text: it's nothing more than a buzzword as far as what President Bush wants to do. They talk about democracy this and that, yet we cannot uphold our own. We didn't have a square election in 2000, nor did we have a choice in '04. The difference between the two candidates was nothing more than a coin toss. The real alternatives to them were pushed out by having more money and connections.\n\nAlso people get confused on what our country is. People automatically assume it's a democracy, when in fact it's a republic. Which is a limited democracy. Otherwise if we had a pure democracy, the majority woudl get whatever they want and the minority would be totally screwed. An analogy to that is two wolves tell a lamb whats for dinner. It doesn't and shouldn't work that way. We can barely even keep it a republic though.\nSo to ask what is western democracy, you have to see past what the talking heads preach and realize what is going on.\nYeah, we can elect people. yeah we can put in new laws..for ourselves, on our own account... Except when it gets hijacked by individuals who know how to manipulate it all. Then for the people to not have enough guts/critical thought to overturn the injustice...\nBut for us to force it on others is an antithesis of democracy in the first place.\nI don't recall the world calling a vote for candidate Mr. U.S. govt. and being nominated to decide what country should have a regime change first, especially when Mr. U.S. govt. supported that regime at one point.\n\nThe current aims of the U.S. govt. to coerce 'democracy' stands thus far:\n1) hypocritical, ours is failing\n2) illogical, forcing a democracy defeats itself\n3) moot, U.S. govt. could care less if people in other countries are actually free or not, it's about making the initiatives they create sound pleasant.