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.

On 15 Mar 2005 10:09:09 -0800, wrote:

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.

Would anyone have thought otherwise? It *is* good when well over a million
people (counting both demonstrations) can yell, scream, and generally raise hell
without one iota of violence.

Of course, a glass half full is really half empty.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 15 Mar 2005 10:39:36 -0800, wrote:

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.

Where does the Million Man March fall into that binary thinking of yours?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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?