On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:41:26 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

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

Now you are seeing why I killfiled him.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

JohnH,
Harry really is infatuated with you.


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
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.


Why bother to post here at all, Herring? If you want name-calling and
facilitating of trouble-markers, just read your own posts.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:05:29 -0500, John H
wrote:

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.

My mistake. I got lost in the chain. I though you were responding to
thunder. I failed to see Harry inserted in there.

But once in a while, Harry throws out a nugget of lucidity and
rationality. It's shame most of his other "points" consist of
ad-hominem attacks and unfounded speculation.

Dave

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:39:54 -0500, "Dr. John Smith" wrote:

JohnH,
Harry really is infatuated with you.

Why bother to post here at all, Herring? If you want name-calling and
facilitating of trouble-markers, just read your own posts.


I see. It's unreal.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:38:01 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:05:29 -0500, John H
wrote:

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.

My mistake. I got lost in the chain. I though you were responding to
thunder. I failed to see Harry inserted in there.

But once in a while, Harry throws out a nugget of lucidity and
rationality. It's shame most of his other "points" consist of
ad-hominem attacks and unfounded speculation.

Dave

I'm sure he does. I just don't feel like digging through the silt.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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



Oh, Hezbollah...the group Bush wants to recognize as a party to the
proceedings.

I see a change in direction again. Better change your meds.