South Korea – (still has about 26,000 US troops)
Japan – (still has about 50,000 US troops)
Germany – (still has 60,000 US troops)
Bosnia/Herzegovina – (had 15,000 troops to stabilize an area far smaller than Iraq in size and population, and they still have thousands of US troops)
Italy – (still has over 10,000 US troops)

Maybe this will enlighten you a little, but I doubt it:
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda06-02.cfm

“There are fewer troops deployed on foreign soil today than during the average year of the late 20th century.” Interesting, huh?

I can only think of 2 countries that needed large numbers of troops to become stable democracies, Germany and Japan in the first decade after the end of World War II.

Does a “stable democracy” require 160.000 foreign troops in it’s country?
Does a “stable democracy” require 30000 troops parachuting into it’s capital city to put down internal violence a “stable democracy”

If you are going to tell the “big lie” you have to REALLY tell the big lie and you have to have MILLIONS of people telling the “big lie” with you.

Name me one of the top 30 democratic countries like the USA, Britian, Germany France etc that have to have 160,.000 foreign troops and 30000 dropped into their capital so that they have a “stable democracy” ?

Bullshit on two counts.

First, I’m quite sure that Bush never said that Iraq would be a beacon of *Western-style” democracy. In fact, I’m not even sure he said “beacon of democracy” at all, though certainly the sentiment was there. If somebody knows the original source for this supposed quote, that can be found all over the place, I would love to see it, because I can’t find it.

But what about those “rosy” predictions of instant democracy? It was all going to be so easy, according to Bush, right? Um, no:

“It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife. Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time.”
- President Bush, February 26, 2003

“The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.”
- President Bush, March 17, 2003

But wait! I sense a clash of narratives here! Didn’t we invade Iraq purely because of WMD? That’s what we used to be told. Later, we were told that Bush turned to the democracy in Iraq argument because the WMD’s weren’t found. Yet here he is, talking about democracy and freedom as a major goal, right in the two most important speeches before the war. So strange!

Second, since when was the potential for democracy in Iraq “discredited?” Iraq has only been liberated from Saddam for 5 years. Their first free elections were held only 3 1/2 years ago, and that was to set up their interim government. It’s only been a year since the insurgency was neutralized enough to put Iraq into a state of stability. Let’s inject a little realism here. In just five years they have moved from from a brutal dictatorship to a stable democracy, certainly not a perfect one, but still far better than most people imagined could exist in the region. That is amazing progress, and certainly proves that the potential for democracy in the middle east is far from “discredited.”