# Bush Orders Syria Out Of Lebanon



## chaos75 (2 Mar 2005)

Bush orders Syria out of Lebanon

Demonstrations continue in Lebanon
Rice: Syria 'out of step'
U.S.: Iran deceiving world
Blair puts pressure on Syria
    



ARNOLD, Md. (AP) â â€ President Bush on Wednesday demanded in blunt terms that Syria get out of Lebanon, saying the free world is in agreement that Damascus' authority over the political affairs of its neighbor must end now. 

He applauded the strong message sent to Syria when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier held a joint news conference on London on Tuesday. 

â Å“Both of them stood up and said loud and clear to Syria, 'You get your troops and your secret services out of Lebanon so that good democracy has a chance to flourish,â ? Bush said during an appearance at a community college in Maryland to tout his job training programs. 

The world, Bush said, â Å“is speaking with one voice when it comes to making sure that democracy has a chance to flourish in Lebanon.â ? 

The president's words, taken with those from Rice and others in the Bush administration this week, amount to the strongest pressure to date on Syria from Washington. 

â Å“Syria knows the concerns of the international community, and they know what they need to do to change their behavior and become a constructive member of the region and the international community,â ? White House press secretary Scott McClellan said earlier Wednesday. 

Turkish ambassador Osman Faruk Logoglu urged the administration to offer trade and other economic and diplomatic incentives to Syria. 

â Å“The chances of Syria withdrawing are greater than ever before,â ? Logoglu told reporters. â Å“But it is obviously going to take a long time.â ? 

Rice, in London to attend an international conference on Palestinian security and government reform, had said Tuesday that Syria is â Å“out of stepâ ? with a growing desire for democracy in the Middle East. 

The Bush administration also on Tuesday blamed terrorists based in Syria for last week's deadly suicide attack in Israel. 

McClellan said the White House has â Å“firm evidenceâ ? that Syria was home base for the terrorist attack in Israel that rocked the latest efforts for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Bush made a similar point during a White House meeting with congressional leaders, participants said, and so did Rice while in London. 

All key Lebanese political decisions are assumed to have a stamp of approval from the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad. 

Huge street demonstrations and Monday's resignation of the pro-Syrian Lebanese government marked the most serious challenge to Syrian authority in Lebanon since the end of the civil war that killed 150,000 and crushed the Lebanese economy in the 1970s and 1980s. 

The events also were an opening for the Bush administration to press its wider goal of democracy across the Middle East and to throw a spotlight on what the United States contends is long-standing Syrian support for terrorists who are trying to undermine progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. 

At the news conference with Barnier, Rice said their two countries would support the scheduled election this spring in Lebanon, perhaps by sending observers and monitors. 

She also suggested international peacekeepers might be needed eventually and could help secure democracy for the Lebanese if Syria were to withdraw. 

Assad indicated in an interview with Time magazine that he would withdraw Syria's 15,000 troops from Lebanon â Å“maybe in the next few months.â ? Later, however, a Syrian official speaking on condition of anonymity in Damascus questioned whether it could occur within months. 

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield, on Capitol Hill after a trip to Lebanon, was dismissive of what he called the â Å“rhetoricâ ? out of Damascus. 

â Å“Neither this government nor the people of Lebanon will believe anything other than what we see with our eyes,â ? Satterfield told the Senate Foregin Relations Committee. 

Separately, on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, Rice indicated that the administration was working with European leaders on a plan to offer Iran economic incentives in exchange for abandoning its nuclear ambitions. The United States has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies. 

â Å“We are designing, I think, an important common strategy with Europe so that Iran knows there is no other way,â ? Rice said in a brief interview aired Wednesday on NBC's â Å“Todayâ ? show. 

Until recently, the administration had opposed any rewards for Tehran's cooperation. But during the president's trip overseas last week, European leaders urged Bush to join them in offering incentives such as possible membership at some time for Iran in the World Trade Organization and the White House suggested he would consider that route. 



...The World Police is at it again, sabre rattling to force countries to bend to their political will, to fulfill the notion of Pax Americana and the creation of Western style democracy in the Middle East.  I wouldnt be suprised if the CIA had in hand in what is going on in Lebanon, anyway else you look at it, the logic behind the Hariri assasination makes no sense.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2005)

Quote,
_...The World Police is at it again._

...I'm sure you are refering to the French,right?      You are getting stale really quick, lad.
...and if "western style democracy" bothers you so much, well, go away.


----------



## chaos75 (2 Mar 2005)

About as stale as that response..

Lacking substance or an articulate response..

Its simply a statement that maybe the US should try to keep to itself for once, instead of trying to bend the world to its own image, we would all live happier lives...

As for democracy, I enjoy it just fine, but it should never be imposed on anyone, simply be we think its better than the rest..


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2005)

Just so we can continue here, lets see if I have your thought process right,

US in Iraq bad.......occupying sovereign country
Syria in Lebanon good........why was that again? :


----------



## dutchie (2 Mar 2005)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> ...The World Police is at it again, sabre rattling to force countries to bend to their political will, to fulfill the notion of Pax Americana and the creation of Western style democracy in the Middle East.   I wouldnt be suprised if the CIA had in hand in what is going on in Lebanon, anyway else you look at it, the logic behind the Hariri assasination makes no sense.



