Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.



There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it is
necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.


I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
religious based government, then we're not really interested in
democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.



You made a leap that I never made.

My statement was generalized, about war.


Was it? Where is this "preservation of liberty" in 2003?


Countries go to war based upon self interest.


Right. Viva la libertad.


That is what we did in Iraq. As it happens,
getting rid of Saddam and establishing a
more or less democratic goverment is in our
self interest.

As far as your comments about a religious based government,
that is not likely to be a demoracy, so, after the initial
vote, the people can never change back to a pluralistic
government. Use common sense, suppose they change their mind
after ten years. TOO BAD! They got a theocratic dictatorship
they can't get rid of.


Of course. Taking over the whole world's the only answer.