Well.. there are sure some interesting changes going on in the Middle East these last few days.. on the positive side, Lebanon has awoken and is kicking Syria in the gonads and agitating for a full democratic initiative [ as they say ] Is this one of the dominoes toppling??..

Isreal and Palestine seem to be playing nice for a bit [ will it last? ]

Iran is getting dumped on for playing footsie with Russia [ who should know better, but needs the money from arms/nuke sales ]..

on the down side.. the Iraqi insurgents are getting desperate..they're attacking the Iraqi boys who are lining up to sign on for the new army and police forces in large numbers [ obviously putting their faith in the new democratic government ] took out 115 with a car bomb..sad...

still, the ripple effect is visible.. wonder if it will wash further??

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

George Washington, 1796

What is going well today could go to hell-in-a-hand basket next week. Most of the Middle East people are more tribal than national and that is an inherent problem in nation building. If there were no oil in these countries, they could rot as far as most Americans are concerned.

We might have been better invading Saudi Arabia because they are the heart of the problem. Syria is weak and now even weaker because they made a mistake with the Lebanese’s from which they cannot avoid the consequences without further damage.

The Chinese are buying more oil than we are and driving up prices for everyone. They will be the new problem makers in the area. Though they are Godless, they will be welcomed because they are not us.

W and the skinny broad will have little measurable long-term effect of the region and whether or not they do any good will take years to measure.

In flux. It's sort of like a basketball game. We won't really know what we are doing/have done until it is just about over.

Harry why Saudi? Just curious.

We've all heard the "what or whom President Bush should've invaded" but what the armchair generals are missing is that the current plan is working.

President Bush said shortly after 911 that we were going after state sponsored terrorism, not just al Qaeda. Yet everyone went nuts when he actually did what he promised. He's named several countries, putting them on notice. Now he's picking them off one by one or simply neutralizing them through threat alone.

Libya? In check. Syria? Tumbling. Iran? Right behind Syria. N.Korea? Imploding. China? Well, they're the big dogs. We'll neutralize these smaller threats first and go from there.

Has the tide turned for President Bush? Nope, we've been winning since day one and things are only getting better.

Joe:

Why Saudi? I believe that they are the root of most Arab terrorism and have been a provider of funding for decades. They are also very rich and hold Mecca which is “the” holy place for Moslems. Their leadership could not care less about the average person and they foster a quasi state-sponsored radical clergy which exports its hate of Christians and Jews through out the Middle East.

In the short term, it would cause a world-wide recession and drastic shortages in oil but in the long-term; it would have a more moderate effect and should improve the world economy.

My second choice would have been Iran but we would have to insure that we had a replacement moderate Moslem government and the ability to disengage quickly. I believe that the Iranians are less likely to cause a civil war.