And how is it contradictive? Did i state anything that wasn't true? Where is the contradiction? The fact that people have used the word democracy to describe the United States doesn't make it true. Please provide evidence that my opening paragraph is not valid, if you have such. You've accused me of being contradictive, so support your accusation.

Also, please comment on the second section from my previous post. Do you agree that values have their roots in many sources besides a governmental system and that it is therefore a gross oversimplification to say that democracy is the basis of these values?

So your purpose was not to learn, but to criticize. Not surprising. Once again, you mistakenly label the United States a democracy and then try to suggest that it is because of democracy that a war occurred. The facts don't bear this out. Democracy had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. If it did, the citizens of the United States would have had to vote on that war (that is what is done in a democracy). Such a vote by the citizenry was never taken, so the war cannot be a result of democracy or democratic values. The closest thing to such a democratic process in this case was a vote by the representatives that i wrote about that authorized the war.

I note you didn't say the United States was using the argument that the Iraqis were repressed in their enjoyment of democratic rights and values, but instead of "the universal rights/values". I agree, that their government was indeed denying them these rights. The war in Iraq, of course, was only in the slightest way because of this, just as World War II wasn't primarily about the Jews in the concentration camps. The fact that in both cases, people were freed from oppression was a side benefit.

I think you're misquoting me. If anyone chooses to intentionally target civilians, they do indeed become enemies of civilization. A child in a palestinian refugee camp who puts on a uniform (required by the Geneva Conventions) and targets only the military is a military combatant, subject to the rules of war. If a person, out of uniform, attacks a military target, then they become combatants and I believe they are classified as spies (e.g given no protection under the Geneva Conventions). The United States Marine, in full uniform, who shot the "insurgent" in the mosque was targeting a combatant who was not in uniform. As such, I believe that the insurgent has no protections under the Geneva Conventions. That said, the Marine still has a human responsibility to protect the life of someone not threatening him. The Marine also has a human responsibility to his squadmates and his own life to take precautions. By the Marine's own words, however, he saw that the insurgent was "faking he's dead". In a warzone, the Marine could easily and justifiably be concerned that one faking being dead would be doing so for a reason that bodes ill for the Marine and his squad. On the day prior, a booby trapped body killed this Marine's squadmate, so it makes sense that this Marine feared that a live insurgent, faking being dead, would be planning to attack him or his squad. The Marine's own words prior to the shooting show that he feared this enemy combatant. As such, the shooting is justified. Now, how this relates to the values of a democracy is anyone's guess.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan