Freedom on the March
 

"the Moonies" part was meant as a joke. Is the whole stick as attractive as that bit that we can see protruding from your butt?

Whatever. Forget it.

Freedom on the March
 

Well, they've got their own christian v. muslim thing to resolve, for sure. But, Syria's occupation wasn't done for the benefit of Lebanon - it was for Syria's tactical situation vis-a-viz Israel. It's safe to say that Bashar ain't the good guy.

Where does that concept come in in re: Lebanon? So far, it's a Lebanese fight.

Only if you think the invasion of Kuwait represents stability.

I think we all agree that stability is not the only end. If that's your point, OK.

Freedom on the March
 

No, bilmore, you are supposed to share the fear the the neocons sounds like ever other empirialist in history, yet don't seem to realize it. That they actually think they are a benevolent force that is saving the heathens. That they think they can make the world a better place by imposing their power and will on others to show them the way and then everyone will be happy.

That was point one. Point two was that there was nothing good, for the Lebanese, about Syria's occupation, and casting them out will result in more freedom for the Lebanese.

And in reply to TS you think this is a compelling retort?

Freedom on the March
 

I'm sorry. Some mega-corporate coffee shop is closed and you're unable to stomach the coffee from Competitive mega-corporate coffee store, and you resent being patronized?

Freedom on the March
 

Cite please.

Freedom on the March
 

I think it’s very important to make charges like that ... I think it’s very important to combat this kind of activity in every way that you can, and I’m willing, as most people are not, to step forward in situations like this and take risks.”

Your point two is wrong, to the extent that Syria's occupation brought an end to a sectarian civil war with no end in site. Beirut is a much better place to be now than it was several years ago. Syria gets part of the credit for that.

And your point three suffers from the same confusion that club's original post does. Lebanon, as a country, might be free from Syrian occupation, but that will not necessarily translate to freedom for the Lebanese people in the way that you and club seem to have in mind (i.e., democracy, etc.). Maybe in five years Lebanon will be a success story, and maybe it will be mired in a civil war. That remains to be seen.

Freedom on the March
 

What does that have to do with the situation in the Middle East? TRY to stay on topic, Hank.

Freedom on the March
 

Agreed.
So far being the key language there. Give it a year and my bet is there will be U.S. troops in both Lebanon and Syria.

Freedom on the March
 

I don't know about this. At the stage that Israel and Palestine seem to have reached, this wouldn't seem to be a good time for us to jump on Syria. Too much good can come of the combined stability introduced by the de-Saddamification of Iraq and Sharon's seeming willingness to work with Abbas to warrant getting in. I'm thinking that the ME might well have hit a critical tipping point already - tipping in a good way.

But, only time will tell.

Freedom on the March
 

Bet for board support March 2006?

It may also result (ultimately) in a peace treaty between Lebanon and Israel.

It is reasonable to think that the U.S. policy towards Syria and Lebanon over the past year has had something to do with any Syrian withdrawal, if it happens (including the U.N. Sec. Council resolution we spear-headed). When the U.S. and France stand together on an issue, you know the train is really rolling that way.

Arafat's death and the resulting opening/increased hope for peace between Syria and Israel may also be part of the reason. In any event -- a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon would be great for Israel, and pose real problems for Hezbollah.

S_A_M

Freedom on the March
 

Why do you think we are an empire?

Freedom on the March
 

Your sense of history and its relationship to the present are very twisted.

efg

I agree with this - there are two layers of repression here. However, it gives me hope that one of the layers MAY be being peeled. I also suspect that those doing the peeling will be embolden by the president's pledge (and actions) to support liberty, as they at least know that if they do rise up GW won't leave them to be slaughtered.

Syria out of Lebanon
 

When FOX reports that Syria is pulling out of Lebanon, conservatives must rejoice, right? But if CNN reports that the chief of the Arab League says that Syria is pulling some troops out "soon," but doesn't explain how many or how soon, aren't conservatives supposed to sneer?

• The Arab League chief said Monday that Syria will "soon" take steps to withdraw its army from Lebanese areas in accordance with a 1989 agreement, but it was not clear whether that meant Syria would completely leave Lebanon as demanded by the international community.

Syria out of Lebanon
 

I don't understand your point. Why would conservatives sneer? Because you think that they think that anything that is odds with FOX is partisan spin?

Syria out of Lebanon
 

I think we're talking about the same underlying story. If it's attributed to FOX, and the ambiguities are removed, we can all cheer about it, right? But if it's attributed to CNN and the Arab League, and we pause to notice that Syria is not exactly saying when or how it will get out, then it can become a story about how mendacious and un-freedom-loving Syria is.

Syria out of Lebanon
 

Why sneer? Yeah, I do doubt the veracity of that statement, coming from where it does, but it's an incremental move closer to the good than we were before. This wouldn't have even been discussed two years ago. I guess I miss your point.

Syria out of Lebanon
 

The story, in my mind, is less about the pull out than about the protests.

And FWIW, my original cite was SFgate. Not sure how FOX made its way into the discussion.

Syria out of Lebanon
 

If you want to come here and cite from known reactionary neocon rags like SFGate, save your breath.

