Iraq has more than two alternatives.

I listen to B*sh that either "we cut and run" OR we grow a sucessful democracy in Iraq.

This kind of "black and white" reasoning is dangerous.

I suggest a democracy in the middle east is inherently a bad idea right now. What do you think the vote would be in Jordan or Egypt in a strictly democratic vote on - say - Isreal right now?

The US may indeed have an interest in the future activities in Iraq, maybe. We destabilized the balance of power between them and Persia (Iran), we probably did. It does not follow that we need a frail democracy there right now! We sure don't support a democratic movement in Pakistan now, do we?? Our interests are, even under the B*sh doctrine, in a stable country that balances the fundamentalists, and poses no threat to us. Thats all. It does not have to be a democracy.

There are at least three alternatives - not two. The way it is going, Iran really is becoming a threat. It is true, I think, the old Iraq had similar interests in supressing "Al Quieda" activities. They were as much a threat to his (Saddam's) power as they were and are an object of revenge to us. Make no mistake - I want blood for blood for what happened in NYC. But this Iraq mess is worse than stupid.

I believe that the fact is that we have no choices relating to victory because the war has already been irrevocably lost. We can only decide at what point we can declare a phony victory and leave.
But, Bush and his neocon friends have to plans to relinquish control of Iraqi oil. That was the number two reason why they attacked Iraq in the first place.