Bush Orders Syria Out Of Lebanon

[mdh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[chaos75]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[CivU]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.... ???