From the top... I think your three points are worthy Bofin... however my desirable form of government is a federal republic, based on democratic principles and human rights.

Now to address Qana... the fact that democracy is merely another form of political organisation does not remove it's differences from other systems... the inherent value in democracy comes from it's equalitarian and individualistic tendencies... which is why it marries so well with common western moral values...
Now obviously any form of governance will be associated with rights... even if it was strictly the rights to rule others and how...
Regarding Dahl, I don't remember his points, but a pratical measue, or law, always has a deeper substract of intended outcomes, or assumed basis.

Then Ilaekae, whom I agree with, even if I don't strictly see why fascism need contradict democracy or human rights...
(this is a hook... bite please)

And the actual fun begins... with Qana giving me much to sink my teeth into :)
To start I need just point at greek democracy. From what I read of Arblaster in the UK I got the impression that said period was the closest to actual democracy ever... the representatives were chosen by lottery, and these 'elections' were held frequently... closer to 'by the people' I can't imagine, just to give one example... however their human values certainly weren't that much to talk about... women did not vote, slaves were also a class apart... let's not even go into what was acceptable battle practice regarding enemies... or foreign civilian populations... so you see Qana... the thing is not really about valuing individuals... the moral in democracy comes from which individuals are equal in political terms... ergo, can vote. As I said, equality and individuality.

Now the duty to defend citizens has nothing of inherently democratic... it's basically common sense... even the most fascistic, ruthless dictator wants to rule something and will protect it.
But my basic contention with you is already passed, you state two possibilites, agression and defence... preemption is not agreession against a non agressive country. This should be obvious to anyone... sure, preemption may be claimed when no actual threat exists... but that should be verified case by case. Again I say that even if there are doubts about the necessity of preemption in a certain case, it is almost only post war that it is possible to verify whose perception was correct, the preemptor's or the ones saying there was no threat. So you see... facts, or substance, are always the arbiters... perception is only important when you want to play shadow games, or subtle diplomacy... honesty has a certain power in itself... it can't be contradicted... if you are honest and don't lie... whatever the perception, you know that no proof can contradict you... this should also be obvious (deception and false evidence aside as the world is obviously a complicated place)

As you see we do not agree in everything, and then again, because as I said many times although the strictly honest motive for the Iraq war is somewhat preemptive, but not in wmd terms, there's always the legal punitive aspect which was accepted by the UN post war... which was obvious since the US enforced the UN resolutions that no one else seemed to be bothering with... sure they did it with other interests... but they did IT anyway.

What I find funny is that we agree when you think we don't... of course the spread of democracy is the best long term idea. But that is exactly what is being attempted... so far I'm still confident, and considering Germany, Japan, the Cold War... well I think the US is the only possible nation that can democratise the Middle East...
So let's discuss what you consider problems with current american policies... let's by all means discuss perceptions... first this perception that the US acted unilateraly... when substance shows that 4 of 7 G-7 countries are in Iraq, that out of 15 EU countries only 4 or 5 did not support the war, that if you take eastern european countries those 4 or 5 countries become even more isolated in Europe, and then there's all the other countries around the world that also supported the war... if you remove the obvious missing ones, like Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela, etc... I think you'll find that the perception that France and Germany and Russia tried to propagate is dead wrong.
Then your perception that democracy implies attacking non democracies... well I can safely assume that many monarquies in europe feel no military threat at all from the US whereas so called People's Republics may be having a bit of cold sweat... and to me that's good as Qaddafi proved...
Then your idea that democracy comes easier from within... well considering Japan post ww2 I have at least one plausible exemple of present democracy that I think would never have ocurred had it not been imposed (and even with two atomic bombs in it's history Japan has just sent troops to Iraq)... in fact this whole perception that the US will reap bad hurricanes from the bad winds it's sowing is somewhat funny... just today I read this point: why isn't the US being attacked by terrorists from Nicaragua or Chile or any other south american country or Japan? certainly most of these countries are much poorer and have better reason to resent US past activities...
Now the one thing I agree with you... that there will be a upsurge of nationalistic resentment agains the US in the Middle East... however considering that terrorism was already breeding there for no apparent direct reason (although I know very well what the resentment is about... and there's lots of it in Europe as well) what can the US lose? Sure this is a radical step and change in policy... from appeasement and contention to a deep transformation for the better of the ME... but the thing that you continuously want to forget... is that this change was directly caused by the citizens in the ME... on a certain September morning not much time ago... so I guess that democracy is coming from within... in a way... they certainly brought it on themselves... I for one am glad that democracy is what they're getting down their throats... could have also been nukes...

