"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong
country at the wrong time...

NOBBY quote:
Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005

From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time, to
Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal
from Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing

So when are you leaving for that motorcycle trip you cancelled because it
was too dangerous in Lebanon?


If I wanted danger, I'd ride a motorcycle around Naples in the middle of
season. But I don't drive a motorcycle

BTW Syria has been occupying Lebanon for at least 25 years. Back when I
was in the Navy, and Reagan was President, there was a big operation
against Syrian backed militias, and then almost simultaneously we
intervened to protect Palestinian civilians from the Isrealis. I was there
and saw much of it first-hand.

So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden?

Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace.

Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as
a huge success?

You're kidding, right?
With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new
direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating).

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:29:03 -0500, DSK wrote:

Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong
country at the wrong time...

NOBBY quote:
Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005

From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time, to
Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal from
Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing

So when are you leaving for that motorcycle trip you cancelled because
it was too dangerous in Lebanon?

BTW Syria has been occupying Lebanon for at least 25 years. Back when I
was in the Navy, and Reagan was President, there was a big operation
against Syrian backed militias, and then almost simultaneously we
intervened to protect Palestinian civilians from the Isrealis. I was
there and saw much of it first-hand.

So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? Why is the remote
possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success?
So as to cover up the obvious & continual failure that's prevailed until
now?

I guess the obvious fact that the Middle East is too dangerous, and
terrorism is escalating, "proves" to you that Bush has done a good job.

DSK

What George doesn't get done in the next four years, Jeb will finish!

Don't you relish the sure knowledge that the Republicans will be in the White
House for the next 8 years?

You gotta love it! Even though I'm an independent, as is one of our great
northwest friends, I can sure see the advantages in having a president who likes
America!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden?


NOYB wrote:
Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace.


And they have been for 25+ years. Why ignore that part of my post? They
were there 4 years ago and Bush ignored them. They were there 3 years
ago and Bush decided to invade Iraq instead.

Now all of a sudden, Syria... which was cooperating with US counter
terrorist intel ops... and a secure & stable secular quasi-democracy...
ruled by a progressive & pro-Western group... is on the hit list.

Getting them out of Lebanon would be nice, but it would have been nice
25 years ago. So Bush & Cheney just pulled their head out of the sand?
Or did they decide here's good material for a razzle-dazzle ploy to
distract all but the most gullible (ie you and John H) from their other
miserable foreign policy failures?

And of course, the fact that they *still* haven't caught Osama Bin
Laden, and they *still* have exactly ZERO links between Iraq & terrorism.


Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as
a huge success?


You're kidding, right?

No

With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new
direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating).


And?

Looks to me like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is stuck at
about the same place it was in 1979. Each side is stuck at the same
intractable demands and the same unrealistic expectations.

It would be very nice if Abbas could reign in his terrorists, and Sharon
put a muzzle on some of his hard-liners (except that he's a har-liner
himself).

Of course I am hopeful that *this* time things will go forward, the
violence will die down, resentments will subside, and peace will have a
real chance. But it's not at all due to anything the Bush Administration
has done, and their blustering toward Syria isn't going to help either
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the anti-US terrorism in the region.
It's just a lot of hot air aimed in the wrong direction... and even if
they *were* about to accomplish something, it would be 5 years later
than they could have done the same thing.

But hey, maybe I'm too picky. Considering Bush & Cheney's record so far,
maybe this really is a huge success for them!

DSK

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:22:55 -0500, DSK wrote:

So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden?


NOYB wrote:
Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace.


And they have been for 25+ years. Why ignore that part of my post? They
were there 4 years ago and Bush ignored them. They were there 3 years
ago and Bush decided to invade Iraq instead.

Now all of a sudden, Syria... which was cooperating with US counter
terrorist intel ops... and a secure & stable secular quasi-democracy...
ruled by a progressive & pro-Western group... is on the hit list.

Getting them out of Lebanon would be nice, but it would have been nice
25 years ago. So Bush & Cheney just pulled their head out of the sand?
Or did they decide here's good material for a razzle-dazzle ploy to
distract all but the most gullible (ie you and John H) from their other
miserable foreign policy failures?

And of course, the fact that they *still* haven't caught Osama Bin
Laden, and they *still* have exactly ZERO links between Iraq & terrorism.


Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as
a huge success?


You're kidding, right?

No

With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new
direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating).


And?

Looks to me like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is stuck at
about the same place it was in 1979. Each side is stuck at the same
intractable demands and the same unrealistic expectations.

