Back up 5 posts from your last one. Your use of the US and UK as examples of tyrannies was IDIOTIC.

I disagree, but since you keep bringing this up below, I'll address it there.

Subsequent comments on the accuracy of my comments regarding eliminating tyranny were reasonable. I'll have to follow-up on your references to reply, as those comments are not obviously idiotic and appear to represent attempts at reasonable rational debate rather than ludicrous hyperbole.

OK, as far as I can see, references to one's own country get a vitriolic response while others get only a "hmmm, maybe".
see below for details

As for India Tom's post was sufficeint rebuttal which you failed to reply to.

No, Tom's post was as universally asinine and incorrect as yours was.
Eastern Europe was not under tyranny? Then what was all that Cold War crap about? Needn't have bothered huh?
A tyranny is "an oppressive power exerted by government".

There are plenty of Bush haters claiming they are living under a tyranny now. That doesn't mean they aren't full of crap.

I know, and I never once claimed the US is a tyranny.


India had legitimate grievances and a lack of full freedom under the UK as the US did before it. That doesn't mean British rule was anywhere near as bad as under Saddam, Hitler, or the Taliban.

Here's where you get confused son.
You see a black and white world. You see freedom on the one hand and tyranny on the other. There is in reality a continual spectrum of freedom from say Stalinist russia on one side to The Shining US of A on the other.
I never once said that UK or US was even remotely comparable to Sadaam, Hitler or the Taliban.

Now of course in the US educational system, Indian history gets about 5 to 10 hours of review so I'm sure I've missed a lot despite some reading in other sources.
I'd guess one mention of the British Empire, maybe one for the Black Hole of Calcutta and several for Gandhi, am I right?

On the other hand we spend a lot of time on our own history and your misrepresentation of it leaves me a might skeptical of your recollection of Indian history.

Dont get all Larry on me now.

It is also telling that you ignore the evolution of democracy in both countries to make your point.

I didn't. This is something you choose to read into what I actually wrote.

They have been among the most democratic countries for centuries and have continually grown with regard to individual rights and freedom. Judging them today by actions decades ago is fundamentally whacked. They have already judged their own past actions as wrong and changed laws to prevent repetitions.

Ex-effing-actly. Meanwhile don't confuse domestic freedoms with foriegn ones. The British did not historically treat Johnny Foreigner with the same kid glove as it treated it's own citizens (and for the vast majority of its history, that kid glove was made of sandpaper with nails in it).

Examples of individual cruelty and government neglect do not constitute true government sponsored tyranny. Government sponsorship and encouragement of brutal represssion of dissenters does.
Finally! Your definition!
OK, toss out MLK references (unless they come under your little tyrannies inside of free western societies, but I digress).
But if you actually do the research Poland, Romania (heck, much of Cold War Eastern Europe) and , yes, India remain.
Note I'm not comparing Jarulselski to Mullah Omar, or Ceacescu to Sadaam (hmmm).

And note in this thread I have not once denied that most tyrannies are probably overcome by war and force.

All I am trying to do is add a little grey area to that black and white universal statement you made.

What is so difficult to understand here?