But UG is the only smart one here who knows what's best for everyone else. Sooner or later you'll realize Bruce (and everyone else).

Given what passes for the competition in this forum, Aliantha's crack tempts me unduly. Perhaps I should shout Retro me, Alianthas?;) Really, I'm not hearing opposed ideas compelling enough to change my tune here. This is in large part because I'm hearing very few actual ideas at all -- just a passel of "No, no!" -- full stop.

Bruce is now showing (and shouting) frustration -- which isn't really my aim, not at all. We're still at Square One here: it is clear enough that he finds the active spreading of democracy and the balking of undemocrats' efforts to prevent it to be objectionable, on some grounds or other. What those grounds are remains so far opaque, unexpressed. Perhaps these grounds are hidden fascist sympathies, or perhaps he simply has no faith at all in democracy nor the possibility of government that is actually good.

In the troublesome parts of the world you've got a lot of places that are totalitarian or tyrannous -- too much government -- or places with too little government: failed or failing states.

Anybody want to call either condition a good one? While that government is best which governs least, or as it might be put, needs to govern least or needs least to govern -- still, anarchy may be characterized justly as entirely too much of a good thing.

You're desire to force your choice of socio/political system on other countries, makes you a bigger fascist than the despots that just force one on their own.

I think the part UG misses is that democracy claims it is valid because its power resides in the people. The power in Iraq resides in the gun.

Bruce, once you understand that post # 63 is the Platonic ideal of "utter hogwash," then and only then will you understand my world.

The victory in the European Theater of Operations stands in refutation of your every word there.

Were we "fascists" to defeat the Fascist nations of Italy and Germany and make democracies there? We were not. And taking that as an exemplar, I propose no other outcome.

Bruce, you just don't believe in democracy at all -- not enough, at any rate to want to see it spread further across the globe, in despite of any obstacle. Why should that be, of all the Godawful things to have taking over your mind? Note too that the grounds for this, philosophical or other, are yet unexpressed and unexplained. That's no good for your argument, Bruce -- for look just how free I am to speculate, and what suspicions the speculations engender.

Well that's a real change.

Obviously not, but as outsiders how do we represent democracy in which the power is supposed to reside in the people?

Good question. I don't have the answer. Personally I always thought it might have been a better plan to have a limited military action and just replace Sadaam with another brutal dictator who could have kept everyone in line through whatever means he wanted. As long as he was friendly with the US. But of course we could never have done that...

Yeah, we'd probably get another Iran. I guess we could have focused on Al Queda instead... but here we are. They buried another local kid over the weekend. The Patriot Guard came but thankfully no nutters would pull any crap around here.

No doubt.

I did not say Nazi, I said Fascist.
Our freedom of speech is a damn-sight better protected than places where you can't speak your mind about race.
That IS Fascism's first step.
Your tactics are who you are. Why you do it does not matter.

In other words rk "the ends do not justify the means" - I got that, and I agree to a point. But I'm having trouble seeing the parallel between the two.

For example, If I kill a dog just for fun vs. killing a dog that is attacking a child there. Is there no difference?

rk, censorship is and has been a feature of many types of society and government. That it may also have been one of the tools utilitised by fascist regimes, does not mean any state where censorship is in place is fascistic. You practice censorship in America. You limit what can be seen, or heard, by whom. You also limit what can be printed and prosletysed by such groups as the KKK. You draw the line at the point that you believe words and actions have merged to become a threat of harm to someone. The difference in Europe, and also in Britain, is where we draw that line.


Censorship does not equate to fascism. Fascism is a great deal more than that. Not all systems employing censorship are fascist, but fascist states all use censorship.

You also limit what can be printed and prosletysed by such groups as the KKK.

No we don't. Not one iota.

What if they are calling for a mass action to lynch blacks?