Democratic Peace: Are we all Kants or Cunts at heart?

Why did I write about Wikipedia last time? Well I'll enlighten you as Kant has enlightened me. I was reading an article and I truly, I mean...TRULY, felt enlightened. I've been feeling like this more and more. I think it's the prospect of going back to Penn and actually studying. And, I'm excited about it. Weird. I'm also coming to terms with not going out partying 6 nights a week and partying at the Van Pelt Library instead. Weird.

Democratic Peace. Hold up. Peace? That's a word we don't know much about. We know the pleasant dream of peace and we know when we're a nation that is going through "peaceful" times. I ask this though: Has this nation ever truly been completely peaceful? We either have conflicts with Great Britain before we were born. That's much like a brat of a baby kicking a mother's stomach while still in the womb. Or, we're bludgeoning Native Americans and making them trek thousands of miles into the desert. Or, we bludgeon the slaves that pick our cotton. Or, there are riots in Los Angeles between Koreans and Latin Americans. Or, or, or...These are events that happen on our soil...Then we go abroad and "do good," yet disobey Father George Washington's wishes that we stay out of world conflicts. If only...(yes. he really did say that).

The concept of a Democratic Peace states that democracies never or (here's a loophole) rarely go to war against each other. Here's another loophole: is there such a thing as a true democracy? The US is a representative democracy where we elect folks like Elliot Spitzer to represent our vote. Har Har. So the fact that we're "representative" aside, why are we always at war against our father's wishes?

Kant believed that democracies wouldn't go to war unless in self-defense. So how do we end war? Create democracies everywhere. Woot! How do we do that? Isn't this what we're trying to do with a war in Iraq. One argument could be to create social movements in a totalitarian or communist state. Ha. Would a totalitarian leader allow that? Saddam could have said: Sure, come over here with your liberal thoughts and your homosexuals and make my people think for themselves while I sit on my toilet of pure gold. That was never going to happen. Ergo we need war.

Self-defense. Sigh. Pre-World War I Germany was attacked by a Serb idiot and then gets blamed for the whole shindig. I've never been able to come to terms with this historical fact. The United States of America has been, for years and years, trying to promote democracy abroad. In theory it's good. In reality it's never going to happen without war. Then, 9/11 comes along and we have an excuse to go after the Taliban. What are we doing in Iraq? Oh...just in case something happens. Thus, I have a question to the Kant in heaven right now if he can hear me (plus I like saying Kant). If we strike a nation before they strike us, but we have reason to believe (no proof) that they will hurt us down the line and never want another 9/11 to happen...can we attack them? I'm baffled by my own question.

If you know your girlfriend is going to cheat on you, do you go out and cheat on your girlfriend first? What are you going to say when you two have that huge ass fight? "Well, I did it because I knew you were going to do it tonight or tomorrow night." Someone on Hot 99.5 actually said something along these lines last Friday. I'd rather eliminate a threat before I get hurt. It makes me feel like I have all the control. I guess I've come to my own conclusion. The US likes to be in control. We're a nation of phallus symbols and phallic monuments in our capital and a non-well endowed president who probably will be the next Viagra spokesperson. Thank you, Bob Dole.