Is Bush's spreading of so-called 'democracy' through warfare Fascist?

This seems like a question that is not asked enough.

Condi said a while back that the Middle East was just going through 'birth pangs' and a new and free Middle East would arise from the carnage and death.

"What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one."

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/69331.htm

This "You've got to break some eggs to make an omelet" way of thinking, eggs being people and omelet being a supposedly "new and better" nation, obviously has fascist overtones.

Why can't more people see that?

I'd probably call it imperialism or Bonapartism. Fascism has to do with a lot of other factors that I don't necessarily see. However, it certainly does evoke memories of Italy invading Ethiopia and the like, so it's not completely unwarranted.

different faces on the same coin. They are all about the rule of the masses who have no say in government by a few elites who operate, govern and invade for their own benefit.

Imperialism is all about policies of invasion and other forms of control; Bonapartism has more to do with policies toward a government's own populace IMO.

The marriage of government and corporations and endless war.

most certainly is... so is dominionsim.

want to hear, the word democracy used in a sentence. Democracy is the last thing they want. To push through their agenda without obstacles, they need a frightened and obedient population. They have to preach the doctrine of collateral damage as being good for you.

in all honesty.

But the one with the most weapons is doing it- so no one dares speak out with authority-
And the people who live in the 'one' lost any real control years ago.... most certainly by the supreme 'decision' of 2000.

The biggest difference between Hitler and * is that Hitler was a good orator.

composed of have's and have-more's, always need new muscles they don't need to pay enough to use as slaves in their endlessly-greedy self-serving domination.

That's not too different from what the Hitler-Mussolini crooks were doing.

Iraq is a failed state teetering on the abyss of ethnic cleansing and theocratic dictatorship. The whole project of politically reforming the M.E. by force, which was merely window dressing anyway to make imperialism more palatable to the public, has certainly and irrevocably lurched in reverse. The region is less stable intra-nationally and internally now than when this crusade jihad "democratizing project" was launched.

In the first fucking place, democractic republics are preconditioned on middle class economic ascendancy. That ascendancy hasn't happened anywhere where we've been trying to foist democracy in through the bars on the points of our bayonets. Not even in Iraq was that happening and it damn sure wasn't close to happening in Afghanistan. If war is "how Americans learn about geography", maybe the spectacle of terrorism in failed states we've destroyed is how Americans will learn about political science.

Maybe "spreading democracy" would be fascist if it had ever been the true motivation of the Bush Conquest. Since they weren't in earnest about that but only wanted to spread the Neo-Liberal economic sphere of influence over the M.E.^*--in other words, to spread "globalization" there-- the Bush democratizing project wasn't even fascist. It was just fucking retarded.

(* as proven by new remarks from the SecDef that we might just pull our troops to empty areas of Iraq and let the Iraqis kill each other off.)