Of course, Lebanon was lost to democracy mainly by the Reagan administration, which did nothing to prevent Israel from invading in 1982, an action which pushed most of the people to alliance with Syria. For those of us with longer memories will remember that Lebanon was pretty closely balanced and that opposition to Syrian involvement was quite high until that invasion.

What seems to be happening now is that Syria is willing to slightly accelerate pull outs that had been already in the works, and may be ready to commit to further pull-outs. The real question is whether among the Lebanese there is the ability to have a stable government without foreign involvement from any of the powers who continuously meddle - including the US and Israel. With a pretty long constitutional and democratic history, the biggest problems Lebanon has faced is that if it looks like any foreign power is about to come in, all the other ones head in first to play for position.

Syria out of Lebanon
 

Why? Lebanon's always had a strong opposition. And often an armed one.

Bush failed to halt the tsunami, too. Effin' Neo's.

Syria out of Lebanon
 

One of the funniest things I have read this month was Walid Jumblatt moaning about the hardships of Syrian occupation.

We are not going to invade Syria, Iran, or North Korea unless there is some radical event to change the political climate. The political climate is just not right at the moment. Bush used the public outrage against 9-11 to rally support for an invasion of Iraq. But with over half the population thinking the invasion of Iraq may have been a mistake, Bush just does not have the political capital to go anywhere else.

I am not saying it was wrong to invade Iraq, nor would it be wrong to invade any of these countries. But unless there is some cataclysmic international political event, Bush just does not have the public support he would need to launch another invasion. In addition, we don't have a big enough military to occupy Iraq, let alone launch another invasion and conduct another occupation.

Syria out of Lebanon
 

It is kind of like hearing Republicans waxing on about how great a Democratic Lebanon would be.

Syria out of Lebanon
 

True. Republicans do. Dems wax.

I agree that many criticism leveled against Reagan are hot air but this one does have some validity. Lebanon's instability and civil war is all directly tied to israel. First the palestinian refugees being pushed into Lebanon and then Israel's invasion. The US holds huge influence over Israel. Without US support Israel would fall like a house of cards. The Reagan administration could have told Isreal to stay the hell out of Lebanon.

True to some extent, but I think the main force hasn't been the Israeli/American reactionary impulse, but the surrounding ME prime impulse. It was always in Syria's interest to keep the muslim/christian fight going there, even pre-palestinian move-in. UNIFIL probably brought more harming influence to L than did the US. This was just one of several 1940's mandate abortions that made no sense when the borders were laid out.

I sympathize with the Neo-cons. I would like to see a democratic Middle East. One thing I think the Neo-cons are miscalcuating is Israel's security. Many of the Neocons think that the hostility towards Israel in the Middle East is the result of a lack of development and democracy in the rest of the middle east. I don't believe that is the case. I think Democratic governments in the Middle East would be more hostile to Isreael than the current governments. I don't think the current dictatorships care that much about Israel, they just use anti-Israeli rhetoric to maintain some semblence of public support.

The new democratic Iraqi government (if it survives) is going to be extremely hostile to Israel. It is very hard to find any Iraqi's that even think Israel has a right to exist.

9/11, Fear, and and the Selling of American Empire
 

Hijacking Catastrophe -- Blueprint for Empire : 9/11, Fear, and the Selling of American Empire

http://www.informationclearinghouse...article6895.htm

[fyi, 1 hour view all of this if possible -- you will learn a lot]

...Stay tuned. Clearly, Iran and Syria are next. Saudi Arabia? North Korea? Cuba and/or Venezuela?

* * *

Re the above link http://www.informationclearinghouse...article6895.htm - I just watched it and thought it was extremely well done. Very interesting and informative. Definitely worth watching.

Thanks for the URL. Personally, I think that Empire - the obviously true aim of the U.S. government - is barely concealed under the lofty rhetoric of Bush's State of the Union address. In its pursuit, the U.S. government is committed to the destruction of every government and people that stands in its way, in the Middle East and throughout the world.

"Freedom and democracy" for Iraq and "liberty" around the world are new code words for a very particular global strategy. According to this strategy, the Pentagon's military pre-eminence will be used to invade, bomb, subvert and threaten any and all countries in the formerly colonized and semi-colonized world that seek to maintain control over their own resources and retain even nominal independence and sovereignty. Bush and the neo-conservatives are the political spokespersons for this strategy. Congress and the courts fade into an ornamental status as Pentagon-enforced capitalism asserts itself as the real power in contemporary U.S. politics.

Important point and very true. I agree that Syria has been a destabilizing influence, but Israel and the US gave them the opportunity to achive their nefarious goals. Before then, Lebanon had achieved a political compromise among the various factions that proved to be pretty stable.

9/11, Fear, and and the Selling of American Empire
 

Someone please termiate this clown

cite please

Do you think Israel is this divorced from the Middle East? The Israelis and Syrians have played fairly similar roles in Lebanon, and have had fairly similiar motivations.

Note that one deal the Syrians would like to cut is a Lebanon for Golan Heights deal.

No, and if I gave the impression that I think Israel is divorced from it all, I mispoke. I think it's central, in that it provides a focus for an awful lot of dissatisfaction. We can "fix" Iraq, Syria can "fix" itself, but Israel is still going to have to find a way to normalize its existence with the rest of the ME in orderfor the whole powderkeg to lessen. I think that's a possibility, if (and only if) the Palestinians can lose their martyrdom.