"Rational discourse ought to depend on the meaning of words." The meaning of words is not intrinic to the words but arises from sedmentation of practices of use. Definaiton of words is not simply what you find a dictionary- since the words which are using here like 'rational' 'nation' 'empire' etc are essentially contested. The meaning of these words is part of the not same register as say words like: 'ashtray', 'meatcleaver' 'typewriter'... It is not false argue that US is an empire- simply because you disagree with the premise. The distinction between Hegenomic and territorialk empires is one that was articulated by Edward Luttwak hardly an anti-American. Discussion of any kind depends on the use of two kinds of words: those who meaning is fixed for the time and place and those whose meaning is up grab- hence the discussion. If the meaning of all terms was fixed that we not be having discussion but an engaging in mathmatics. There are many definations of empire, and in many of those US is an empire. If you do not agree with you have need construct a notion or defination of empire which does not include the US. The example of China is more complicated. China 'starts' as mulitpolar system- in which one peripheral state (Chin) manages to conquer most of the othre states- over time it cross the Carcallan threashold and stops making a valid distinction between Chin and non-Chin- The Han nation is creation of empire not the other way around. "Further, an empire is never a Republic nor a Democracy." So by this definaiton Athens was not empire (news to most classical scholars not say of the Spartans), nor was Venice or Britian or France. So when the British government used to speak about being an empire it was simply wrong!There are many examples in history of polities that where both republics and empires- the Roman empire was at most expansionist when it was a republic! Elections are only mechanism- the Soviet Union had elections for much of its history - I would conclude that Soviet Union was a democracy. Post-reconstruction South had regular elections- I am not sure it would be a democracy. Electoral process like any endevour can be compromised or decided by non-electoral means (e.g Florida). Last Mubarak stood for election he got 90%, Saddam Hussein managed to get 99% of the vote....I do not think the 9% is sufficent to argue that one is democracy and other is not.

As I understand the Bush adminstation has committed the US to prventive wars- phrases constanly used by the president like we will attack they enemy before they do us harm, or the increasingly Kalfaseque justications for the Iraq adventure...even if Saddam did not have WMD he would had them... they all point to prventive war. Preventive war is shift from the policy of deterence. The US, Britian and France have all declared that shift in their policies.

Regime change is indeed our policy. It is very late in coming. If you really oppose the regimes you cite, you hardly should be upset we are going to do them all in, one at a time. We have concluded that these regimes are a major aspect of the real problem. This is the only point you got right about what US policy is - and you seem to imply it is wrong. What is wrong with it? 1. Who decides which regimes are to be changed. Regimes that challenge the US or that regimes carry out human rights abuses or repress thier people? 2. The US track record of regime change has not been very good. Allende replaced by Pinochet. Mossedieq replaced by the Shah... 3. The idea that wicked regimes are responsible for the evil in the world has little to with any analysis and more to do with application of eschatology to reading of world politics. 4. Regime change means supporting some dictators and not others. 5. Any policy that means to be ethical and effective should be able to meet the challenge of categorical imperative and should be effective. 6. Nations rarely want their countries to ruled by unaccountible armed foreigners with extra-teritorial rights. 7. Regime change is distraction from recognizing the political nature of the conflict the US is involved in. 8. Regime change suggest a world not the US liking, it points to weakness in the American empire as it capacity to legitimate it role in the world has diminished and needs to rely on force because its power to persuade is less and less efffective. (The use of veto by the p5 is interesting index of the influence that US can command- in early does it was soviet who needed the veto because they lacked persuaive ablities- now increasingly the US has to resort to the veto). 8. If you were right and regime change was to produce independant accountible regimes one may have less dis-agreement- but it has done that in the past, it does not do that now(I mean why does Karazi need an American bodyguard- even Saddam managed to find enough Iraqis to form his bodyguard), maybe you think in the future it will and perhaps not having the benefit of your contacts or your opptimsim- I think regime change is likely to cause more unstablity and in the medium lead to American imperial overstreach.

