NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, so what does everyone think of Syria and Lebanon now? Reports (both from yahoo and al jazeera) are saying the size of the protests to keep Syria in Lebanon dwarf the size of the anti-Syria protests? If democracy and the will of the people should reign, shouldn't Syria stay and the US/Isreal keep their noses out?

For those who haven't read it....

From Yahoo:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050309/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_syria

From Al Jazeera:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/884A76F6-3F34-4781-AE9D-1EA859C159CF.htm

Something else to think about:

What do you think of US meddling with other countries' affairs now?

What do you think of US propoganda of 'let freedom reign.... everywhere" now?

Yes Syria should pull out. I don't want lebanon to get pregnant.

Yes Syria should pull out. I don't want lebanon to get pregnant.
where they are sticking lebenon, their is no real danger of pregnancy...

seriously though, if hezbelah(sp?) is really so against it, you have to consider the possibility that an abrupt pull out could lead to the return of civil war. all the factions are still there, unless they have a certain level of goodwill and trust syria's withdrawl could easily spiral things out of control.

I think that lebanon should hold a referendum on the subject.

Many lebanese see the syrian presence as a stabilizing force and one which protects them from the israelis.

It certainly isnt the decision of Bush the Butcher of Baghdad whether or not syrians troops are to stay in lebanon.

I think that lebanon should hold a referendum on the subject.

Many lebanese see the syrian presence as a stabilizing force and one which protects them from the israelis.

It certainly isnt the decision of Bush the Butcher of Baghdad whether or not syrians troops are to stay in lebanon.
A referendum would certainly be a "democratic" solution?

No, Syria should not pull out. The reports are saying there are 500,000 to 1.5 million (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=7326) Lebanese demonstrators for Syria. This is from a country with only 3.7 million people! The anti Syria rallies only drew 70,000. Most Lebanese are clearly grateful for the Syrian presence in their country. Syria offers Lebanon a modicum of protection from another Israeli invasion and along with Iran backs Hezbollah, which virtually all Lebanese view as freedom fighters equivilant to our founding fathers. It is the height of hypocrisy for the US to demand Syria leave, while they have 130,000 troop occupying Iraq, and while Israel occupies a part of Syria--the golan heights, not to mention the Palestinian territories.

If it should become clear that the Lebanese do not want the Syrians there then they should be forced to leave. However this does not seem to be the case at the present time as shown by the massive size disparity between the pro and anti Syria demonstrations. The assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister was truley a horrific crime but it makes little since to blame Syria. There was already a pro Syrian government in Lebanon, it would make little since if Syria were behind the attack since they were lacking any logical motive. If I am wrong however, those responsible should be held to account for the assassination.

I thought this would be more of a discussion. Usually, I get a few people fighting for America at all costs, oftenly beyond any reason whatsoever. I guess when millions of people come out like that, there is just nothing you can say.

i gotta just say this. i saw the thread title, and thought it said "should syria still put out?" needless to say, my dissapointment upon finding the truth was crushing. I think i'll go make my dream a reality tho.

Yes Syria should pull out. I don't want lebanon to get pregnant.


After 30 years you'd think Lebanon would be pregnant by now.

Well, if you consider that Hezbollah takes its orders and money and weapons from Syria, it's hardly a disinterested party.

Point a few AKs at people, and I'm sure they're going to show up at a demonstration and shout the right slogans. Especially if they're being pointed by people with such a stellar reputation for terror.

The problem with the delayed presentation of these "protesters" at this point indicates to me that it's staged - if they had really all felt that way, they would have been protesting for their views on day one.

No, Syria should not pull out. The reports are saying there are 500,000 to 1.5 million (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=7326) Lebanese demonstrators for Syria. This is from a country with only 3.7 million people! The anti Syria rallies only drew 70,000. Most Lebanese are clearly grateful for the Syrian presence in their country. Syria offers Lebanon a modicum of protection from another Israeli invasion and along with Iran backs Hezbollah, which virtually all Lebanese view as freedom fighters equivilant to our founding fathers. It is the height of hypocrisy for the US to demand Syria leave, while they have 130,000 troop occupying Iraq, and while Israel occupies a part of Syria--the golan heights, not to mention the Palestinian territories.

If it should become clear that the Lebanese do not want the Syrians there then they should be forced to leave. However this does not seem to be the case at the present time as shown by the massive size disparity between the pro and anti Syria demonstrations. The assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister was truley a horrific crime but it makes little since to blame Syria. There was already a pro Syrian government in Lebanon, it would make little since if Syria were behind the attack since they were lacking any logical motive. If I am wrong however, those responsible should be held to account for the assassination.


