists seems to me a tragedy) So this is in fact old terrorism, not new, these people would in one way or another pursue anti-american goals and resort to indefensible violence against their equals, their extirpation doesn't bother me greatly and I hope the war continues to go well for my side.
Also just as aside, what is wrong in a strong US military presence in the region? Don't you see that's the whole point? How else do you insure that the neighbouring regimes behave? The Iraquis will be first to desire that the US remains there. You'll see.

The fact that democracy can be spread by trade does not make that the more efficient way, if there had been free trade with Iraq, even assuming the madman would behave internationally. He'd still brutalise his population. If you removed the trade and said behave internally he could just ignore you and start making wmd... then what qana? Do you wait for the mushroom cloud while he brutalises his people? Oh yes... this is very democratic. I'm afraid I don't think so. Actually I'm proud I don't think so.

Now we'll see if Iraq will be another Japan or Germany... we'll see about the nationalism and fanaticism. We'll see how many terrorists will be Iraquis. I do wonder what war made the Saudis into terrorists, trade and diplomacy seems to me to cover very well their international relations since... well since Saudi Arabia exists.
I mean, do you want me to say that trade and diplomacy are less violent than war? That is blindingly obvious... however violence is efficient and I daresay necessary in some cases.

The US has no obligation to throw money at the poor. I personnaly think that would be counter producive but that's irrelevant here. The fact is the US is a very large aid giver, and if you search the numbers maybe you'll find that in the ME they are the bigger aid donor. That changed nothing. In Iraq people were taught that Saddam invented airplanes. To say that those food packages with a small red white stripes and blue with stars corner were actually Saddam's shit would probably be equally easy. Get a grip on reality Qana.
And certainly the US is at present in a huge war in Iraq, as if infrastructure and civil liberties hadn't improved immensely as almost any Iraqui will tell you... want me to point to some Iraqui blogs Qana?
Afghanistan is messier but also better I think, certainly not worse, and if you want my oppinion on why Iraq is more important than Afghanistan just ask, it's quite obvious when you understand that this is a war on terror.

Well it's a long time until november and I care more about the substance than about what people think. So what exactly is the actual set back for democracy... fuck perception Qana, I know very wel that leftists will see what they want to see as will many on the other side. Where is what you consider to be the setback for democracy?
In two countries totalling 50 million souls where fascists were toppled?
In a large region of the world that is about to be shown what it can become of it's own will and whose violent tendencies are now under better restraint because they know they will be held responsible and taken to charge?
In the most powerful country of the world where the populace however misinformed will continue to hold to their freedom and maybe vote out the man I think has done the world and them an incredble good?

Actually there you have it... if Bush loses you will certainly have democracy, but in my view you will have lost in the human rights department. At least in world terms. But americans usually hardly notice what goes on in the world around them. A pity they have to be attacked and almost destroy their enemies so that we see the world change fast for the better... I can even understand why the terrorists did it... calling for help in such a lopsided way. :p


Well I'm beat but this last part is less relevant to the central issue and I admit that the particulars of european countries politics are not my cup of tea. So it'll be fast.
Communism and Socialism are related by more than rethorics. But these labels need be defined if this discussion continues, I will continue to use socialism and capitalism in my manner which makes sense to me because I don't see socialism as a mostly political, but more like a economical enemy. Sure some redistribution, but basically I don't think welfare should be a state function. Politically, at least to me, socialism departs from democracy in the same ways that communism does so I lump them together, and frankly I consider that departures from democracy in that direction, of greater collectivization, lead to one only end point, totalitarianism.
Economically my aversion to it is less visceral, and yes, I agree some social support could be taken on by the state but, a mostly socialist redistributive economy is to me so idiotic that even if I don't think it is bad in the previous sense, I still think it is bad in a laughing at it sense when compared to capitalism.
I guess I oppose socialism in both it's vertents to liberal capitalism, but since capitalism on my book needs freedom it's already in there somehow.

Hmmm... taking on more than I thought I would... anyway I though Antonsen was left and stand corrected. Though maybe she is on my book. What political european group is her party on?
Anyway, the EU might have been a right wing project, but the left has certainly seen very well how to take advantage of it. The proposed EU constitution is a socialist project. Even if Giscard D'Estaing has just taken on left rethoric to hide autoritative tendencies.

Now my views on socialism may be old but they may still be right. I don't think we europeans are better than the rest of humanity and historically where I see socialism being implemented, in the least economically, it went down the toilet. The risk of some messianic poseur making the place hell on earth is one I don't take lightly as well.

Anyway EU history is something I'd delight on being educated on so if you want to correct me go on. Also if you disagree with my very generalistic take on the EU constitution draft and what it meant I'd also like to ear it expanded on. In fact maybe that would be a good way to continue this and redirect it to democracy instead of all this Iraq talk... although I find Iraq simpler and more fun to discuss I think this issue is more fundamental to our society's future and to what democracy means.

Hey wuilios.. go on give us something :) we don't bite