No it is you who is confused. Democracy is a broad term. And is only effective if the democratic institutions are able to support it. For example, a constitution, an impartial judicial system, a police force capable of enforcing law and order. Our Constitutional republic is a form of democracy, just as Britains parliamentarian system is and just as the Swiss federal system is. The same applies to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, etc, etc. Regardless of the particulars, each is a form of democratic rule. Elected representatives that are anwerable to the people and that can be voted out of office.
No one is arguing for a pure democracy, and no one with any intellect ever has.
So the question remains, which countries are we more likely to be at war with? Those with democracies or those with tyrannical rulers who cannot be defeated by the will of the people? The answer is obvious, yet you want to get into an arcane discussion about the particular features of governance that all falls under the rubric of democracy.
Hitler usurped power, therefore he became a dictator, at no risk of being tossed from office other than a coup. Rossevelt won each election he was in, therefore he stayed in power. Apples and oranges, and pointless to the discussion.
Are we at loggerheads with Peru or with Venezuela (currently being run by an tyrant who is doing his best Hitler immitation)? With South Korea or North Korea? With Israel or Syria? With Turkey or Iran?
And has the realpolitik you subscribe to been effective over the last 30 years to stop the growth of the islamist terrorists? Answer no. The Bush doctrine will end it.
And you notion that "Bush II" usurped power is amazingly delusional. Maybe you might want to try the DU for like minded individuals.
Democracy brought in the vicious Hutu government that kicked off the genocide of the Tutsis their traditional leaders. Democracy brought in Mugabe in what was once a paradise called Rhodesia. Democracy turned Nigeria into what it is today. Democracy means rule by numbers. It works only where four things are present: A reasonably homogenious population that share the same cultural verities. A population with an intelligence level capable of understanding what is actually important to the preservation of those cultural verities. An educational level--it can be tought in the home--where the average person has an understanding of the political processes relative to the first two; and, finally, a standard of living high enough to allow sufficient time for reflection on the issues and personalities, which enable people to employ the first three necessary attributes, intelligently.
If you think that every land is suitable for such a concept, you are delusional.
As for George W. Bush? Find any place in the Constitution, where the Federal Government is given a role in civilian education within the States? Find any place where is fiscally suicidal Prescription Drug subsidy is even arguably suggested? Find any place where he is authorized to appropriate American resources for the benefit of other lands, where we receive no clear benefit.
The man claimed in 2000 that he was a strict constructionist. He is no such a thing.
You are simply amusing yourself playing verbal games, to try to justify a very, very sorry Administration, which only looks even half-way acceptable because it follows the completely amoral, smoke and mirrors of the Clinton years. We all hoped that Bush would be a change. It is tragic, but the reality is that he has not been so far as most issues are concerned. And his failure to even try to protect our Southern border, during his first five plus years in office, make his pretense of protecting us little better than a sorry joke.
William Flax