An example of us putting pressure on a US which is itself putting too much pressure on our academics and historians to follow the American Way is to quote from a historical example.

Here is passage from the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant as regards a nation in a unipolar position with a President who is using his powers to tread the very dangerous path of going it alone.

"The idea of international law presupposes the separate existence of many independent but neighbouring states. Although this condition is itself a state of war, this is rationally preferable to the amalgamation of states under one superior power." (As we exist today with unipolar America and an over-determined President ....?)

As Kant goes on to say - ".....under one superior power, democratic laws will always lose in vigor what a government gains in extent - hence (possibly) a soulless despotism after stifling the seeds of the good...."

What Kant is talking about here, is that multipolarity is far superior to unipolarity. Kant's multipolarity, however, different to the United Nations which has tried follow his principles, was simply quoted as a Federation of Nations.

Once again it is necessary to use Old Pap research to awaken an increasingly dumb world to what has been called historical veritableness.

To again quote Immanuel Kant, along with St Thomas Aquinas, regarded as the greatest of Christian thinkers who posed the significance of balancing faith with reason.

As Kant concludes his passage after praising republicanism, but warning about a unilateral republic which gives a President far too much personal power:

“Under one universal monarchy or power, laws will often lose their vigor compared to what a federal union gains in extent. Henceforth what remains can be a a soulless despotism stifling the Seeds of the Good.....”

The above lesson is glaringly shown with the position of the United States government right now in Iraq.

The above position comes as a pitiful last resort after over four years of failure in Iraq not only fighting against Sunnis and Shias, themselves sworn enemies against each other over a single Shia bloodline from Mahomet, but both still regarding America as an illegal occupier.

As Iran is strongly supporting the Shias whom George W Bush first dragged American in to save, there are rumours that the Sunnis are being backed by Saudi Arabian Mullahs.

A recent lull in Bhagdad had Condoleeza Rice a couple of days ago full of smiles for Georgy Dubya, but reckon the latest Sunni attack on the Shias with sixty dead might twist her smile a little.

Could reckon the whole shebang now in Iraq needs a strong global get-together, but could say that still with an unsure rather dumb world public, including most of our Onliners, looks like letting the worst take its course.

Bushbred,

The Iraqi sectarian leadership has chosen the path of war. I doubt there is anything we CAN do to stop Iraqis slaughtering each other.

Certainly I do not think we should be asking our troops to put their lives on the line in what looks increasingly like a futile mission. Immediate withdrawal is the only realistic option. Leave it to Iraqis, Iranians, Saudis, etc to decide whether they want to continue killing each other, or not, as THEY decide.

So, the more they kill each other - the less foreign instructors needed there.

Keeping oil supply safe while Iranian mullahs toss those of others is the major priority to be as long as a Western dependence on natural resources requires -regrettably.

How did having elections equate to democracy? Just ask an Iraqi about how having elections has changed their lives. Or Zimbabwean. Or Russian. I agree that elections are a necessary condition for democracy- but it is hardly sufficient.

Col- America is a healthy democracy?

Lets see. By your own admission, America is a liberal democracy. So, with help from Wikipedia:

(Paraphrased) Liberal democracy “is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise power is subject to the rule of law, and moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals

The rights of liberal democracies are varied, but usually include most of the following: rights to due process, privacy, property and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion.”

Lets tick ‘em off:

Due process: Today the American court of Appeals stripped habius corpus from all detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Privacy: PATRIOT and Homeland Security have seen an end to the ideas of privacy in the US.

Equality before the Law: The overwhelming preponderance of black and Hispanic men in American goals probably suggest that is also more myth than substance.

Freedom of Speech: The ‘War on Criticism’ that yields the lines ‘emboldening terrorists’ in response to any comments questioning the current administrations position

Freedom of Assembly: Relocation of people protesting the President from the path of the presidential motorcade to ‘free speech zones’- neither seen nor heard by their elected representatives.

Freedom of Religion: well, so long as you are supporting the true religion, you’re free to do anything!!

And as for elections: let’s not forget that Bush was ‘elected’ only because the American Supreme Court STOPPED the officials in Florida from re-counting votes (which I’m told is the basic currency of democracy).

Doesn’t seem healthy to me!

Through the apathy of the populace and the connivance of the powerful, the supports of American democracy have been drastically weakened. As Peter said, without some major renovation, they're likely to bring the roof down on their heads- and maybe ours as well.

Is not an endless number of legislative causes,various courts and qualified lawyers on extra-orbital wages the best testimony to a level of development democracy possesses?