I wrote:

Majority isn't measured by the number of people willing to march in
the
street.


And JimH replied:

You claimed just the opposite when the anti war demonstrations were
happening.

********

JimH: how disappointing that you would make such a false statement. I
never claimed, at any time, that majority could be measured by the
number of people willing to march in the street. Shame on you. If you
can't counter the point itself, why stoop to making false statements
instead?

***********
I wrote:

Everyone who is keeping score and comparing the number of pro-Syrian
vs. anti-Syrian demonstrators has created a contest

JimH responded:

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? ;-)

********
No, not personally. I never "reported" any Lebanese protest numbers at
any time. However, somebody may have done so.
In any event, if you read my comment without a 'tude, you will see that
it applies to everybody who is comparing the sizes of the various
demonstrations, enlightened liberals and neanderthal
conservatives alike. :-)

****************************

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


Was a very peaceful country, and extremely prosperous for both Christians
and Muslims. Very little problem, until some idiot in government invited in
the ( I think the variety was ) Hamas Palestinians. Then they had most of
the guns and attempted to take over control. Therefore war. If they went
back to their lands, then there would be very little conflict.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"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.



Look at a map of the middle east, bill. And read a little history of
Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria and Israel. Then call back.

You seem to be the history challenged liberal arts major. No major problem
until Hezbollah arrived.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:30:07 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


Was a very peaceful country, and extremely prosperous for both Christians
and Muslims. Very little problem, until some idiot in government invited
in the ( I think the variety was ) Hamas Palestinians. Then they had most
of the guns and attempted to take over control. Therefore war. If they
went back to their lands, then there would be very little conflict.

Lebanon was a peaceful, prosperous country, but it was not without
tension. For are forgetting Eisenhower sent in the Marines in 1958,
this preceded the Palestinian problem.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:23:20 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 03:05:41 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:59:01 -0500, John H wrote:

Where'd the left go?

You know, John, before you get to excited, you might want to consider what
is happening in Lebanon. Lebanon has either been a functioning democracy
or in a state of Civil War since it's independence. I would suggest that
a ex-Prime Minister's assassination, and various factions resorting to
street demonstrations, shows how precarious Lebanon's situation is.
Fortunately, the demonstrations have been peaceful, but unfortunately,
that could change. Before you celebrate Syria's withdrawal, consider they
were the stabilizing force that ended the 15 year Civil War.

Who's celebrating?

Last week the libs were inundating the news with word of a pro-Syrian
demonstration that appeared 'anti-Bush'. This week there's another
demonstration, about twice as big, that's 'anti-Syrian'.

Why are the libs, including the news media, so mum? *That's* my question. Why is
the news not reported the same way?

Of course, those of us who understand how these things work, already
know the answer.

Dave

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:26:31 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:21:50 -0500, hkrause wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:59:01 -0500, John H wrote:


Where'd the left go?


You know, John, before you get to excited, you might want to consider what
is happening in Lebanon. Lebanon has either been a functioning democracy
or in a state of Civil War since it's independence. I would suggest that
a ex-Prime Minister's assassination, and various factions resorting to
street demonstrations, shows how precarious Lebanon's situation is.
Fortunately, the demonstrations have been peaceful, but unfortunately,
that could change. Before you celebrate Syria's withdrawal, consider they
were the stabilizing force that ended the 15 year Civil War.


Prior to the Syrians enforcing a truce in Lebanon, the country's
inhabitants lined up against each other and engaged in civil war. Last
week's demonstration "in favor" of the Syrians was conducted by the
Shi'ites. The one the other day was conducted by the Sunnis, the Druze,
and those Christians who have not gotten out of there. Of the latter
three, the Druze are the most interesting, at least to me.

In any event, it looks as if the sides are lining up again, and I
wouldn't bet against another Lebanese civil war. The Syrians have always
believed Lebanon was part of Syria, which explains why it is always
intervening in Lebanese affairs and occupying one part of the country or
another.

It is naive and premature to try to predict the outcome of any of the
current situations in the Middle East. Most of the Arab or Moslem
countries there have been ruled by one despot after another, even after
revolutions and coups aimed at removing "a harsh dictator." There is no
democracy operating in Afghanistan, even though it had some troubling
elections, and the same is true in Iraq. In the end, the people there
will decide for themselves what it is they want, and historically, it is
the people with the guns on their side who dictate the terms.

Another name for my filter. Goodbye.

Why would you killfile someone who is at least analyzing the situation
as opposed to someone else who simply throws out uneducated ad-hominem
attacks?

His post was fairly rational.

Dave

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:05:55 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:

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.


Sowing the seeds already eh Harry? When the middle east situation
improves (and it eventually will), you are all set to give the full
credit to the death of Arafat, over the efforts of the U.S. and the
Bush administration.

