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."