Democracy is not hard-sell. No democracy is not but democracy as means of establishing puppet regimes is. When the Iraqi allowed democratic control over their economy, when those who oppose the American occupation do not have thier newspapers and offices closed we could talk about democracy. If the US was consistent about its prinicpled rather opportunitic stance about democracy then it would be cosing up to rulers of Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan... A priniciple that gets bent a little is not principle. People in Third World are probably aware of how empires come carrying gifts. Sustainible democratization needs to be home-grown with roots in its society not transplanted at the piont of a gun.

"We are in a war, and the enemy deliberately attacked civilian infrastructure, not even a legitimate target." El Cid, a little clarification please I am surprised you are bringing this up since I thought somewhere along the line we had agreed one of the worst featurs of total war had been distinciton between civilian and non-civilian targets had more or less collapsed that this was not confined to merely anti-democratic regimes- (I won't cite all the examples, previously, but I find hard to understand how nuking/fire-storming/bombing a city is not a civilian target).

"Let me rewrite this message, as I’m a bit rattled over the first lose of relatives to the Iraq stupidity." Sorry to hear about your loss.

"Rational discourse ought to depend on the meaning of words. Words have meanings. If Empire has a definition, than it is false to assert the USA is an empire when it does not meet that definition." Right, and conservatism does not endorse reckless foreign or fiscal poilicies. That is why we use "Neo" in front of the word, to mark the dissimilarities as well as the similarities. Thank you for pointing this out.

"I do not think you can impose democracy." Exactly why, at a minimum, the execution of the "Grand Strategy" has been, shall we say, boneheaded.

"You just don't get it Rebrooku. It is an error of AQ to fight in Iraq - a place we choose. It is expending resources and generating a great deal of bad PR..." The bad PR is a point, but AQ would do that with terror attacks in any Muslim country (like Saudi Arabia). As for resources, that hardly matters. It is a religious movement and the real resources needed are willing recruits (remember "boxcutters"?), nd the chance to practice theirt principles is as attarctive to them as combat is to a combat officer. That El Cider can't understand that is simply El Cider's myopic ideology and desparate need to defend a partisan Administration.

Deterrance works against people who believe that they have something worth preserving in this world. It didn't work against the disciples of Hasan the Assassin, and it doesn't work against present day apocalyptic terrorists. Of course we went to preventive war. We chose Iraq because of its cantral location, its history and because Saddam had reduced it to an opponent that could be handled by existing U.S. forces. In war you have to defeat the enemy's forces in the field, and also cut his field forces off from his homeland; where he recruits, motivates, finances and equips his forces. In wars against nation states this means invading the enemy state. But the apocalyptic terrorists have no nation. They recruit, motivate, finance and equip their forces from a series of radical mosques and madrassas all across the world. These, in turn, flourish in cultures where entertainment and education are steeped in a poisonous brew of fascist propaganda. The governments are police states at best, totalitarian in asperation. Fascist hatred of the America, Israel and the West in general is the only approved release these states allow. So how3 do we cut the terrorist field forces off from this diffuse "homeland"? In the Cold War the U.S. subsidized mass media, political parties and educational systems to wage a "cultural war" against totalitarism. This kind of struggle is, by its very nature, covert. After all, what news network, school or political party will admit that it is financed by the CIA.? I believe this is happening and that it is one of the most important aspects of the war on terrorism. Another aspect is giving the Middle East a democratic alternative. Democracy is subversive for police states. It it isn't then why did all of totalitarian counmties hold mock elections to legitimize their rule? Democracy in Iraq will be just as subversive to Iran (or Syria) as West Germany was to the East Germany. Lastly, in the meantime, the apocalyptic terrorists are heading to Iraq to fight. In other words, they're fighting in a thatre that WE chose. That's good news. I would much rather fight them in Tikrit than Tacoma.