Well... these things get wordy because there's much that can be said about them... I like complex things but will make an effort to be concise ;)

About contradictions... there is a difference between a contradiction and a balance... individualism does not contradict communality. One strikes a balance and creates, or tries to, a balanced society.
So democracy as just another system. Although I don't think it's just another... it's the best so far...
Anyway, your objection confuses individualism with individual rights. Democracy is a system based on an idea of political equality of individuals... no more, no less... so there you have it: equality and individuality... I need not mention human rights... that's what you want...
The only right necessary for a proper democracy is the right to vote, and in free manner. We make it a secret manner.
The details about the judicial system, if it works or not, are irrelevant to my point... Usually I'm very glad to involve myself in discussing the practical aspects... but this is plain defining what democracy implies... in a very theoretical level.
Do we need mechanisms to insure democracy works?
Of course... that's true of every human organisation... which should hint, to anyone, that trying to do away with rules and hierarchies is doomed to failure... do I need to spell out the point I'm trying to make by this?
It's a balance.


I'm not defending dictatorship and don't think contending with your subtle points is needed in that matter, my position is clear from the rest... I still think your idealising both democracy and dictatorship in what you said.


We are getting to the crux of the matter.
You do not contend that preemption is not aggression... good.
You also do not contend this inherent strenght in honesty... also good.
From common bridges understanding is achieved.
So onwards to dissect you... :) I think you'll see very easily from the following where our ideologies differ...

"my point is that this detached and objective view is not readily available in international relations"
So what? This is a moot point... science is objective... everything else isn't... but I like progress and think trial and error is a good way to go on when other more... scientific methods are ruled out by ethics for example...

"But is our belief that democracy is the best way of organising politics really objectively better that the view that religion should found the base of society?"
Yes I think it is objectively better, not out of some inherent betterness in democracy but out of the historical evidence. We can discuss that of course... but I think you agree with me... I think that the majority of people living in democracy, and a large portion that doesn't, also agree with me.

"How can we prove to others that we are more right than they are."
By example of course. As you agree.

"Therefore democracies must be "better" than those who oppose them - as discussed in other threads here that is why we cannot just bomb Mekka - and that is why we cannot use preemptive strikes - because even if we may see them as preemptive, those struck will not."
Ok... it is not about having to be better... it is about having a chance for that to become evident... we all agree democracy is better. That is not seriously under dispute here. You are still seeing war as a mean to impose democracy... that is a misguided view... the spread of democracy is a side effect, one I'm glad is being tried because it undermines the threat. And that threat is the issue of preemption. You are again confusing two separate things.
Now... although I think imposing democracy is actually possible that is not the case here... this is not some democratic crusade. This is the removal of a danger. And since we are better than they we do not exterminate them and are trying to help them become democratic... sure... very broad generalisation... but do you really believe Osama would show this good will to any western country he conquered?
I mean there are somethings that I think are plain evident... and there are others that are there in history for anyone who looks... I'm not imposing my view on anyone... I'm trying to point what I think is obvious and seeing if someone challenges my ideas.
(frankly I think most leftists try to impose their dogmatic view on me... but that's something i'm sore about... ignore it... not about you)
Then your final argument... they will not... says who? If it was preemption this truth will be self-evident in time, if our effort is honest they will see it, if we try to help them they will know... some will be offended or see their world challenged... the majority will embrace the obvious change for the better.

"the use of preemptive strikes is incompatible with the wish to spread democracy - and any rethoric linking those two goal is hypocricy."
To repeat and sum it up. The preemptive strike is a necessity due to a threat. The source of that threat is a undemocratic mentality. Spreading democracy, apart from good, becomes a strategy to win this war. Where is the hypocrisy Qana?

Now I argued with you on your terms... but like I said before I think it was punitive... and there are other generalisations that may be debated. However this is the gist of it.


Some little secondary gripes:

"I don't think they are doing a very good job."
I think they are... but that's a side discussion here...

"is in a very good position to put pressure on the Israelis"
The israelis are mostly on reasonable ground... those that need pressuring are the palestinians.

"this is a low blow"
I know... but rethorics have it's uses :)


Some very interesting clarifications:

"considering that you have just claimed that the objective truth should always be sought"
No I didn't... truth may be inherently stronger... but lying can serve good purpose now and then... come on... I'm Machiavelian man... truth is good because it's stronger but it doesn't have any moral inherent value in it... heck... morality serves pratical purposes... it's how it developed... sure for me it's easy to say this cos I'm an atheist and objectively scientific about man's place in the universe...

"didn't you support the war in Iraq because it is good for democracy?"
No I didn't... that is a good secondary consequence and one that should make the leftist crowd support this war inspite of everything else... but me... I supported it because I agreed that the threat merited being opposed.
I guess the fact that the left does not like this war shows more about what they really feel about democracy and humanitarism then perhaps they realise...


Lybia, another side issue:

"What signal does that send?"
It sends a signal that a country is free to pursue it's own routes, be they undemocratic or not, if they comply with certain restrictions... good restrictions I think... with time Lybia, if it opens to capitalism, will also become democratic... and this time no need to impose it... you should be happy...

"Gaddafi is as much a dictator as Saddam was,"
Actually I think Saddam was much worse... but I may be wrong.

"Qaddafi said himself that the two billion dollors were not a penalty but an investment."
He always was the smart one of the lot...

"However, I think that what is happening in Libya is good for democracy"
We agree then. :)


Aha:

"The threat of communism is not present today, and so I doubt that there will be willingness to make similar investments in the future."
This one is a nice one... inspite of what you say there is ample evidence of the investment being made in Iraq by the US. In Afghanistan as well to a lesser degree. So not only is there willingness but it's happening. 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...

"Bin Laden seems to be aiming for publicity more than actual change, an extremely dangerous "no-hope" attitude."
Actually Osama's problem and why he is doomed to fail is that he believes Allah will make him win. He has no real strategy to win anything...

"but what constitutes a threat?"
Who knows Qana? I think allowing the freedom for nations to act and letting the wars sort out who is better fit is a way that can settle these issues when they occur... And the objective truth is always there for those that take the effort to dig some and find it.


And I can't seem to end without preaching :)

In time we will have a world government.. a federation of states... but that is so far... we still have to win one regarding globalisation of an economic system, capitalist... it's almost there yes... but since some see very well that a globalised culture, democratic, is next they've started fighting it... preemptively... because democracy is something they don't really like... they prefer aristocracy... with them being above of course.

These differences can't be settled diplomatically... everyone living is fighting this one... choosing sides without knowing... I think everyone can understand what I'm saying... I like some values: tolerance, freedom, equality... and seeing the big picture I choose my side consciously.