A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
Saddam brough stability to Iraq, and to the entire region as well.

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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Did you get reinvolved in those orgs you had decided were making you kinda weird? Because you are really offensively patronizing today.

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?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
My lament is that America has become a country willing to invade anyone we don't like,

Cite please.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Whatever. They mean a lot to me. They don't mean shit to this administration. They are used for marketing purposes and fearmongering. They are a vehicle for this administration to sell us a load of crap. That was my point. They are abused by this administration. Your monkey has turned them into watered-down management-speak.

The founding fathers would be embarrassed.

Will a real republican please stand up?

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.”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

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.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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?

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

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

Agreed.

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

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.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Adder
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.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
So far being the key language there. Give it a year and my bet is there will be U.S. troops in Syria.

Bet for board support March 2006?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

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

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
You shouldn't read too much into the phrase. My lament is that America has become a country willing to invade anyone we don't like, not the Lebanese desire to improve their lot.

That said, Lebanon is a historical mess and its hard to say who the good guys are.

I am just continually amazed how comfortable we have become with the idea of being an empire.

Why do you think we are an empire?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
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.

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

efg

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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?