"My point was instability and opportunities for terrorism are much higher in Iraq and in the whole Middle-East than they were one year ago. And I think they are."
Your wording was, not as above, but "who CREATED" that instablity. Any implications there? That's clearly different from your carefully worded statement above (kinda like Kerry claiming he was referring to Sean Hannity, not Bush, when he referened the big bucha crooks and liars...
"But, of course, the US just cannot stand dictators! They did tolerate a number of them in Europe (including Spain) in the 30's and early 40's. They did promote a number of them in Latin America. And they are still quite polite with a number of them when they are really dangerous (North Korea, China). Don't be silly."
Now who's evading the point. Hitler was IGNORED by most of Europe until he struck them in their own backyards. When the reality of what was going on became clear, they took the decisive action. This is 2004,not 1930/40. We do not tolerate persistent violation of human rights when we know about it; but we also don't go gunblazing into countries without adequate reason. We've sanctioned Castro (unlike many of the more "liberal" nations). To suggest that because we didn't ransack all despots 60-75 years ago as in any way having bearing upon what's being done today is a vapid, nonsensical argument. What exactly are you trying to prove?
"By the way, I'm curious what your concept of "democracy" is when you advocate "leadership" against one's people's majority.."
What exactly, is the "majority?" When we invaded Iraq/Afghanistan, the people, DID, by clear polls support it. If the support goes down a few months later when we actually experience casualities, do you find it to be the sign of a strong leader to withdraw? Is rule governed by polls and popular opinion?