A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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?

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.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
. . . but doesn't explain how many or how soon, aren't conservatives supposed to sneer?

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.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.

[bilmore]

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

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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The story, in my mind, is less about the pull out than about the protests.

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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Of course, Lebanon was lost to democracy mainly by the Reagan administration, which did nothing to prevent Israel from invading in 1982 . . .

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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Why? Lebanon's always had a strong opposition. And often an armed one.

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

[Spanky]

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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

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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It is kind of like hearing Republicans waxing on about how great a Democratic Lebanon would be.

True. Republicans do. Dems wax.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
Bush failed to halt the tsunami, too. Effin' Neo's.

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.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

[Spanky]

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.

[Valentine]

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.