Arafat, while a bona-fide terrorist in his hey day, was hardly in much
of a position to be much more than a figurehead as of late. He had
been "contained" by the Israelis for some time. His death only
hastened his eventual replacement as head of the PLO. Granted, it's a
step in the right direction, but it won't be the event which sparked
large scale democratic reform.

Any excuse to take away due credit from Bush.

You are so transparent.

Dave

wrote in message
oups.com...
I wrote:

Majority isn't measured by the number of people willing to march in
the
street.


And JimH replied:

You claimed just the opposite when the anti war demonstrations were
happening.

********

JimH: how disappointing that you would make such a false statement. I
never claimed, at any time, that majority could be measured by the
number of people willing to march in the street. Shame on you. If you
can't counter the point itself, why stoop to making false statements
instead?


You are correct. I should have said "You libs", which is true and
consistent with my other statements.


***********
I wrote:

Everyone who is keeping score and comparing the number of pro-Syrian
vs. anti-Syrian demonstrators has created a contest

JimH responded:

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? ;-)

********
No, not personally. I never "reported" any Lebanese protest numbers at
any time.

Where did I say you did?

However, somebody may have done so.
In any event, if you read my comment without a 'tude, you will see that
it applies to everybody who is comparing the sizes of the various
demonstrations, enlightened liberals and neanderthal
conservatives alike. :-)


Bull. Your "no fair" comment was obviously directed at the right when they
pointed out the large size of the population protesting and demanding that
Syria leave their country.

Don't try to spin it any other way. Your intention was obvious.


BTW: Can you configure your NG reader properly. Your current format is
confusing to the reader to say the least.

Posts that you are responding to should be noted with a or * at the start
of each line.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:30:42 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:23:20 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 03:05:41 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:59:01 -0500, John H wrote:

Where'd the left go?

You know, John, before you get to excited, you might want to consider what
is happening in Lebanon. Lebanon has either been a functioning democracy
or in a state of Civil War since it's independence. I would suggest that
a ex-Prime Minister's assassination, and various factions resorting to
street demonstrations, shows how precarious Lebanon's situation is.
Fortunately, the demonstrations have been peaceful, but unfortunately,
that could change. Before you celebrate Syria's withdrawal, consider they
were the stabilizing force that ended the 15 year Civil War.

Who's celebrating?

Last week the libs were inundating the news with word of a pro-Syrian
demonstration that appeared 'anti-Bush'. This week there's another
demonstration, about twice as big, that's 'anti-Syrian'.

Why are the libs, including the news media, so mum? *That's* my question. Why is
the news not reported the same way?

Of course, those of us who understand how these things work, already
know the answer.

Dave

For the life of me, I can't understand why they don't get *angry* at the fact
that they see only *part* of what's happening!

Censorship smacks them in the face, and they complain about a station that shows
both sides. It's unreal.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:33:35 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:26:31 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:21:50 -0500, hkrause wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:59:01 -0500, John H wrote:


Where'd the left go?


You know, John, before you get to excited, you might want to consider what
is happening in Lebanon. Lebanon has either been a functioning democracy
or in a state of Civil War since it's independence. I would suggest that
a ex-Prime Minister's assassination, and various factions resorting to
street demonstrations, shows how precarious Lebanon's situation is.
Fortunately, the demonstrations have been peaceful, but unfortunately,
that could change. Before you celebrate Syria's withdrawal, consider they
were the stabilizing force that ended the 15 year Civil War.


Prior to the Syrians enforcing a truce in Lebanon, the country's
inhabitants lined up against each other and engaged in civil war. Last
week's demonstration "in favor" of the Syrians was conducted by the
Shi'ites. The one the other day was conducted by the Sunnis, the Druze,
and those Christians who have not gotten out of there. Of the latter
three, the Druze are the most interesting, at least to me.

In any event, it looks as if the sides are lining up again, and I
wouldn't bet against another Lebanese civil war. The Syrians have always
believed Lebanon was part of Syria, which explains why it is always
intervening in Lebanese affairs and occupying one part of the country or
another.

It is naive and premature to try to predict the outcome of any of the
current situations in the Middle East. Most of the Arab or Moslem
countries there have been ruled by one despot after another, even after
revolutions and coups aimed at removing "a harsh dictator." There is no
democracy operating in Afghanistan, even though it had some troubling
elections, and the same is true in Iraq. In the end, the people there
will decide for themselves what it is they want, and historically, it is
the people with the guns on their side who dictate the terms.

Another name for my filter. Goodbye.

Why would you killfile someone who is at least analyzing the situation
as opposed to someone else who simply throws out uneducated ad-hominem
attacks?

His post was fairly rational.

Dave

Because I don't wish to see the other 98% of Krause's posts. Most of his posts,
from what I hear and see, are name-calling responses to my posts or others. He's
simply too easy to ignore.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."