Pope criticises West for trying to export own brand of democracy to Iraq, Libya

Sgt Carlos S - Sergeant; There is absolutely nothing wrong with either the CONCEPTS behind "The American Ideal" (which really isn't exclusive to America and if rendered down to "The government should get off my back and let me get on with my life as best I can." is pretty much universal) or the CONCEPTS behind "American style democracy" (which really isn't exclusive to America and if rendered down to "Everyone has an equal right to have their input into what the government does BUT that doesn't mean that the government is always going to do what EVERYONE wants because there will always be some people who don't want the government to do what it is going to do because either [a] the majority of the people want it done and it doesn't harm the minority significantly, or [b] the minority don't want it done but not doing it will significantly harm the minority." is pretty much universal).

Now if you want to export "the Republicans" and "the Democrats" I suspect that you could raise a fair chunk of change with a quick pass around of a hat BUT you probably wouldn't end up making a whole lot of new friends in far off lands.

I agree that leaving them alone is a valid option. However, that should mean leaving them completely alone: no interference, and no aid. The Pope's issue is with us trying to promote the spread of democracy through financial aid. So basically he's saying we should fund everyone without requiring them to reform first?

This pope seems ironic as he has been a proponent of the immigration issues in Europe. I wonder what might cause more people to return to the church. Maybe an invasion of millions of people who have voiced their desire to conquer the west?

MAJ L. Nicholas Smith - Never allow a good crisis to go unused?

CPT Jack Durish - It wouldn't be the first time!

CPT Jack Durish - Captain; In the legal sense, the American Declaration of Independence was "spent" the minute the US obtained its actual independence.

If you think that "no government act can take it or any rights it mentions away" I have only to point out to you that President Lincoln was VERY successful in taking away some of the rights set out in the Bill of Rights (and President GW Bush wasn't far behind him) as was President FD Roosevelt). Where Messrs. Lincoln and Roosevelt showed that they were smarter than Mr. Bush is that they never let any cases challenging their suspension of "constitutional rights" actually get to court. (Korematsu v. United States was decided solely on whether the President had followed the correct procedural steps in issuing EO 9066 and never dealt with the question of "constitutional rights" at all.)

Now I will agree that it would be QUITE difficult for any Administration to ACTUALLY take away any of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights absent a second American Civil War - BUT I will NOT agree that it would be impossible. All that would be needed would be for "The Government" to whip up sufficient hysteria against an easily identifiable class and it could do so as easily as happened on 19 FEB 42 (under Executive Order 9066).