A little presumptuous, don't you think? The US is responding to mass protests by the Lebanese...they are supporting a popular movement, not forcing one. You could argue (as I have in the past) that that was not the case in Iraq, but you'd have a tough go of it convincing me this 'deja vu all over again'. 

If the US/West forces Syrian troops out of Lebanon, that is a true liberation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2005)

...and getting back to the article,....the poker game begins again......


----------



## Horse_Soldier (2 Mar 2005)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> Its simply a statement that maybe the US should try to keep to itself for once, instead of trying to bend the world to its own image, we would all live happier lives...
> 
> As for democracy, I enjoy it just fine, but it should never be imposed on anyone, simply be we think its better than the rest..



Who is this this "we" you speak about?   It would not, for instance, include the Lebanese - who have made their point of view vis-ÃƒÂ -vis the Syrians quite clear and who would welcome US pressure to get them out of their country so that they can get along with being a democracy.   It would not include various people in the Middle East who would like to have a say in the way their country is run and incidentally raise it out of poverty.   Sorry, but your commentary simply doesn't scan.   Consider that "we" imposed democracy on Afghanistan, and by all appearances the Afghanis are quite happy with - especially the women who can now be considered human beings instead of chattel.   Chew that one over for a bit.


----------



## sigpig (2 Mar 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> US in Iraq bad.......occupying sovereign country
> Syria in Lebanon good........why was that again? :



I don't see where he was commenting on Syria's occupation of Lebanon as much as he was commenting on Bush's 'command' to a foreign country to do what he wants. He seems to be tired of W deciding what is good and right for the rest of the world, as are others.


----------



## CivU (2 Mar 2005)

Sigpig beat me to that response.  I didn't see any mention of an endorsement of the actions of Syria in Lebanon.  

I think that assumption only speaks as to your thought processes, not his...


----------



## sigpig (2 Mar 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and if "western style democracy" bothers you so much, well, go away.



Chaos, welcome to the 'Bruce Monkhouse thinks you shouldn't live in a democracy because you are critical of some of it's policies club' - from the founding member  ;D

Isn't it that little democracy thing that gives people the right and privilege to be critical of the government?


----------



## dutchie (2 Mar 2005)

I defy you to indicate a nation that acts for anything other than it's own best interests. Is that wrong?

Having said that, the US is NOT deciding what is good and right for Lebanon, the Lebanese people decided that, Bush is supporting them. I suspect (and hope) that Canada will join the US in their call for Syria to leave Lebanon.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2005)

...and of course the French ALWAYS take their cues from George, :
_He applauded the strong message sent to Syria when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier held a joint news conference on London on Tuesday.
â Å“Both of them stood up and said loud and clear to Syria, 'You get your troops and your secret services out of Lebanon so that good democracy has a chance to flourish,â ? Bush said during an appearance at a community college in Maryland to tout his job training programs._

"as are others"....yea others who have "sweet deals" behind the UN's back and of course those who rule with impunity who surely don't want something as vile as "letting the peons have a say".

Once again you two have taken something pretty much the world agree's on and turned it into USA bashing. How nice, BTW, how is the weather down there today Sigpig?


----------



## chaos75 (2 Mar 2005)

I don't see where he was commenting on Syria's occupation of Lebanon as much as he was commenting on Bush's 'command' to a foreign country to do what he wants. He seems to be tired of W deciding what is good and right for the rest of the world, as are others.



Wow, someone who actually read what I wrote.

But to answer the critics..

US in Iraq bad, but now they are there so not much choice
Syria in Lebanon bad, but at least it was semi stable, minus the Isrealis an Hezbhollah trading fire now and then
Forcing any type of government on anyone bad

How does 25,000 amount to mass protests in a country of 3mil+

As for Afghan women being people thats great, "now they can sit in the senate after all", shades of Canadina heritage.
Its no denying that democracy can work, again back to my point on forcing governmental systems


----------



## dutchie (2 Mar 2005)

Lebanon already has a democracy, smart guy, so your point of 'forcing a governmental system' is moot. What were talking about here is foreign occupation. You clearly disagree (as do I) with foreign nations occupying other nations without cause.....how do you justify Syrian troops in Lebanon?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2005)

Quote,
but at least it was semi stable,........yea I'm sure all those who have died over the last 15 years are glad it was "semi stable" when it happened..