Makes you wonder who was doing anything else if almost half the population of the country was protesting in front of the UN building, huh? Or, possibly, it should serve as a reminder that al Jazeera is also known by wags as TNN or Terrorist News Network... Could it possibly be that some folks were overstating the numbers at their rallies? By an order of magnitude or more?

Syria has no business in Lebanon any longer. They also have been exposed in their hiding/helping terrorists in Iraq. It doewn't bode well for Syria right now. Geeze, France, Germany and the US agree on something. How often does that happen? I'd be wary if I were a Syrian government official. Remember, I predicted Syria next when folks were saying we'd be in Iran by June... I stand by that prediction.

The sad thing is, there are no disinterested parties . . .
However, Syria is far from the best nation to exert a "stabalizing influence" on this country. If there is to be international intervention, it should be relatively neutral intervention, perhaps by the (uh oh, someone's going to hit me for saying this) United Nations?
Frankly, the US rarely does anything that isn't in its self-interest. In this case, they wish public opinion to turn on Syria. That said, Hezbollah, being a state-sponsored terrorist network, is clearly going to do the will of its sponsors (cough . . . Syria)

Makes you wonder who was doing anything else if almost half the population of the country was protesting in front of the UN building, huh? Or, possibly, it should serve as a reminder that al Jazeera is also known by wags as TNN or Terrorist News Network... Could it possibly be that some folks were overstating the numbers at their rallies? By an order of magnitude or more?


Having watched both Al-Jazeera and CNN, I must say the journalistic bias is about the same. The difference is that CNN has an American bias, while Al-Jazeera has a middle-eastern (and primarily Arab) one. Calling it the Terrorist News Network is simply an unfounded attack by people who wish there were less dissenting voices in the world.

Let's see:

France has told Syria to get out.
Germany has told Syria to get out.
The US has told Syria to get out.
The Saudis have told Syria to get out.
Lebanese who are not members of Hezbollah have told Syria to get out.

Hmm...

For all you Euro-wags who want the US to only do something when there's agreement by France...

We could kick Syria's ass out of Lebanon - just pick up the phone.

Well, if you consider that Hezbollah takes its orders and money and weapons from Syria, it's hardly a disinterested party.

Point a few AKs at people, and I'm sure they're going to show up at a demonstration and shout the right slogans. Especially if they're being pointed by people with such a stellar reputation for terror.

The problem with the delayed presentation of these "protesters" at this point indicates to me that it's staged - if they had really all felt that way, they would have been protesting for their views on day one.

If that was true, then people in Iraq wouldn't have voted. I realize the Sunnis boycotted, but you would see less turnout from Kurd and Shia factions. It seems those tactics don't work. Not on 1.5 million (some reports say hundreds of thousands - either way its a lot of people to be controlling).

There is no doubt that Hezbollah is backed by Syria. But, Hezbollah isn't resented by the people of Lebanon. Hezbollah fights Isreal, seen as a common foe of Lebanon. Does Lebanon want to be occupied by Syria or Isreal?

500 Thousand plus Lebanese want Syria to stay, as they most likely see each other as brothers, whilst also stopping a possible invasion by Israel.

60 thousand Anti-Syrian protestors want them out.

Any difference in opinion?

If that was true, then people in Iraq wouldn't have voted. I realize the Sunnis boycotted, but you would see less turnout from Kurd and Shia factions. It seems those tactics don't work. Not on 1.5 million (some reports say hundreds of thousands - either way its a lot of people to be controlling).

There is no doubt that Hezbollah is backed by Syria. But, Hezbollah isn't resented by the people of Lebanon. Hezbollah fights Isreal, seen as a common foe of Lebanon. Does Lebanon want to be occupied by Syria or Isreal?

The fact that it didn't work in Iraq in the Shia and Kurdish areas means that the insurgents in Iraq do not have the control that people think they have. That is, the Iraqi on the street knows more than some Euro-wag who thinks all is lost in Iraq.

It does work in Lebanon - partly out of fear - and partly out of the propaganda you're repeating about Israel occupying Lebanon.

I'm sure that if they wanted to, Israel could occupy Lebanon. But you'll notice that they don't want to.

If Syria pulled back today, there would not be an Israeli occupation. The Israelis, as you may remember, got tired of hanging out in South Lebanon. They did not leave because the Syrians somehow defeated them.

Makes you wonder who was doing anything else if almost half the population of the country was protesting in front of the UN building, huh? Or, possibly, it should serve as a reminder that al Jazeera is also known by wags as TNN or Terrorist News Network... Could it possibly be that some folks were overstating the numbers at their rallies? By an order of magnitude or more?

