>>>The intent never was/never is to spread democracy.
>>
>>You believe that because acknowledging anything else would force you into a position where real intellect would be necessary.
>
>hhhmmmm, implying you have real intellect huh??


What do you think?


>I've gone through the stages of acknologing any explanation of invading iraq, but this seems far more likely.

"This" is what you believed at the beginning, and coincidently right now.

I agreed with everything you said, but I agreed with it in 2003.

Since then, life has gone on.

Now I'm contemplating the reality of 2008. And you're dwelling on the past.


>The fact of the matter is that US is not looking for spreading democracy as it would force them in a much more difficult situation. It is far more easier to deal with puppet states and dictators that can be manipulated much easier than a state with a democracy.

The Taliban was supposed to be a puppet.

Then they helped Bin Laden.

Your "facts" are proven factually incorrect.

The Open Society is the only workable solution.


>Only when they are faced with a state that is not cooperating, it is faced with a threat like: 'You'll do as we tell you, or else we'll bring you democracy':)

Exactly.

Which is a good thing.

The only reason you don't like it, is because you hate Bush, always have, always will, and are probably deep down jealous of the possibility of him being successful in revolutionizing the status quo worldwide.