----------



## Horse_Soldier (2 Mar 2005)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> Syria in Lebanon bad, but at least it was semi stable, minus the Isrealis an Hezbhollah trading fire now and then



So by the same token, you would not have objected to the Soviets entering Chekoslovakia in 1968 to restore stability after the Dubcek government created a bit of "chaos" by wanting to go its own way?



			
				chaos75 said:
			
		

> Forcing any type of government on anyone bad


Then we should not have forced democracy on Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan against their will



			
				chaos75 said:
			
		

> How does 25,000 amount to mass protests in a country of 3mil+


The fact that the protests happened at all are amazing in and of themselves and are highly indicative.   Consider Lebanon's recent history and the history of Arab states in general over the last 50 odd years.   You'll see what I mean



			
				chaos75 said:
			
		

> As for Afghan women being people thats great, "now they can sit in the senate after all", shades of Canadina heritage.
> Its no denying that democracy can work, again back to my point on forcing governmental systems


Well, I suppose we should just have let the Taliban continue with its inhuman rule and sit back here in Canada, smug, fat and self-satisfied that at least _we_ are okay and to hell with the rest.


----------



## sigpig (2 Mar 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Once again you two have taken something pretty much the world agree's on and turned it into USA bashing. How nice, BTW, how is the weather down there today Sigpig?



It's actually kind of chilly today, only 67F right now and I had to wear the liner in my motorcycle jacket this morning  

I don't like Syria's occupation of Lebanon any more than the next person. And yes I know the world community is in general agreement on this. I just tire of Bush's attitude that what he says goes or else. I'm not reacting to just this statement but the history of the man.


----------



## chaos75 (2 Mar 2005)

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> Then we should not have forced democracy on Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan against their will



Huge difference between nation building when you were at war with another country.  Last time I checked we aren't at war with anyone right now, nor have we been since WW2.



			
				Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> The fact that the protests happened at all are amazing in and of themselves and are highly indicative.  Consider Lebanon's recent history and the history of Arab states in general over the last 50 odd years.  You'll see what I mean



So it has gone from mass protests to any type of protest.  In no society does the vocal minority, outweight the silent majority.

Either way, enough imperialistic, we know best attitude from the US government.  My simple point is enough of that already.


----------



## dutchie (2 Mar 2005)

sigpig said:
			
		

> I don't like Syria's occupation of Lebanon any more than the next person....I'm not reacting to just this statement but the history of the man.



Based on your earlier posts in this thread, it certainly seems you oppose the withdrawl of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

Quote from sigpig "...he was commenting on Bush's 'command' to a foreign country to do what he wants. He seems to be tired of W deciding what is good and right for the rest of the world, as are others." Seems to me you oppose the message (Syria get out) and the messenger (Bush). 

To backpedal now and say you actually oppose Syrian occupation of Lebanon is not backed up by your own words. 

"So it has gone from mass protests to any type of protest.   In no society does the vocal minority, outweight the silent majority."

So your saying that the majority of Lebanese support the occupation of their homeland by Syria? 

"Either way, enough imperialistic, we know best attitude from the US government.   My simple point is enough of that already."

It is not just the opinion of the US that Syria should leave, it is the opinion of most of the Western world, the middle eastern world, and most importantly, it seems the Lebanese themselves. 

I think you need to check your fire and look at the situation. It seems you are criticizing the US out of hand, and not looking at this objectively. There are enough reasons to criticize the US without inventing new ones.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (2 Mar 2005)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> Huge difference between nation building when you were at war with another country.   Last time I checked we aren't at war with anyone right now, nor have we been since WW2.


No - you said forcing any type of government on anybody bad. The Allies forced democracy on nations that did not really want it. You cannot suddenly make exceptions when your argument is proven fallacious.   That's the problem with sweeping declarations - someone is bound to prove them wrong.



			
				chaos75 said:
			
		

> So it has gone from mass protests to any type of protest.   In no society does the vocal minority, outweight the silent majority..


Read what I said: protests of that size in Lebanon are extraordinary.   To make it crystal clear, they can be taken as an indication that there is a strong underlying sentiment only now surfacing.   _Protests of this magnitude notwithstanding the ever-present fear of Syrian repression are not "vocal minority" tantrums_.   Protests in any dictatorship (and Lebanon under Syrian rule is a dicatatorship) have to be noticed.   The proportion of active protesters in the Ukraine a few weeks ago was also small compared to the mass of the population.   Was that also just a "vocal minority" that didn't deserve the support of the West (which let Russia know in no uncertain terms to stay out).



			
				chaos75 said:
			
		

> Either way, enough imperialistic, we know best attitude from the US government.   My simple point is enough of that already..


   
Um no.   You have not made a point - simple or otherwise.   I gather that you have not had much experience as a debater.   Debating is like a gunfight - don't come armed with a knife.   ;D


----------



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

Bah, this is just posturing, nothing else - probably in return for the Syrians joining hands with the Iranians.

It would be interesting, since there are anti-American protests in Iraq, to see the game of diplomatic checkers that would come out if the Syrian Foreign Minister demanded that the US and Co. leave Iraq immediately....


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Mar 2005)

While sigpig abhors the US Government's foreign policies, he seems to like their immigration policies.. must be an interesting situation in which to place one's self...   ;D


----------



## FredDaHead (2 Mar 2005)

sigpig said:
			
		

> I don't see where he was commenting on Syria's occupation of Lebanon as much as he was commenting on Bush's 'command' to a foreign country to do what he wants. He seems to be tired of W deciding what is good and right for the rest of the world, as are others.



So if some country commands the US to do something, that's cool, but if the US commands another country to do something, that's bad?