Like I said in my first post. I found this type of reports on Yahoo too. And, in fact, Al Jazeera questioned the number that the protest was 1 million people. It added that people at the protest said it was definitely in the hundreds of thousands.

Syria has no business in Lebanon any longer. They also have been exposed in their hiding/helping terrorists in Iraq. It doewn't bode well for Syria right now. Geeze, France, Germany and the US agree on something. How often does that happen? I'd be wary if I were a Syrian government official. Remember, I predicted Syria next when folks were saying we'd be in Iran by June... I stand by that prediction.

Let's see... other countries want change in the internal affairs of a country, but not the people of that country. Does this remind you of something? Something, like Iraq? Do you want another Iraq? The choice is yours.

I'm not sure what would be accomplished by a Syrian withdrawal. If the Lebanese people vote to kick Syria out, that's fine. They should have the full backing of the international community to help get it done. If they vote not to kick Syria out, then let them stay. It's none of our business. If we end up having to go to war with Syria though, don't be surprised if Lebanon gets it's share of bombings.

Only really, really paranoid people would believe that Israel would invade Lebanon if Syria pulled out. It simply isn't in Israel's interest to do so.

Only really, really paranoid people would believe that Israel would invade Lebanon if Syria pulled out. It simply isn't in Israel's interest to do so.

You would be surprised at the paranoid crap that passes for news in Arab papers.

It does work in Lebanon - partly out of fear - and partly out of the propaganda you're repeating about Israel occupying Lebanon.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. What works?

I'm sure that if they wanted to, Israel could occupy Lebanon. But you'll notice that they don't want to.

This is speculation. Who know what the ramifications of occupying Lebanon would be and if the Isreali army has that capacity... unless maybe you're part of Isreali intelligence.

If Syria pulled back today, there would not be an Israeli occupation. The Israelis, as you may remember, got tired of hanging out in South Lebanon. They did not leave because the Syrians somehow defeated them.

Isreal didn't pull out of Golan Heights because it got tired. I'm sorry but that is way too much of a strategic location to be leaving simply because you got tired of hanging out there. They pulled out as a way to further the peace process.

500 Thousand plus Lebanese want Syria to stay, as they most likely see each other as brothers, whilst also stopping a possible invasion by Israel.

60 thousand Anti-Syrian protestors want them out.

Any difference in opinion?


I'd be more accepting of a decision made by Lebanon's government(considering it's elected by popular vote).

unicameral National Assembly (128 seats; members elected by popular vote)

Only really, really paranoid people would believe that Israel would invade Lebanon if Syria pulled out. It simply isn't in Israel's interest to do so.

I'm going to admit that I am laying it on a bit thick by saying this. Al Jazeera is known for laying it on thick for pro-Arab side. However, it is also laying it on thick by saying Hezbollah coerced 1.5 million people into protesting.

I'd be more accepting of a decision made by Lebanon's government(considering it's elected by popular vote).

You'll be glad to know the Lebanese PM has been reelected. This is the same PM that was part of the government that got bad mouthed earlier this month. Here's the article......

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AA0F485C-10A6-4E95-8747-330F07931F99.htm

You would be surprised at the paranoid crap that passes for news in Arab papers.

No, I wouldn't. Nor am I surprised at the paranoid crap that is reported in western news media either. I try and read a smattering of various international editorials.
However, the Arab world has a much more limited idea of freedom of the press than the west, so I find it less reprehensible when I read close minded, asinine editorials there. For instance, the scares about Avian Flu, West Nile Virus, Killer Bees, and the like are simple examples of paranoid fear-stories. They have no basis in fact, and the only difference between them and those anti-Israel comments is that they lack a racial bias.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. What works?

Pointing a gun to someone's head and telling them what to do - or filling their head with scare stories about the Israelis.
This is speculation. Who know what the ramifications of occupying Lebanon would be and if the Isreali army has that capacity... unless maybe you're part of Isreali intelligence.
It's speculation to say that they would invade. Since they are not invading right now, logic dictates that in order to say they will invade, you will have to produce some evidence of this. You know, Israeli troops massing on the border, etc. There isn't any evidence of that. So it is not speculation to say that right now, it does not appear that Israel will invade. I don't think they're going to rock the peace process boat at this point.
Isreal didn't pull out of Golan Heights because it got tired. I'm sorry but that is way too much of a strategic location to be leaving simply because you got tired of hanging out there. They pulled out as a way to further the peace process.
Yes, they went with the peace process because they had seven years of constant battles with Hezbollah.

I think what Hezbollah is afraid of is losing money and military support from Syria. It might mean that Hezbollah would have to tone down their attacks on Israel - because Israel only crosses into Lebanon to stop cross-border attacks by Hezbollah. Without someone to defend Hezbollah, they might feel constrained.

