|
I somewhat agree with Harry's perspective on this issue.
It isn't exactly good news when a country with a long history of civil war begins to contest which side can mount the largest, loudest, angriest demonstration in support of its cause. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 05:22:16 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote: I'm not trying to be argumentative, but how did they do that? Maybe we can learn from them and apply that to Iraq. DID they have a large effective secret police not hampered by our laws? Were the people there finally ready for peace. Did they understand the people better? Perhaps a little of "all of the above", but ultimately it was force. At one time, Syria had 40,000 troops in Lebanon and used them, with a "green light" from Washington. I'm not trying to portray Syria as an angel here, they are not. However, unlike others here, I see the situation in Lebanon as tense, and wouldn't mind seeing Syria drag it's feet removing it's troops *until* the situation stabilizes. Lebanon would be better off without an occupying army on it's soil, but there is a real question whether they are strong enough to maintain order without Syria's presence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4308823.stm They were known as the Paris of the Middle East for years. Very nice place to live. Then they let in Arafat and is band of merry armed men and they proceeded to try to make it into their kind of country. That is the basis for the "Civil War" Most of the Lebanese who could left the country. Syria, just kept some control over the "Guests" The death of Arafat is the most important factor in reshaping thought in the Middle East. With Arafat gone, the Palestinians and the Israelis can work out a deal with which each side can live. Once progress towards such a deal is underway, much of the "trouble" in the Middle East will deflate, and the remaining dictatorships will then have to deal with their own people. There will still be terrorists, of course. but if the majority of residents of a new and real Palestinian state are happy, it will be difficult to maintain the fervor needed for a holy war. We are talking about Lebanon. And according to you there is no Palistine. |
wrote in message ups.com... I somewhat agree with Harry's perspective on this issue. It isn't exactly good news when a country with a long history of civil war begins to contest which side can mount the largest, loudest, angriest demonstration in support of its cause. But why the civil war? |
wrote in message ups.com... I somewhat agree with Harry's perspective on this issue. It isn't exactly good news when a country with a long history of civil war begins to contest which side can mount the largest, loudest, angriest demonstration in support of its cause. Why not? And who says it is a contest? I would say it is a voice of the majority. You called the demonstrations angry. How so? |
Why not?
And who says it is a contest? I would say it is a voice of the majority. You called the demonstrations angry. How so? ********************** Majority isn't measured by the number of people willing to march in the street. Everyone who is keeping score and comparing the number of pro-Syrian vs. anti-Syrian demonstrators has created a contest. People who gather into huge groups, paint signs, and disrupt the normal flow of traffic and commerce in a city are normally either 1) Celebrating, (as in a 4th of July Parade) or 2) Protesting. Anger, rather than joy, is the more common motivation beneath a protest. When the signs they carry express demands, "US Get Out!" "Syria Get Out!" or "Down with Homosexuals", etc, there is a measurable anger at work. Both sides in the Lebanese situation. The protests often help polarize a society, requiring people to "choose sides". It's those same sides that may be shooting at one another 4-5 months from now. |
wrote in message oups.com... Why not? And who says it is a contest? I would say it is a voice of the majority. You called the demonstrations angry. How so? ********************** Majority isn't measured by the number of people willing to march in the street. You claimed just the opposite when the anti war demonstrations were happening. Everyone who is keeping score and comparing the number of pro-Syrian vs. anti-Syrian demonstrators has created a contest. The libs seem quite happy to report numbers when the protests are to their liking. When the protests are not and greater numbers are counted some folks tend to scream "no fair, you are creating a contest!" Do you know any such person who would do that Chuck? ;-) People who gather into huge groups, paint signs, and disrupt the normal flow of traffic and commerce in a city are normally either 1) Celebrating, (as in a 4th of July Parade) or 2) Protesting. Anger, rather than joy, is the more common motivation beneath a protest. I would agree when you are talking about the anti Bush and anti war protestors. The protests often help polarize a society, requiring people to "choose sides". It's those same sides that may be shooting at one another 4-5 months from now. If it means that peace will eventually be reached and the Syrians leave, then that would be a good thing. |
But why the civil war?
********* Broad answer is much the same throughout the Middle East. Conflicting values coupled with paradigms that do not allow compromise. The last civil war in Lebanon was a case of the Christian militias vs. the Moslem militias, but even in countries with a clear Muslim majority there is some bitter feuding between divisions. (See the Catholic vs. Protestant wars, slaughters, and political manipulations throughout the last several hundreds years in Europe for a comparison). Peace in the region has, historically, been maintained by a tribal or religious leader ascending to power and ruling dictatorially. It takes more than a desire for "freedom" to create a functioning democracy, and some of the major elements we rely upon in the west are not at all present in the culture of the middle east. Perhaps we'll simply re-learn the lesson that we mastered once befo if we can't turn every little country into a democratic republic with a capitalist economy, seeing that the "strong man" running the show is reasonably humane and favoraby disposed to western interests may be a practical substitute. |
|
|
wrote in message oups.com... I somewhat agree with Harry's perspective on this issue. It isn't exactly good news when a country with a long history of civil war begins to contest which side can mount the largest, loudest, angriest demonstration in support of its cause. Why not? And who says it is a contest? I would say it is a voice of the majority. Majority isn't measured by the number of people willing to march in the street. LOL!!! http://tinyurl.com/6vbkn I can just hear the Syrians and terrorist yelling at the Lebanese people in the streets..."Nothing to see here...move on............nothing to see.........." So how many folks demonstrated (angrily according to you) that Syria be allowed to continue to occupy Lebanon? 1 million? 500,000? 250,000? 100,000? 50,000? 25,000? 10,000? 5,000? 1,000? Don't forget to subtract the Syrians and terrorists from you final answer. ;-) And no, this is no contest on numbers as you previously claimed. It is the voice of the people wanting to be free. Why are you having such a hard time with that basic premise? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com