Pro-Syrian Lebanese Government resigns en masse...

[j2k4]

This is kinda significant, eh?

Did the U.N. do something?

What could possibly have prompted this?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148962,00.html

[vidcc]

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

[j2k4]

Syrian forces have been in Lebanon nigh unto 30 years, vid.

Why do you think this is happening now?

[vidcc]

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

[j2k4]

Would it have been better if Isreal were in occupancy?

Actually (since you asked), YES!

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?

[mogadishu]

Actually (since you asked), YES!

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?

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.

[vidcc]

Actually (since you asked), YES!

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?

You think an isreali occupancy of another country would be in the interests of bringing stability to that part of the world?

[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.

[vidcc]

It isn't a question of acceptance of fanatics from either side it is a question of reality in that part of the world.

[Biggles]

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.