>>The idea that we should spread democracy pre-emptively is new.
>
>You keep changing your statement so that noone can ever prove it false. Start a new thread. Put your statement in quotes, then we can debate it.

The statement is the Bush doctrine. I'm glad to see that you're eager to debate the Bush doctrine now, despite many of us having already had this debate 3 years ago when it mattered.

I've already given you the wikipedia article and it is quite sufficient in detail, but I'll summarize:

Democracy should be every where, and it is the duty of democracies to spread democracy everywhere, perhaps using military force to replace unaccountable oppresive governments, even those that pose no clear and present threat to the democractic nations.


This idea is new. It has never been put into action by a government before. You want me to prove it. You want me to prove that the idea has not existed before.

I've never proved that something doesn't exist. I never will. Are you going to snip this out and pretend like I'm not writing this? Because you don't seem to get what I'm saying here.

Based on everything you know, no country has ever had its government overthrown and replaced with a soverign democractic one. Yet you'll refuse to accept this as a fact despite it being consistent with everything you know.

Except you believe that Bush is bad, and allowing yourself to think that his administration has done something good would be inconsistent with that. Belief wins.

You're being a fool.