[Undertoad]

That's OK, we were talking about you, not me. My original complaint was in #50:

Originally Posted by UT

or if they did, you ignored it and went about your business, whistling past the graveyard.

The "it" referred to is "If there is any wrongness in removing undemocracy and replacing it with democracy", a sentence that bears a lot of ugly weight without clearly defining "wrongness", "removing", "replacing" and "democracy". Especially the latter since the US is not a Democracy, a point which I attempted to fix by replacing it with "Democratic Republic" in my posts. (You're welcome.)

My real goal was to point out that you have whiffed past my objections several times without comment. We've come a long way in this thread, so, nicely done.

It is but horse sense that if mankind is presented with an enemy, mankind should remove the enemy.

This foreign policy stuff, it does not work like you imagine it does. That's OK. It's hard, and it's so rarely considered by libertarians. That last point should be a point of great shame.

Let's go with the absolute master of the pithy war quote, Sun Tzu.

To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the supreme of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.

There ya go. Nobody has been able to explain it? The original student of war did it... in two sentences.