[Captain Kirk]

Take a look at some of Woodrow Wilson's old speeches (especially during his campaign for the League of Nations) and compare them with Hanson's articles and the parallels will become apparent. Both indulge in purple and flowery prose on the need for the U.S. to bring democracy to the entire world.

In my view, such a universalistic doctrine is dangerous. It speads us thin, detracts from our national defense, and opens the door to more conflicts. It was wrong in 1919 and it is wrong now. This type of universalism on a consistent scale is also impossible and I think even Hanson knows this (though he doesn't acknowledge it). I would have more respect for Hanson if he applied his universalistic doctrine across-the-board and supported sending troops to such hell holes as Zimbabwee, the Congo, and the Sudan....but he doesn't. For this reason, his universalism is mere rhetoric.

Most freepers used to share my skepticism of this kind of universalistic doctrine back when they sensibly opposed Clinton's Kosovo war which was based on the *same* universalistic princples Hanson advocates in his articles..

[metesky]

Hanson confines his hawkishness to the Islamists and their enablers because they are the ones that attacked and killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens.

What part of that don't you understand?

[cricket]

"In my view, such a universalistic doctrine is dangerous. It speads us thin, detracts from our national defense, and opens the door to more conflicts."

Why are you assuming that the only way to inspire a nation to Democratic process is by our taking them to war?

While Countries may have varying degrees or expressions of the 'democratic process' the fact remains that where 'the individual is respected; and is a 'free citizen' and has maximun control of his own destiny. . .that country, where he shares his entitlement to freedom; is less of a threat to the rest of the world-at-large; and surely less of a burden.

Those countries where Democracy is valued; the citizens do not suffer from famines; nor are they victims of genocide; they are safe in the practice of thier religion and safe in their political views - they will not be hacked to death when exiting a polling booth or their place of worship; nor do free people; living in a free and Democratic environment live with the possibility of being thrown into a mass burial grave at the whim of their 'leader'.

There are reasons why Democracy - and the freedoms it justly shares, make a country a more desireable place to live and make that country a safer neighbor. This in turn, makes 'mass migrations' and emigration of population, less necessary or even desireable. Democratic countries make the entire planet a better place for everyone.

Democracy; as we know, does require; and rely on; an 'enlightened population'; a higher consciousness; where quality of character and 'self'-respect is valued.