You seem to feel like I have straw-manned your position. I'm not sure why. I was replying to Hawker's post, which was a reply to a post by Bind. All I was saying is that, yes, it's true that democracies tend to treat their people better than dictatorships and feudal monarchies, but it's important to keep in mind that they sometimes commit horrible atrocities upon the citizens of other nations. Democracies aren't completely benevolent and peaceful like many people seem to think. I just feel it's important to remember this. That's the only point I was trying to make.
Alright, it wasn't my position I was necessarily defending.
The real crux here is that its the people in power that hurt other nations, not the power structures themselves. If Bush was in charge of Iraq and thought he could take Kuwait, he would have tried too.
Democracy lets the ordinary citizen have some input into the leaders, whereas monarchs and dictators usually take it by force / divine right. What one does with that power after it has suitably corrupted them, is not the structure's fault, necessarily, as laws have some part to play also.
At the very least, democracies have the means to remove especially evil leaders faster than dictatorships/monarchies. They're not benevolent, yes, but that doesn't make them less noted for their fairness compared to everything else.