It would be very nice if Abbas could reign in his terrorists, and Sharon
put a muzzle on some of his hard-liners (except that he's a har-liner
himself).

Of course I am hopeful that *this* time things will go forward, the
violence will die down, resentments will subside, and peace will have a
real chance. But it's not at all due to anything the Bush Administration
has done, and their blustering toward Syria isn't going to help either
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the anti-US terrorism in the region.
It's just a lot of hot air aimed in the wrong direction... and even if
they *were* about to accomplish something, it would be 5 years later
than they could have done the same thing.

But hey, maybe I'm too picky. Considering Bush & Cheney's record so far,
maybe this really is a huge success for them!

DSK

Personally, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good
to come to the middle east.

I think you, and many others around here, must pray hard for a succession of
failures. Else, how could you say, "I told you so."

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:
Personally, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good
to come to the middle east.

I think you, and many others around here, must pray hard for a succession of
failures. Else, how could you say, "I told you so."


You're wrong (again). I am hopeful that both sides will come to their
senses and that peace will arise.

You seem to cling to the illusion that only brainless cheerleading for
Bush & Cheney is "positive." But the facts are against you, which why
you count your ignorance as your good fortune.

DSK

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:22:55 -0500, DSK wrote:

So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden?


NOYB wrote:
Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace.


And they have been for 25+ years. Why ignore that part of my post? They
were there 4 years ago and Bush ignored them. They were there 3 years
ago and Bush decided to invade Iraq instead.

Now all of a sudden, Syria... which was cooperating with US counter
terrorist intel ops... and a secure & stable secular quasi-democracy...
ruled by a progressive & pro-Western group... is on the hit list.

Getting them out of Lebanon would be nice, but it would have been nice
25 years ago. So Bush & Cheney just pulled their head out of the sand?
Or did they decide here's good material for a razzle-dazzle ploy to
distract all but the most gullible (ie you and John H) from their other
miserable foreign policy failures?

And of course, the fact that they *still* haven't caught Osama Bin
Laden, and they *still* have exactly ZERO links between Iraq & terrorism.


Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned
as
a huge success?


You're kidding, right?

No

With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new
direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating).


And?

Looks to me like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is stuck at
about the same place it was in 1979. Each side is stuck at the same
intractable demands and the same unrealistic expectations.

It would be very nice if Abbas could reign in his terrorists, and Sharon
put a muzzle on some of his hard-liners (except that he's a har-liner
himself).

Of course I am hopeful that *this* time things will go forward, the
violence will die down, resentments will subside, and peace will have a
real chance. But it's not at all due to anything the Bush Administration
has done, and their blustering toward Syria isn't going to help either
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the anti-US terrorism in the region.
It's just a lot of hot air aimed in the wrong direction... and even if
they *were* about to accomplish something, it would be 5 years later
than they could have done the same thing.

But hey, maybe I'm too picky. Considering Bush & Cheney's record so far,
maybe this really is a huge success for them!

DSK

Personally, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any*
good
to come to the middle east.

I think you, and many others around here, must pray hard for a succession
of
failures. Else, how could you say, "I told you so."

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

You hit the nail on the head John.

Hell, just look at the OT news stories they continuously post....they go out
of their way to focus on the doom and gloom. Look at the post this morning
from a certain member here this morning about the 100 or so dead in Iraq
from the suicide bomber....it was like he was getting some sort of pleasure
in doing it. The only thing missing was his little smiley face at the end
of the article.

JimH wrote:
You hit the nail on the head John.

Hell, just look at the OT news stories they continuously post....

Point to ONE news story I have posted

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden?


NOYB wrote:
Because Syria is the wedge between Israeli and Palestinian peace.


And they have been for 25+ years. Why ignore that part of my post? They
were there 4 years ago and Bush ignored them. They were there 3 years ago
and Bush decided to invade Iraq instead.

Because the way to Syria and Iran was through Iraq.



Now all of a sudden, Syria... which was cooperating with US counter
terrorist intel ops... and a secure & stable secular quasi-democracy...
ruled by a progressive & pro-Western group... is on the hit list.

They were "quasi" cooperating. Handing over Saddam's half-brother two years
after the invasion speaks to their complicity to provide sanctuary to
Baathists...not to their cooperation.



Getting them out of Lebanon would be nice, but it would have been nice 25
years ago. So Bush & Cheney just pulled their head out of the sand?

No. They've been working toward it for awhile. We needed a base of
operations and a means to put some military pressure on them. Prior to
invading Iraq, all we could do was send diplomats to the region to beg and
plea.

