The issue at hand is of course, are liberty and democracy good for every country. Though, as an American, when I look at the argument I see; it works for us so why cant it work for them? And although it doesn't state so, I believe the underlying question in the article is whether the US should promote democracy through force. The first writer, Michael McFaul, argues; "liberty and democracy are desirable for every country, …showed first 75 words of 721 total…

…showed last 75 words of 721 total…no democracy will ever attack another on the short while democracies have been in power, seems like a bold assumption. Also, in attempting to explain our involvement in the middle east, he claimed the only country to fit the description of supporting anti-western revolutionaries, and producing weapons of mass destruction is Iraq. Though what about North Korea? This was a false statement in general and seems to be a deliberate avoidance of Iraq's oil incentive.