And about preemptive wars Brasas: When I say that they are undemocratic it is related to my conviction that democracy is ALWAYS linked to some kind of individualistic human rights (if individuals are not seen as important in a political system then why on earth should that system evolve into a democracy?).

As I said earlier, when it comes to international relations perception is as important as truth (indeed I doubt that anybody will ever be certain what the truth is behind most international affairs - at least not those that take place in ones own lifetime) - and an attack against a nonagressive country will be percieved as war of aggression, as opposed to a reaction to a foreign attack, which is a war of defence. Why is this difference important? Because when a country is based on individual rights, then one of the most basic duties of the leaders of said country is to protect it's citizens.

This far I think we may actually agree, Brasas, and in fact you may be thinking when reading this that I've just made a good argument for American intervention in Iraq - it was done to protect American lives from big, bad Saddam.

However, my main concern with this American adventure has always been that I believe it to be very short sighted. If you really want to protect your citizens long term, not just election term, spreading democracy is the way to go. Modern democracies have never been at war with each other (perhaps because until now they never waged wars of agression). Now Bush would say that he is bringing democracy to Iraq - and there might be elections there in a few years. So why am I sceptical? Because of perceptions. While bringing democracy (American style) to Iraq two things happen. Bush antagonices a lot of other countries, and sends the signal "my way or the high way" to the rest of the world. And democracy becomes synonomous with aggression towards non-democracies. Why is that a problem? Because democracy comes much easier if it comes from within a country - agressive American pressure on a country like Iran for instance is more likely to inspire a wave of neo-islamic nationalism, than it is to support the growing democratic movement.

The hard fact is that one of the inherent weaknesses in democracy is that it is not really suited to deal with people who believe in other forms of rule. A democracy will always be vulnerable to these movements, on the international scene in the form of attacks by other nations, on the national level by extending democratic rights (freedom of speech and assembly, for instance) to non-democratic groups. However, if a democracy starts to limit these rights, then it looses legitimacy - and then it is only democracy by name.

qanatoli