I don't think you remember, but when the US decided to go into Iraq, lots of countries were "commanding a foreign country (the US) to do what [they wanted]." Were you denouncing the French and all these countries trying to force the US to change it's mind? I don't think so.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> It would be interesting, since there are anti-American protests in Iraq, to see the game of diplomatic checkers that would come out if the Syrian Foreign Minister demanded that the US and Co. leave Iraq immediately....



See above... It's fine when people tell the US what they thinks is good, but the US can't tell other countries what they think is good without having a bunch of people denouncing them...


----------



## Gunnar (2 Mar 2005)

I love the idea of forcing democracy on somebody...we command you to be free!  We command you to hold free elections...

And then when they all vote communist/fascist/dictator, they were "forced" to be democratic?


----------



## FredDaHead (2 Mar 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> I love the idea of forcing democracy on somebody...we command you to be free!   We command you to hold free elections...
> 
> And then when they all vote communist/fascist/dictator, they were "forced" to be democratic?



I'm not a Doctor of History or anthing, but one thing I remember from my various history classes is that the only noticeable countries that held "free" elections and elected communists (as in, the communist parties that were allied to the USSR) or dictators since WW2 were in eastern european countries where the Soviets outlawed any party other than the communists.

Please enlighten me if I've forgotten any...


----------



## sigpig (2 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Based on your earlier posts in this thread, it certainly seems you oppose the withdrawl of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
> 
> Quote from sigpig "...he was commenting on Bush's 'command' to a foreign country to do what he wants. He seems to be tired of W deciding what is good and right for the rest of the world, as are others." Seems to me you oppose the message (Syria get out) and the messenger (Bush).
> 
> ...



Who are you talking to? You've used a quote of mine for your first statement then two quotes from chaos75. Are you addressing us at the same time? It seems you are criticizing me, "backpedal now", while using someone else's quote. Interesting.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Mar 2005)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> Huge difference between nation building when you were at war with another country. Last time I checked we aren't at war with anyone right now, nor have we been since WW2.
> 
> 
> So it has gone from mass protests to any type of protest. In no society does the vocal minority, outweight the silent majority.
> ...



Odd?   I thought we were at war after WW II, when we went off to Korea.   I guess you would have us repeat all our mistakes of the past century and a half, because you are not a student of history?

As for a government catering to the minority, rather than the majority; what about Canada's Liberal Governments of the last twenty odd years?   

We are talking about verbal posturing in this article.   They are words from the US, France and Turkey towards Syria.   I would think that these three countries have a little more clout than had it been Mr Dithers who had told them to get out.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (2 Mar 2005)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I'm not a Doctor of History or anthing, but one thing I remember from my various history classes is that the only noticeable countries that held "free" elections and elected communists (as in, the communist parties that were allied to the USSR) or dictators since WW2 were in eastern european countries where the Soviets outlawed any party other than the communists.
> 
> Please enlighten me if I've forgotten any...



Communists - with Moscow ties - were elected in various western countries, notably France and Italy, but never in such a mass that they could carry out the kind of putsch that is pretty much the only way to transform freely elected democracies into dictatorships.   The only country in the last century or so that comes to mind off-hand as having elected a blatantly authoritarian regime is pre-war Germany which elected the Nazis in 1933.


----------



## mdh (2 Mar 2005)

How does 25,000 amount to mass protests in a country of 3mil+

Actually chaos that sounds like a pretty large number to me - especially in a country where the Syrian secret police have established a fearsome reputation for themselves.   

IMO, the more Bush can assist in the de-stabilization of the Baathist regime in Syria - the better. 

Assad II was probably responsible for the assassination of a popular political figure in Lebanon - it's about time he was made accountable for it; he's also running scared - hence the sudden handing over of former Iraqi Baathists to the US who were hiding out in Syria -   a few scant days ago they didn't exist, according to Damascus.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Wizard of OZ (2 Mar 2005)

Either way, enough imperialistic, we know best attitude from the US government.   My simple point is enough of that already."
It is not just the opinion of the US that Syria should leave, it is the opinion of most of the Western world, the middle eastern world, and most importantly, it seems the Lebanese themselves.  

Actual it was a UN resoultion passed a while back that they should have pulled out over a decade ago i believe but i know someone will correct me if i am wrong.

   Do you really think that Lebeanon will be any more stable then it is now, if and when Syria pulls out?   Could it not just turn into another Bosnia with Christians and Muslims and Jews fighting it out?   Not that Syria should stay but maybe a UN force should move in until an elected government is put in place.   An ounce of prevention may be better then a pound of pain.

And i do think critizising the US is wrong sure they talk tough but it is something that is taking the spotlight away from Iraq, and it is something they can use to hammer the EU when it comes to GWB's axis of evil.

As far as them playing world police, hell let them it helps their ego and justifies thier multi trillion dollar debt, (shortest lived Empire in the world).


----------



## sigpig (2 Mar 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> While sigpig abhors the US Government's foreign policies, he seems to like their immigration policies.. must be an interesting situation in which to place one's self...   ;D



What is it about the DS here that think they can comment about where my family and I choose to live? First Bruce and now you. If I lived in Canada and criticized the Martin government for it's defence and foreign policies that would be ok because you don't agree with them? But since I live in the US I can't criticize the foreign policies of the government of the day here?

Get over it guys. I found a good job here, the wife hates the cold, and I dislike many of Bush's policies and will state so. I have no  problems at all with living here as a permanent resident and stating my opinions about things. The joys of democracy.


----------



## dutchie (2 Mar 2005)

sigpig said:
			
		

> Who are you talking to? You've used a quote of mine for your first statement then two quotes from chaos75. Are you addressing us at the same time? It seems you are criticizing me, "backpedal now", while using someone else's quote. Interesting.




Are you for real? I think it's pretty obvious that one half of my thread was dedicated to punching holes in your previous posts, the other half was dedicated to punching holes in chaos75's posts.


----------



## Gunnar (2 Mar 2005)

The fact that they chose not to vote communist/facist/dictator is the point...if you have a free country, you can vote for whomever you want.   That's democracy.   Yet somehow, people who have it *imposed* on them don't vote in what they really (?) want?

Doesn't scan is all.

The only place where "democracy" was ever forced on anyone was largely in colonial nations, by an occupying colonial power.   Colonial government was allowed as much freedom over the unimportantant as their political masters would permit.   When colonial occupation left, there was either a coup or revolution (meaning that they *still* couldn't get a majority to vote for them, so they forced their form of government on the people), or they voted in progressively more and more socialist governments until the country became the third world nation it deserved to be.

My foreign history isn't that good, but I think a number of African nations would qualify here.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (2 Mar 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> The only place where "democracy" was ever forced on anyone was largely in colonial nations, by an occupying colonial power.   Colonial government was allowed as much freedom over the unimportantant as their political masters would permit.   When colonial occupation left, there was either a coup or revolution (meaning that they *still* couldn't get a majority to vote for them, so they forced their form of government on the people), or they voted in progressively more and more socialist governments until the country became the third world nation it deserved to be.
> 
> My foreign history isn't that good, but I think a number of African nations would qualify here.



Sadly, most sub-Saharan African nations would qualify - but there is an important factor at work in Africa that distorts the picture when compared to Arab nations.  Post-colonial African countries were artifical constructs with the borders drawn by colonisers without any sort of consideration for ethnic/tribal divisions.  Ethnic/tribal unity within borders would have helped stabilize the political situation through greater homogenization.  Instead, we have artifical nation-states that contain two or more ethnicities, each wanting to be on top of the heap - thus having an incentive for coups d'état.  Rwanda is the most extreme example.  The drift into socialism had everything to do with this situation as it was a way to impose an ideology (and an authoritarianism) that could override the tribal divides and keep them in check.  The closest you have to this in the Arab world is the divide between Shia and Sunni - and there again, it is different from the African model.


----------



## Blue Max (2 Mar 2005)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> In no society does the vocal minority, outweight the silent majority.



Chaos, in our Canadian democracy the gay minority (~ 8% ) are outweighing the wishes of the majority (~64% want to keep marriage as is; let them have a social union).

Sorry for getting off topic, I couldn't help myself with the dig when I read your post.

B M.


----------



## sigpig (2 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Are you for real? I think it's pretty obvious that one half of my thread was dedicated to punching holes in your previous posts, the other half was dedicated to punching holes in chaos75's posts.



I saw two references to "quote from sigpig" in your post and no mention of referencing chaos75. 

If you want to respond to two people's posts in one post please identify them clearly or better yet, make two individual posts.

I found it hard to read, and I'm on of the authors referenced. Of course my brain could be baked by all this Florida sun.

I'm as real as you....


----------



## Wizard of OZ (2 Mar 2005)

it is amazing how quick this one got off topic.

Trying to bring it back

Does this indicate a first step for Bush to push in on Syria and then Iran?

May the EU finally side with the US on the Middle East issue.  (meeting with the Pala PM)


----------



## dutchie (2 Mar 2005)

I think this is an opportunity for Bush to give the EU an excuse to come closer to his side. If the US plays this right, they could really shore up some support for their policies in the Middle East. Some nations, such as France, seem to always be beligerent to the US, but I think others are 'swayable' - Germany, Spain, ect.


----------



## CivU (2 Mar 2005)

In response to Frederick G's comments on only Eastern European countries electing Communist leaders due to an imposed lack of choice by the Soviet Union.

On September 4, 1970 Salvador Allende became the first democratically elected Marxist leader as President of Chile.   There was neither a lack of choice nor a fraudulent electoral practice.   His presidency was short lived however, as under the guise of the CIA, in 1973, military leader Augusto Pinochet launched a coup that led to the assasination of Allende in the Presindential Palace in Santiago.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

:boring:


----------



## mdh (2 Mar 2005)

Sadly, most sub-Saharan African nations would qualify - but there is an important factor at work in Africa that distorts the picture when compared to Arab nations.   Post-colonial African countries were artifical constructs with the borders drawn by colonisers without any sort of consideration for ethnic/tribal divisions.   Ethnic/tribal unity within borders would have helped stabilize the political situation through greater homogenization.   Instead, we have artifical nation-states that contain two or more ethnicities, each wanting to be on top of the heap - thus having an incentive for coups d'état.   Rwanda is the most extreme example.   The drift into socialism had everything to do with this situation as it was a way to impose an ideology (and an authoritarianism) that could override the tribal divides and keep them in check.   The closest you have to this in the Arab world is the divide between Shia and Sunni - and there again, it is different from the African model.

Horse Soldier,

Your African analogy is closer to the Syrian situation then you might think at first glance.   

Baathism was in fact an offshoot of German Nazism (which may surprise some people) - as an ideology, Baathism, was articulated in the 1940s by three principle thinkers, (Michel Aflaq being one of the better known ones.) 

It emphasized state control of the economy, pan-arabism and radical nationalism, and of course, antisemitism. It was supposed to be a direct challenge to the former Imperial powers and influenced Nasser in Egypt.

There is also a good dose of tribalism at work in the country (of an oligarchic sort) with the Assad family ruling with dynastic authoritariansim for the past 40 years.   Syria itself is an artifical creation whose borders were determined by the colonical powers.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Mar 2005)

So we've reached the point where people who have presumably had the benefits of an education in the traditions of western civilization imagine it is reasonable to call into question a straight-up demand for one country to cease its long-term occupation of another.

Holy f*ck.


----------



## dutchie (2 Mar 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> So we've reached the point where people who have presumably had the benefits of an education in the traditions of western civilization imagine it is reasonable to call into question a straight-up demand for one country to cease its long-term occupation of another.
> 
> Holy f*ck.



LMAO...good one.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (2 Mar 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> So we've reached the point where people who have presumably had the benefits of an education in the traditions of western civilization imagine it is reasonable to call into question a straight-up demand for one country to cease its long-term occupation of another.
> 
> Holy f*ck.


And in the atmosphere of knee-jerk anti-americanism which seems to pervade the intellectual/political/mediatic classes in Canada, this surprises you?  If anyone but GWB had made the demand, you would have heard applause all around.  Doesn't make sense, does it?  But then neither does spitting in GWB's eye and then expecting the US govt to give us a helping hand with cattle, lumber, etc.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (2 Mar 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> Horse Soldier,
> 
> Your African analogy is closer to the Syrian situation then you might think at first glance.
> 
> ...



Point taken.  The same applies directly to Iraq, obviously.


----------



## chaos75 (2 Mar 2005)

Why is anything anti GWB innediately referred to as anti-american.  I know and work with many Americans and find nothing wrong with them at all.  The problem I have is with the prevailing attitudes at the highest levels of US government, which is continuing is slide backwards towards dare I say it, extreme right wing values (albeit supported by 51% of the voting US public).  You have to ask yourselves simple questions to get to the answers:

Why is the US choosing now to try and force the Syrians out of Lebanon?  The UN resolution has been in place for over a decade.

Why would the Syrians assisinate a hue political figure in Lebanon, who was anti-Syrian, at a time when they are under such close scrutiny due to the present climate of the war on terror?

Simple questions with more complex answers than the ones being touted in the media, you have to look at the issue and make some sound conclusions, dont believe everything that you hear on tv, or whatever spews from Bush's/Rice's mouth.  How quickly everyone forgets the total lies associated with Iraq, and are so quick to jump on the Syria/Iran bandwagons..


----------



## dutchie (2 Mar 2005)

chaos75 said:
			
		

> Why is the US choosing now to try and force the Syrians out of Lebanon?   The UN resolution has been in place for over a decade.
> 
> Why would the Syrians assisinate a hue political figure in Lebanon, who was anti-Syrian, at a time when they are under such close scrutiny due to the present climate of the war on terror?
> 
> Simple questions with more complex answers than the ones being touted in the media, you have to look at the issue and make some sound conclusions, dont believe everything that you hear on tv, or whatever spews from Bush's/Rice's mouth.   How quickly everyone forgets the total lies associated with Iraq, and are so quick to jump on the Syria/Iran bandwagons..



Ok, I'll bite. What are your theories on the above questions? You claim that the answers are 'more complex...than the ones being touted in the media', so you must have some ideas..let's hear them.


----------



## chaos75 (2 Mar 2005)

Okay..

The US is in a very good position now to try and reach its goals of American influenced democratic expansion in the middle east, in support of not only its own causes but those of Israel.  IMO the Iraq war was used to gain a powerbase in the ME, since the US relations with Saudi Arabia continue to falter over several issues, political and social.  So now that Iraq is more or less under control, politically speaking, the US has a huge base of operations with which to go after the remaining thorns in their sides, Syria and Iran, maybe even Turkey.

While the Syrians may have had a hand in the assassination of Hariri, simply going off of their history, it still doesnt make sense.  Why commit an act this big at this time, when they are under heavy pressure over their support of terrorists, and border issues ie. insurgent crossings into Iraq?  The US for their part have, according to media reports, made no actual physical investigation of the bombing site, and are most likely going off of the intel provided by indigenous assets and the Israelis.  Could it be a frame up against Syria?  You have got to admit, it is not anything that the US or Israelis have not done before, a most recent frame up of Iraq comes to mind.

So, while the US has the military power it currently does in Iraq, and with seemingly no end to the mission in sight, you could say they are holding station, training the Iraq military to take over, then they are perfect postion to have an operation Syrian Freedom, or Iranian Freedom.  I know I can sound cynical, but it is so easy to get lost up in media reports.  There is always so much more to every story.  The media outlets admitted themselves that they downplayed the questions over Iraq, and fell onto the bandwagon.  

Before anyone jumps on me over Iraq, yes its better off without Hussein and a regime of terror, but it did not require an unjustly founded invasion, or the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis to get it done, nuff said.

So those are my thoughts on Syria, Iran is a whole nother issue.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

Chaos75,

Looks good to me, I agree with your initial assessment (may have a different view on some of the other stuff, but what's done is done).

As I said earlier, I think it is only political posturing, probably inlight of the "Defence Pact" made between Iran and Syria.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Mar 2005)

The US is playing hard ball with Syria. We want them to stop supporting the insurgency in Iraq and to stop supporting terrorism against Israel. The Syrian presence in Lebanon is intended to support and protect the anti-Israel terrorist groups and to essentially make Lebanon a satellite of Syria. Iran is the money behind the terror groups in Lebanon. Essentially Syria is acting as a proxy for Iran. Take away the Syrian army and intelligence and the Lebanese army should be able to deal with the terror groups in their country. There is a danger of civil war, but the death of Hariri seems to be a unifying event.

One constant from liberals is their constant attacks upon Israel. Israel is their boogyman. Israel alone has had to face 
attacks upon its people since its independance. The arabs have never agreed to guarantee Irael's existance. If the Bush administration is successful in the ME the world will be alot safer.


----------



## Andyboy (3 Mar 2005)

Chaos,

Like Infanteer I generally agree with the thrust of what you are saying but not necessarily the details. I don't know who killed Harari and whoever does isn't talking right now. The idea that the US is behind it isn't outside the realm of possibility but neither are the dozens of other any other theories being floated around. The idea that Iraq is a stepping stone is probably true too. I don't agree that the invasion wasn't justified or that the deaths of innocent Iraqis was in vain but he underlying question that you haven't answered here remains...whats your point?

I mean seriously, how the hell else was Saddam going to give up power? How else are we going to make the people ruling the middle east (who have access to virtually unlimited money and control every aspect of their population including who they hate and who they love and who rule by torture and terror) stop their repressive murderous ways? We have tried ignoring it for a generation or two and while it seems successful to us (except for the odd murder of three thousand of our people) it isn't particularly successful to the people of Iraq who you seem to care for. And I don't mean that in any insulting way, I am saddened by every death I hear about over there. However, it saddens me even more to think that some people would prefer an entire section of the globe to live without the freedoms we take for granted every day, the freedom we are both taking advantage of right now, for the sake of "stability". Tens of thousands have died as a result of the invasion, well over a million are dead as a result of Saddam being in power. Tough choice. 

In my opinion the world will be at peace when individuals everywhere have control over their government's ability to use violence.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Mar 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> In my opinion the world will be at peace when individuals everywhere have control over their government's ability to use violence.



Nah...when they get to that point, humans being humans will usually stick that control in the hands of the NSDAP, Mussolini, or Tojo.

I'm one of those types who doesn't believe in peace - that military is a growth industry as far as I'm concerned.... :-\


----------



## Andyboy (3 Mar 2005)

You may be right...maybe I'm just hopeful/naive.


----------



## CivU (3 Mar 2005)

"I'm one of those types who doesn't believe in peace"

I guess that depends on your concept of peace.  If you see it as the absence of war, a fairly pragmatic view, then it may be attainable (albeit hard to envision).  If a neccesary definition needs to step beyond this, to a level of collective harmony, then I would have to say that, not unlike the other definition but in a far greater sense, history speaks strongly against it.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (3 Mar 2005)

One constant from liberals is their constant attacks upon Israel. Israel is their boogyman. Israel alone has had to face 
attacks upon its people since its independance. The arabs have never agreed to guarantee Irael's existance. If the Bush administration is successful in the ME the world will be alot safer.

Ok i will stir the pot here.

Was the region more or less volatile before the appointment of the Israeli state?

The nations were forced to give up land in order to appease the Western powers in the creation of the Israeli state.  By success do you mean a imposed security through occupation or an elected one through the democratic process?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Mar 2005)

The region has always been volitile (Jewish Revolts, Crusades, etc).  The return of the Jewish people is simply another migration into the region.

I don't think that this gives us any reason to condone the fact that most state and non-state actors hold as their objective the destruction of an entire group of people who, whether we like it or not, are there to stay.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Mar 2005)

Infanteer, the only "state actors" that want to annihilate anyone is the Palestinians, Iranians, Syrian's and Saudis.
Egypt and Jordan are willing to live and let live. If the rest adopt that attitude then we may see real peace in the region.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Mar 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Infanteer, the only "state actors" that want to annihilate anyone is the Palestinians, Iranians, Syrian's and Saudis.
> Egypt and Jordan are willing to live and let live. If the rest adopt that attitude then we may see real peace in the region.



Hence the word "most".   

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## pbi (9 Mar 2005)

All: What are your opinions on the massive difference in size between the anti-Syria demonstrations of a few days ago (thousands of people) and the more recent pro-Syrian demonstrations (hundreds of thousands of people). Are the latter a valid expression of pubilc feeling, or did Hezbollah organize them? Is it possible that most (or, at least, many...) Lebanese _do _ actually hate Israel, and regard the assassination and the Syrian presence as  good things? Or is all just media distortion?

As to the origins of the present Israeli-Arab conflict: I think that the British will forever carry the shame of being the creators of the current situation, by a failed attempt at playing two sides off against each other over who would be loyal to them in Palestine during WWII. This policy might have worked but for a small thing called the Holocaust, that triggered floods of Jewish refugees to Palestine, far more (IMHO) than the British ever imagined possible. The situation was unmanageable, and after struggling unsuccessfully with terrorism from both sides, they left in 1948. The mess has been with us ever since, in a far worse form than IMHO ever existed under the Ottomans, the Arabs or even the Romans, under whose rule the Jews more or less pursued their lives in a fairly peaceful manner as long as they did not pose a threat to public order. Apart from the _diaspora_ enforced by the Romans, I think it was only the Crusaders who actually hunted down Jews and killed them   in Palestine just because they were Jews. IIRC the Arabs and the Turks never really had much reason to bother the Jews.

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (9 Mar 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Apart from the _diaspora_ enforced by the Romans



Pretty significant "apart from", don't you think?

I figured the Diaspora was a pretty significant event as it destroyed the Jewish political presense in the Middle East.  It was not until the creation of Israel that the Jewish people were again able to present a political presence in the region.

Is there links?  Is this interpretation correct?  I'm not really sure.... ???


----------



## mdh (10 Mar 2005)

Here is one of the better analyses (Jerusalem Post) I've seen on the Hezbollah rally - it suggests that even the Party of God is recognizing that Lebanon may be on the cusp of a new era, cheers, mdh





> Analysis: Hizbullah might heat up northern border
> By DAVID RUDGE
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (10 Mar 2005)

> Pretty significant "apart from", don't you think?



Yes-you're right. I guess I drifted off my point. What I was trying to get at (not very well...) was that over the long course of history,the majority of suffering by Jews in Palestine has IMHO nothing to do with Arabs. The "conventional wisdom" comment that we hear constantly being thrown around that the Arab/Jew conflict "has been going on for centuries" is IMHO rubbish, much like its sister comment on the interethnic strife in Yugoslavia, also a very recent product of 20th century politics.

Cheers.


----------



## Acorn (10 Mar 2005)

pbi, not an analysis often seen, however correct it is. It shows that "history" often becomes a product of politics.

In any case, there has been an undercurrent of "Lebabon for the Lebanese" for a number of years, with flare-ups of anti-Syrian sentiment occurring from time to time. Hariri's assassination was huge though, the most significant Lebanese political figure to be assassinated since the civil war ended. 

Who did it? I don't think one can conclusively blame the Syrians (at least not as a collective). Syrian politics is remarkably fragmented, though this is not always obvious. Bashar Assad's hold on power is not so strong as some would like to think, and there are internal forces in Syria that need to be considered. There are also internal Lebanese forces that cannot be discounted. Finally, there is Israel, which doesn't have a perfect record as far as making the right decisions goes.

I find most western commentary on Syria to be remarkably simplistic and either uninformed or politically slanted. Syrian society is undergoing a revolution, which is not very obvious, after over 30 years of relative stagnation under Assad Sr., because it is mostly hidden. It remains to be seen whether this revolution will have a positive or negative effect on the country and the Middle-East.

Acorn


----------



## ZipperHead (10 Mar 2005)

> Demonstrations continue in Lebanon
> Rice:* Syria 'out of step'*
> U.S.: Iran deceiving world
> Blair puts pressure on Syria



You guys are too serious here. I was amazed I was the only army guy here who spotted this and wanted to run with it: "Look at my son Syria..... the only one in step!!!"

Ok, I'll go away now....

Al


----------



## mdh (10 Mar 2005)

> I find most western commentary on Syria to be remarkably simplistic and either uninformed or politically slanted. Syrian society is undergoing a revolution, which is not very obvious, after over 30 years of relative stagnation under Assad Sr., because it is mostly hidden.



Acorn,

Just curious as to what you see as the evidence for this revolution? Are you suggesting that Assad will somehow initiate his own version of a Baathist glasnost?

cheers, mdh


----------



## Acorn (10 Mar 2005)

I'll try to stay in my lane.

I'd say the revolution is economic. Lots more "middle-class" type of business springing up, not a Baathist "glasnost" by any means, as I'm not sure Assad even intends it to happen. There are other social factors that I won't go into at this point.

Acorn


----------