To finish with your post... it is not democracy that is weak as the US show very well... it is pacifism and appeasement that is weak... you are very correct extremist groups and nations should be tolerated... unless they represent a threat... there's no place in any judicial, moral or legal system that I find correct where it is stated that only after I'm attacked do I have the right to defend myself... some lines need be drawn so that the ideal, which would be no one attacking others, is attained through fear of preemption or response.

Now... Rorie takes us back to the humiliation theme that started this... my opinion is that a medical examination
hardly constitues a very large humiliation... and the humiliation was practically necessary due to the messianic nature of Saddam's proppaganda, and ME folk psychology...

Bofin again... establishing quite a devil's bargain... I think I agree with him, the shared power in democracy makes one less of a pawn... but historically it was the second that brought us modern democracy... dictatorships, monarquies... so called enlightened despots were the beginning of human rights based political systems... certainly revolutions were then necessary to bring about democratic principles... in England, in the US, in France... it is funny though... today democracy spreads the other way around... the revolution is less abrupt... everyone wants to be a democracy even if the moral precepts are lacking... then slowly people realise the power they have and go about changing things... need I state again that Capitalism is to me the best way to ensure that those values and basic western morals spread as fast as possible? After someone has his material needs supplied it is easier to worry about things like freedom and equality...

Then Qana again... nothing prevents a democracy from acting against minority rights... well except in the US where the constitution clearly states that people have rights and the government can't take those away... a legislative majority could change the constitution in most European countries and any attempt by supreme courts or populace to dissent would be legally rebelious and treacherous... this is strictly true... but in no way right... you insist on making too much out of democracy... I suggest that overvaluing something is equally damaging as undervaluing it...

So bofin states the obvious (to me) and qana counters... well the effort is necessary because they are separated things, historically and in substance... but because of your, in my view, false perception we are here discussing it...

So ilaekae with a good example of a right that is being slowly eroded by centralising, socialist states (do you know how much in taxes you pay today?) and qana again...
there's no need whatsoever... as bofin, ilaekae and I prove to you... now... would you impose your need of this definition of democracy on us?
It is desirable that human rights and democracy marry... it should be so... we all agree on that... but it need not be so... and to state that it need be so is to increase the value of democracy to a point where it loses effectiveness... by assuming that democratic principles are a outcome of human rights you almost legitimise so called democracies like China's... or for a better example of wrong majorities (since I bet that given freedom most Chinese, or Iranians, would choose a very different system)... Saudi Arabia, Palestine or Syria... actually put most european democracies in this group as well, although those are more perverse in the inversion... so called democracies where the ruling elites don't give a damn what the people want, like limiting immigration, introducing the death penalty, allowing self defense by force of arms inside one's home... anything that doesn't fit their supposedly liberal, but assuredly socialist ideology.


PS: Yes... I know I got a little carried away in the end... discount the anti centralising socialist rant and concentrate on the democracy discussion if you don't mind... but I did not want to censor myself so there you have it. But as a point in view... Ilaekae's example is not undemocratic... it is a perfect example of a communist democracy... something that I wish I will never experience... although it could be argued that those communes became very hierarchised very quickly and then they would certainly not be democracies... a very deep and unavoidable consequence of marrying communist ideals with democracy... tyranny.

There's always one wolf amidst the sheep.