I don't know what it will take to make you understand that our action in
Iraq sent an extremely strong statement to the rest of the Middle East that
we mean business. And it sent a message to the citizens of those other
countries that we would stand by them when they're ready to stand up and
fight for their own democracy.



Or did they decide here's good material for a razzle-dazzle ploy to
distract all but the most gullible (ie you and John H) from their other
miserable foreign policy failures?

Their foreign policy goal was to democratize the Middle East so the hatred
of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't have a chance to take root. It was being
fostered by the suppressive control of the ruling parties.




And of course, the fact that they *still* haven't caught Osama Bin Laden,
and they *still* have exactly ZERO links between Iraq & terrorism.


Why is the remote possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned
as a huge success?


You're kidding, right?

No

With Arafat gone, Abbas seems to be pointing the Palestinians in a new
direction (but Hizbollah isn't cooperating).


And?

Looks to me like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is stuck at about
the same place it was in 1979. Each side is stuck at the same intractable
demands and the same unrealistic expectations.

It would be very nice if Abbas could reign in his terrorists, and Sharon
put a muzzle on some of his hard-liners (except that he's a har-liner
himself).

Of course I am hopeful that *this* time things will go forward, the
violence will die down, resentments will subside, and peace will have a
real chance. But it's not at all due to anything the Bush Administration
has done,

Ha!

and their blustering toward Syria isn't going to help either the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the anti-US terrorism in the region.

Sure it will. In case you haven't noticed, Syria ain't too popular in the
region right now.


It's just a lot of hot air aimed in the wrong direction... and even if
they *were* about to accomplish something, it would be 5 years later than
they could have done the same thing.

Huh?


But hey, maybe I'm too picky. Considering Bush & Cheney's record so far,
maybe this really is a huge success for them!

You guys discounted the significance of ousting the Taliban and creating a
democratically elected government in Afghanistan.
You discounted the significance of Qaddafi opening his country's weapons
programs to inspection.
You discounted the significance of ousting Saddam.
You discounted the significance of the Iraqi elections.
You discounted the significance of the fact that we're in our 4th year
without a terrorist attack on our soil.
You discounted the fact that Bush has made amends with Europe and received
concessions for them to help with the rebuilding of Iraq.
You discounted the fact that Mubarak opened up elections for the first time
in more than 25 years.
You discounted the fact that France is working with us on insisting that
Syria withdraw from Lebanon.
You discount the fact that tens of thousands of Lebanese protesters are
marching in unison to demand that Syria withdraw.
You discount the fact that Syria now mysteriously "finds" Saddam's
half-brother hiding in their country.


You continue to "misunderestimate" Bush.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:29:03 -0500, DSK wrote:

Yet further proof that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do... wrong
country at the wrong time...

NOBBY quote:
Egypt and Syria Play Ball -- No Thanks to the Left
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2005

From Hosni Mubarak's opening up Egyptian elections for the first time,
to
Syria's strong efforts to accommodate American demands for withdrawal
from
Lebanon and for cooperation in Iraq, the Middle East is changing

So when are you leaving for that motorcycle trip you cancelled because
it was too dangerous in Lebanon?

BTW Syria has been occupying Lebanon for at least 25 years. Back when I
was in the Navy, and Reagan was President, there was a big operation
against Syrian backed militias, and then almost simultaneously we
intervened to protect Palestinian civilians from the Isrealis. I was
there and saw much of it first-hand.

So why is this a priority for Bush all of a sudden? Why is the remote
possibility of re-opening peace negotiations reckoned as a huge success?
So as to cover up the obvious & continual failure that's prevailed until
now?

I guess the obvious fact that the Middle East is too dangerous, and
terrorism is escalating, "proves" to you that Bush has done a good job.

DSK

What George doesn't get done in the next four years, Jeb will finish!


I can hear the 2008 campaign slogan now:

"Eight more years! Eight more years!"

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:45:49 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
Personally, Doug, I find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any* good
to come to the middle east.

I think you, and many others around here, must pray hard for a succession of
failures. Else, how could you say, "I told you so."


You're wrong (again). I am hopeful that both sides will come to their
senses and that peace will arise.

You seem to cling to the illusion that only brainless cheerleading for
Bush & Cheney is "positive." But the facts are against you, which why
you count your ignorance as your good fortune.

DSK

No. I'm not wrong. I do find it hard to believe that you are hopeful for *any*
good to come out of anything while Bush is in power.

I sure hope you catch your tail.

Have a good day.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes