zlacker

That's a very purist viewpoint. The other side hired people to work against Britain and managed to get them into sensitive organisations, particularly the security services of course. Should Britain have surrendered to that in the name of purity?

>>t43562+(OP)
Excluding foreign agents is perfectly reasonable. Excluding anyone with communist views is not.

>>lmm+H3
Communism, for better or worse, was the system of the opponent. It's the reason that various people did turn over to their side or give them secret intelligence. Did Pravda knowingly employ right wing Russians? They wouldn't even have bothered with this kind of ridiculous question.

>>t43562+(OP)
Outside actual national security, like the military, isn't the moral high ground precisely "we use reason, you use force"? I'm really not interested in picking sides when, as I heard a friend say, "the dog bites the dog and everyone has fur in their mouth."

Democracy is a noble ideal, and I believe in it, but anyone can call themselves democratic. You need to put your money where your mouth is.