|
A bigger demonstration! OT
Surprised the left wingers didn't already post this after all the glee shown for
the last demonstration! ******************************* This story was printed from channelnewsasia.com Title : Almost a million Lebanese turn out to press for Syrian pullout By : Date : 15 March 2005 0358 hrs (SST) URL : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...137369/1/.html BEIRUT : More than 800,000 people surged into central Beirut to demand an end to Syria's near-three decade military domination of Lebanon, hurling a dramatic and potent challenge to the pro-Syrian Lebanese government. Ahead of the largest demonstration in the country's history, thousands of Lebanese travelled from all over to Martyrs Square and the grave of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, assassinated exactly one month ago in a bomb blast. Beirut city official Mounib Nassereddine said Monday's gathering was "at least two and a half times" larger than last Tuesday's turnout called by pro-Syrian Lebanese parties, notably the Shiite Muslim movement Hezbollah. Correspondents estimated the crowd last week at 400,000. Martyrs Square, seen from above, was a vast expanse of red, the dominant color in the Lebanese flag, which demonstrators waved in brilliant sunshine as they sang and chanted slogans against Syria and the Lebanese leadership and called for Lebanon's "independence" from Damascus. Some Lebanese television stations reckoned Monday's crowd at 1.5 million. "We say with one voice: 'no' to the Syrian military and intelligence presence, 'yes' to liberty and independence," thundered leftist political figure Elias Attallah. Lebanese MP Marwan Hamade, the official opening speaker, charged that Lebanese and Syrian intelligence services were hiding the truth behind the assassination. "You want the truth on the assassination?" he asked. "It's lying in the dark chambers of the (Syrian-Lebanese) intelligence services that are ruling us and that you are in the process of sweeping out." "They killed (Hariri) because he was thwarting their plan to make Lebanon submit. They killed him because they are the enemies of democracy and Arabism," Hamade declared. "Hezbollah organized a giant demonstration last Tuesday to intimidate us," said Nada, 35, as she travelled to Beirut from Zahle in the east. "Today we're taking up the challenge and invite (Hezbollah) to join us because we represent the true majority of the country." Added Anwar: "The Syrian people are our brothers. We have ties that go back centuries but the Syrian army and the mukhabarat (intelligence service) are no longer welcome in Lebanon." Huguette Yamine, 57, said Monday's political demonstration was her first. "I came with 10 family members. We walked here all the way from the other side of Beirut. We've had enough. I want my children to live in a free and democratic Lebanon." Hariri's killing, widely blamed here on Syria, has energized an opposition movement aimed at forcing the withdrawal of all Syrian military and intelligence units from the country. Syria has denied involvement and on Saturday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave a commitment to a UN envoy to carry out the pullback in accordance with a United Nations Security Council resolution. Thousands of demonstrators turned out in Syria on Monday to show their support for Assad, the official Sana agency reported. The demonstration in the city of Homs, north of Damascus, which was broadcast live on state television, was not organised by the government, Sana said. Syrian forces in Lebanon numbered about 14,000 at the time of Hariri's murder but have since begun a redeployment, leaving north Lebanon and the mountains over Beirut for points further east on their way home across the border. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the Syrian pledge as "positive" but said Washington would continue to press for full compliance with UN Resolution 1559, approved last September. But in an indication of the diplomatic difficulties that lie ahead, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud insisted Sunday that the date of a final pullout would be determined by Lebanese and Syrian authorities. Syrian Expatriates Minister Bussaina Shaaban nonetheless told CNN Sunday that Syrian forces would likely be out of Lebanon before legislative elections there that are expected to take place before the end of May. In some quarters, notably the country's Shia Muslim community, Syria is seen as having preserved Lebanese stability in the aftermath of the country's devastating 1975-1990 civil war. Many Shia Muslims, who make up about 30 percent of the population, are grateful to Syria for having supported their struggle for mainstream political power after decades of exclusion. Syrian forces entered Lebanon in 1976 to serve as a buffer between warring Lebanese factions and at one point numbered 40,000. - AFP • 800,000 pack Beirut for opposition rally • Beirut braces for huge opposition demonstration • Syria to withdraw one-third of its forces from Lebanon by March 31 • Assad pledges full withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon: UN Copyright © 2003 MCN International Pte Ltd back to channelnewsasia.com -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... Surprised the left wingers didn't already post this after all the glee shown for the last demonstration! ******************************* This story was printed from channelnewsasia.com Title : Almost a million Lebanese turn out to press for Syrian pullout By : Date : 15 March 2005 0358 hrs (SST) URL : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...137369/1/.html BEIRUT : More than 800,000 people surged into central Beirut to demand an end to Syria's near-three decade military domination of Lebanon, hurling a dramatic and potent challenge to the pro-Syrian Lebanese government. snip -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Didn't 1,294 show up demonstrating that Syria continue to occupy Lebanon, including 1,293 Syrians? |
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:53:39 -0500, "JimH" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . Surprised the left wingers didn't already post this after all the glee shown for the last demonstration! ******************************* This story was printed from channelnewsasia.com Title : Almost a million Lebanese turn out to press for Syrian pullout By : Date : 15 March 2005 0358 hrs (SST) URL : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...137369/1/.html BEIRUT : More than 800,000 people surged into central Beirut to demand an end to Syria's near-three decade military domination of Lebanon, hurling a dramatic and potent challenge to the pro-Syrian Lebanese government. snip -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Didn't 1,294 show up demonstrating that Syria continue to occupy Lebanon, including 1,293 Syrians? Where'd the left go? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
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. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... 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. 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? |
"''Was the US Army doing the counting?''""'
no krause,,,, your mother was doing the counting,,, you fool,,, are you off your meds again??? what happened there krause,,, someone prove you wrong again? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: Surprised the left wingers didn't already post this after all the glee shown for the last demonstration! ******************************* This story was printed from channelnewsasia.com Title : Almost a million Lebanese turn out to press for Syrian pullout By : Date : 15 March 2005 0358 hrs (SST) URL : http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...137369/1/.html BEIRUT : More than 800,000 people surged into central Beirut to demand an end to Syria's near-three decade military domination of Lebanon, hurling a dramatic and potent challenge to the pro-Syrian Lebanese government. Beirut city official Mounib Nassereddine said Monday's gathering was "at least two and a half times" larger than last Tuesday's turnout called by pro-Syrian Lebanese parties, notably the Shiite Muslim movement Hezbollah. Correspondents estimated the crowd last week at 400,000. Was the US Army doing the counting? |
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? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
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. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
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 |
"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" |
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? |
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." |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com