"Ignoramus14327" wrote in message
...
Bush said that he wants more democracy in Mideast.

He earlier said that he wanted democracy in Iraq and that's why he
went there and clusterbombed towns etc.

I have to ask, the US has been occupying Iraq for 6 months
already. Quite a bit of time. Where are the elections? Where are any
preparations for elections? You would think that if he really wanted
democracy in Iraq, at least some election process would be
underway. Maybe elections would be scheduled for, say, March and now
there would be political parties forming etc. No such thing is
happening. No effort to do that is apparent.

Where is democracy?

Now, obviously, I am aware that Bush is a liar least interested in
Mideast democracy. My questions were rhetorical.

So what was the point of his speech? And I think that it is a threat
to mideast governments to stay in line and not complain about
occupation of Iraq, etc. But this threat is hollow. The US no longer
has forces capable of occupying one more midsize country due to being
mired in Iraq.

We all talk about how getting out of Iraq would "destroy our
credibility". Which means that other countries will not be as afraid
of us as we would like them to be if we withdraw. Well, right now we
are very firmly stuck in Iraq with not much more forces to spare for
further military adventures. What does that do to our "credibility"?
Can we credibly threaten, say, Iran, when our reservists are doing
yearlong tours of duty in Iraq already?

No.

What does this mean?

That our credibility is already being ruined no matter what we do in
Iraq. Getting out is bad for "credibility", staying is not better
either, but maybe more expensive. Either way is bad. And winning in
Iraq does not seem like it will happen anytime soon.

I expect the dumbest members of these newsgroups to attack my posting
alias (saying your alias Ignoramus fits you well), and the slightly
less stupid ones to dismiss me as a "liberal" (which I am not).

I invite the more intelligent posters to review my argument and see
where the fallacy lies, if you can find any.

i

Its obvious you havent been around a lot of politicians
The first order of the day is to eliminate the oppisition , then when that
is done , the victors are deemed to be democraticaly elected .
Any dissenters are actualy labeled terrorists and shot.
Doing it like this actualy saves the voting public manymillions of dollars
by not needing elections , everyone knows that it doesnt matter who you vote
for , youre going to get screwed anyway .
When GB is finnished eliminating the terrorists and those who dont want his
troops around there will be exeedingly few people left to vte anyway .
What the problem ?