Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones
with weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that
they feel are deserving of same?

You h ave any indication that they hate BUSH or just the person
who
is in the office. You think those with weapons and no compunction
to
no compunction -against- killing,I believe you mean...

kill are suddenly going to put down their weapons and participate
in mass sing alongs of "Kumbaya" suddenly in mid- January?
I doubt it, but likely their general, low-level hatred of people
that don't share their beliefs suddenly have a focus due to Bush's
actions.
That had that focus since Jimmy Carter's time.
Hezbollah(an Iranian creation) has been around a long time.

And that focus takes a long time to blur, so we'll be dealing wit
hthe aftermath for a while.

Had we actually cleaned up the neighborhood in Iraq (and Afghanistan
for that matter) quickly after the initial invasion (e.g. MASSIVE
commitment of police-type forces) things might have been different.
Unfortunately our leaders were too short sighted to not lose the war
after winning the battle.

nate

Well,Nate,similar mistakes and setbacks were made in just about every
war the US has been in,but we adjusted. (see Victor Davis Hanson's
articles..) One MAJOR thing different this time is that we no longer
had the support of the media.

Of course. Those who do not learn from history, et cetera. This is
why Bush et. cie. are failures. Do *you* support someone who keeps
doing the same thing over and over and expects a different outcome?
Isn't that a clinical definition of insanity?

nate


Major misconception;
Bush is NOT "doing the same thing over and over".

Sure he is. After all the lessons of Vietnam, he again invaded a
foreign country with insufficient resources to get the job done.

Bush made a strategic move for the ME with the Iraq war.
IMO,it was/is a good idea.

No it wasn't.


It WOULD have helped greatly if the DemocRATs had given true support
instead of being divisive and thus giving moral support to the enemy.

Iraq wasn't our enemy (at least not actively) until we invaded it.

But they would rather appease the enemies of the US,thinking that will buy
them respect and good will.How naive.

see above.

DemocRATs,leftists,and socialists would rather see the US fail than Bush
succeed.

You don't get it. WE *HAVE* FAILED. We could have either a) not
invaded Iraq at all or b) invaded, but after taking over the country
militarily have sent in forces sufficient to maintain peace and keep
things under control. We didn't do either. Now the people of Iraq just
want us gone; to them we're yet another Saddam.

I have yet to hear an explanation of a reasonable objective that has
been accomplished by invading Iraq.

BTW, I am neither a Democrat, leftist, nor socialist. Just someone who
is unimaginably furious at Bush for being such a total and complete
failure after having the complete support of nearly the entire world
(immediately post-9/11)

nate



--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel