Bush Orders Syria Out Of Lebanon

[Infanteer]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

:boring: