....and weapons had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, and no one died, right?

I guess I was a little distracted by your comment that somehow the president's actions could in any way be juxtapositioned with that of Saddam. Absurd.

"Almost all of the former Soviet Warsaw Pact states are democracies, or moving twoards democracy and doing much better economically. Like I said, millions of people."

Refers to Warsaw Pact countries moving twoards democracy and doing better economically SINCE THE FALL OF THE SOVIET UNION.

Which is kind of obvious, since I was referring to Reagan's role in the demise of Soviet Communisim.

You could also say that Germany and Japan have had about a 50 year head start on the Warsaw Pact countries, but that would require something beyond warmed over Bush dogma. Probably explains why you don't see it.

History books are avalible at http://www.amazon.com.

I think Bush is interested in the concept of democracy promotion in the same way that he's interested in the concept of "compassionate conservatism" and in a mission to Mars-- as a means of accumulating his coveted "political capital." I have seen little evidence to the contrary.

We bombed Germany till all we were doing was blowing up rubble from previous bombings. We nuked Japan twice. Yes, those people were at a point where they would do anything we wanted to make the bombing stop. Is this what you advocate to spread democracy?

It is also worth noting that Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. Little historic point there.

Almost all of the former Soviet Warsaw Pact states are democracies, or moving twoards democracy and doing much better economically. Like I said, millions of people.

Yeah, FDR didn't know what he was doing. Financial aid through the League of Nations would have improved Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, so that they wouldn't have any desire to attack us.

"A great president, like say, Reagan, was able to bring democracy to millions essentially without firing a shot."

Except Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan...

No, he didn't actually directly attack the USSR. Note, however, that democracy doesn't seem to be doing all that well in Russia, Byelarus, and several of the Stans. It seems to be quite healthy in countries that we bombed flat (Germany, Italy, Japan).

I'm going to mix Jackson and Wilson here and say that we CAN have a decent society in any country and that the people will support it, provided that we utterly defeat the existing nation and grind its culture into dust. Then rebuild.

Think long and hard about this comment. If you think so, you either have no idea of the one Saddam ran, or you are seriously disillusioned about what Bush is doing in the world.

Myt evidence? The numbers reported killed in Iraq by body count are not those resulting from U.S. action, rather that of the terrorists, disease, freak accidents, meteors falling out of the sky, or anything else they can find to pump their numbers up.

I don't feel at all responsible for those who have died by the hand of terrorists.

Bush on the other hand, has created a slaughterhouse to rival the one saddam ran. Now the latest thing from the White House is lowering expectations for the Iraq elections.

On display was the total void of any actual real ideas of her own, anything real to offer, other than thinly veiled rage.

It was like McDermot standing on the mass grave of children we dug up later, found still clutching toys, standing in Saddams killing fields in support of the Butcher of babylon, where his sons used kidnapped 14 year olds for sex toys and tiger food.

Another disgusting socialist, inraged because America took down another Socialist Dictator, From Saddam to Castro, the blood stained left that invented the Gulag the Purge and the Progrom, and Murdered a mountain of 174 Million innocents over the last 80+ years.

The left are dependably allied with evil at every turn.

What is your alterntive ?

And on what basis other than wild ass guess ?