This is kinda significant, eh?
Did the U.N. do something? :no:
What could possibly have prompted this? :whistling
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148962,00.html
Printable View
This is kinda significant, eh?
Did the U.N. do something? :no:
What could possibly have prompted this? :whistling
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148962,00.html
I read a few conservative blogs that are more than suggesting that it is Bush's foreign policy that caused this.
I tend to disagree and lean more towards the idea that people of any country don't want a foreign army on their land in any kind of controlling way.
It also depends even in those lands on your "thinking" as to if you think the troops are good or bad. Look at Northern Ireland as an example. Even in Iraq it would be fair to say that outside troops are viewed in several ways. Occupied areas by isreal is another example. So to suggest that because we see protesters in the streets the government should be removed is flawed, after all, we have a few anti Bush protest at home.
the main thing being it is the people of that country doing this from their own free will...not an outside force pointing a gun at them to force them to do it
Syrian forces have been in Lebanon nigh unto 30 years, vid.
Why do you think this is happening now?
the recent bombing may have been the spark.
It has been suggested that the bombers were syrian backed (wink wink) without any actual proof. I don't think the suggestion slowed the fire down at all. It is very easy to raise patriotism after a terrorist attack and it doesn't matter if the finger is pointing in the right direction...wouldn't you agree.
Now this is not to say that it may not have any connection with syria at all
Would it have been better if Isreal were in occupancy?
But as my first post said Even some Syrians want the outside forces there.
edit:some Lebanese :blushing:
Actually (since you asked), YES!Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If Lebanon had need to be occupied, and the choice were mine to make, I'd pick Israel over Syria in a heartbeat.
If the Syrian occupation force is to leave Lebanon, who should guarantee Lebanon's sovereignty?
Who will, if it comes to that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
That would enrage the entire arab world and the peace process would exist no more. Think about the consequences around the world, not just whether the occupier is a democracy or not.
You think an isreali occupancy of another country would be in the interests of bringing stability to that part of the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Yes, yes, I'm quite sure an Israeli occupation of Lebanon would cause massive outrage in all corners of the mideast.
I was speaking hypothetically.
Funny-
The entire Muslim world preaches the sin of the Christian/Zionist infidel, and much of the rest of the world agrees, quaking in it's collective boots at the prospect of Western religious fervor and all it's ramifications, but nobody seems too upset by fanatic Islamicists, at least from a religious standpoint.
Nobody wants to be bombed, but I wonder why western Christianity is regarded as a greater evil than fundamentalist Islam, which is as expansive as Soviet Communism, but somehow much more acceptable.
It isn't a question of acceptance of fanatics from either side it is a question of reality in that part of the world.
I don't think US foreign policy is a major player in this particular arena.
Lebanon was a very fractured society with at least 4 major warring groups, The civil war in that country was pretty awful. The Syrians did help get that country back to some semblance of order (at the request of the then Christian government of the country).
Like so many peace-keepers they saw advantages to staying. They outstayed their welcome many years ago and the sentiment in the country is now to get all foreign troops out - they don't want Syrians, Israelis or Palestinians in their country. In short they are tired of being the backyard that everyone has their fights in.
It is actually comendable that the Government has stood down without recourse to violence and at his point bodes well (not to say that it won't break down into civil war).
The 14,000 Syrian troops are mainly out of sight in the Bekkah valley along with the Shia population of the country. I think they will withdraw over the next couple of months. A fair contingent were supposed to go in July - it will now probably be all of them.
The irony is, of course, that Syria may not have been behind the bomb. What advantage was their in blowing up someone not in power but whom commanded a great deal of popular respect? That is not to say they didn't - but if they did it has to rank as a classic own goal.
If the Syrians leave then it will be the duty of the international community to see that Lebanon's territorial integrity is not impinged upon by anyone else - including Israel. This would counter the fear that Syria has (and the main reason they have stayed) that Lebanon is a back door to Damascus.
Washington may like to see this as their push for Democracy in the region but the Lebanon has had something approaching democracy for a while - as evidenced by the role the Government took by accepting the Opposition "no confidence" motion and stepping down. Most countries in that region don't have oppositions let alone ones that would post a "no confidence" motion.
There were also pro-Government/Syrian protests in other cities... somehow none of those were on the news, strange huh?
Syria is unlikely to leave Lebanon as a major part of its economy is based there now (over 1,000,000 Syrians work in Lebanon, and it relies on the Lebonese Banking System for example)
They are an occupying force and there has always been opposition to them being there in some quarters.
If you look at the protesters, the vast majority are Christian and Jewish... I assume that means that the majority of Muslims are either keeping silent or on the pro-Government/Syrian marches...
Do we really want another Civil War in Lebanon based on religion?
Edit:
Newsflash:
Syria has just said it could withdraw from Lebanon within a few month, however if there is violence or Israel moves in again.. it will.
Again, I don't wish at this point to question the motivation for the dissolution of the sitting government; I commend the alacrity and apparent honesty with which it was accomplished, but now we are met with the possiblility of civil strife in Lebanon, and likewise the need to aid and abet whatever eventuality promises the least disruptive and most humane outcome.
The issue, at the moment, is who jumps in, and under which auspices?
Time is of the essence, much as in the case of an infant left unattended.
BTW-
Does Israel get points for staying away?
Does the U.S. offer to intercede until another set of "cavalry" arrives?
I think there is most definitely Brownie points for Israel if it does not intervene.
Ideally, assistance should be from the ME - possibly Egypt, Morocco etc.,
The US probably not - as I recall last time that ended rather unpleasantly. The EU probably not - unless that was the preferred choice of the various factions in Lebanon.
Ideally, the Lebanese will not resort to the internecine strife of the 1970s. It is in no one's interest to see Lebanon turn into a free for all (except perhaps AQ)
Has anyone accused AQ of the bombing - or is it too convenient for too many to use it as a stick to beat Syria with?
Not aware of any accusations so far; truth be told, Syria is (and has been) in deep enough that any such stick should be considered over-kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
I think all are wise to Syria; the only mystery, as far as I'm concerned, is whether they took possession of any WMD from you-know-who.
I would think Lebanon should be ready for a bit of a breather before plunging into the maelstrom again-provided Syria follows through on it's promise/plan.
This may sound basic, but -
George Bush demands Syria pulls out of Lebanon -
The biggest demonstration ever see in Lebanon is Pro-Syrian, demanding that they stay.
Is Bush argueing against democracy? :dry: