From: "Mark" 


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:44d5721a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> No - we shouldn't have gone with the status quo. Neither should we have
> destabilized an entire region on some neo fanatical quest.

Rich, you're not making a cogent argument here, the supposed
"stability" in the region was non-existent from the get-go. It
was always an illusion, and it's a delusion to think changing it wouldn't
introduce destabilization in the bright sunshine (vs. that dark
"stability" lurking the shadows) toward a new beginning.

> Look Afghanistan, with all our resources going into it, was going to be an
> extremely difficult task.

It was not. We wiped that slate clean in a month or so, and they're doing
fine. Sure there are a bunch of die-hards in the mountains that come down
from time to time to die, but they're history and they know it.

> Now we have a civil war in Iraq.

So you're saying that you buy into the dishonest characterization by the
MSM of what the generals actually said? You wish to continue to ignore the
facts on the overwhelming ground area in the majority of Iraq to prop up
your anti-Bush, anti-Iraqi civilian, position?

>Bush's wink wink  to the Israelis actions have given Hezbollah greater
>status in the region.

Hezbollah is being proven the weak horse, they are finished -- and about
time, the rest of the noise from the non-existent "Arab Street"
is nothing more than impotent bluster propped up by the likes of Reuters
and Al-Jazeerah.

> Not only the oil is being sucked out of the region but any hope for peace
> and you can thank Bush foreign policy for that.

The only hope for peace is wiping out the bad guys, until you accept that
fact, there will be no peace. 

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5