Imagine that. A terrorist organization that would have to behave itself. My, my.

However, the Arab world has a much more limited idea of freedom of the press than the west,

Al Jazeera is known to not have any government influence. Probably because they're already pro-Arab and probably because they're based in Qatar, tends to be more liberal than other Arab countries.

I will also remind you, that it was the US and the US backed government in Iraq that was shutting down Al Jazeera's Baghdad offices during the US invasion. Oh yeah, US believes in freedom of press.

Al Jazeera is known to not have any government influence. Probably because they're already pro-Arab and probably because they're based in Qatar, tends to be more liberal than other Arab countries.

I will also remind you, that it was the US and the US backed government in Iraq that was shutting down Al Jazeera's Baghdad offices during the US invasion. Oh yeah, US believes in freedom of press.

Please recall my earlier post about bias in CNN. And when I said the arab world, I was not just referring to Al-Jazeera, but also to the various government run stations and newspapers. Also, when I said limited idea, I believe this because it is a much newer concept over there then it is in America. Of course America is hypocritical, just look at the McCarthy Hearings only 50 years ago. And that was after having democracy since 1776. All I'm saying there is that maybe there should be some appreciation of the time it takes for a properly independant press to evolve.

I'd be more accepting of a decision made by Lebanon's government(considering it's elected by popular vote).

Yes that would also be a good option..

However when so many mass to counter much smaller Anti-Syrian propaganda....

It obviously means something?

Al Jazeera is known to not have any government influence. Probably because they're already pro-Arab and probably because they're based in Qatar, tends to be more liberal than other Arab countries.

I will also remind you, that it was the US and the US backed government in Iraq that was shutting down Al Jazeera's Baghdad offices during the US invasion. Oh yeah, US believes in freedom of press.

You will recall that right up to the point where US troops were three blocks away from Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Information Minister, al-Jazeera was reporting his idiocy as FACT.

You remember - how Americans were committing suicide on the gates of Baghdad - when in actuality they were driving up and down the streets outside of Baghdad Bob's broadcast center. How Iraqi troops were driving the US forces back...

And al-Jazeera was reporting this as FACT.

Care to comment on the authenticity of al-Jazeera reporting?

syria has no business in lebanon any longer. end of story. i don't know why anyone would pay attention to any show put on by hizboallah, it's obvious they are very very very concerned about loosing both their sponser states...not to mention having several cruise missiles lobbed their way as well.

Care to comment on the authenticity of al-Jazeera reporting?

At the height of the Iraq war, when those US soldiers were taken hostage, and a video showing them was released, CNN refused to show it because it was "sickening". Later, Aaron Brown interviewed the Al-Jazeera Washington bureau chief on CNN. He said it was sickening that Al-Jazeera was showing the faces of these American soldiers. What if their families saw them like that? In response, the bureau chief pulled out a copy of the national post, with an Iraqii being handcuffed by an American, his face plainly vissible. Then he went on to speak about how CNN international, available in the Arab world, had also shown pictures of Iraqi soldiers. Lastly, he pointed out that Al-Jazeera was not available in the United States, so these soldiers families would never see it. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Brown prematurely ended the interview.
That's not strictly the authenticity issue, but it says something about the American media, doesn't it?

You will recall that right up to the point where US troops were three blocks away from Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Information Minister, al-Jazeera was reporting his idiocy as FACT.

You remember - how Americans were committing suicide on the gates of Baghdad - when in actuality they were driving up and down the streets outside of Baghdad Bob's broadcast center. How Iraqi troops were driving the US forces back...

And al-Jazeera was reporting this as FACT.

Care to comment on the authenticity of al-Jazeera reporting?

I can't really because I didn't see that report. And, although I don't watch Fox, I hear they misreport things as well.

syria has no business in lebanon any longer. end of story. i don't know why anyone would pay attention to any show put on by hizboallah, it's obvious they are very very very concerned about loosing both their sponser states...not to mention having several cruise missiles lobbed their way as well.

If the Lebanese want them there, why don't you leave them alone?

I can't really because I didn't see that report. And, although I don't watch Fox, I hear they misreport things as well.

It wasn't on Fox. It was on al-Jazeera. I was watching al-Jazeera, not Fox.

So far, the only counterarguments I have heard is Hizb Allah is controlling these people and the Arab media is fabricating the numbers.

Response: You can find the same numbers in western media. Hizb Allah doesn't have the ability to control such large numbers (not with force anyway)

It wasn't on Fox. It was on al-Jazeera. I was watching al-Jazeera, not Fox.

I meant in general

Yes, Syria should pull out.
Lebanon should be able to look after itself already, it's been what, 15 years since the civil war?

It is most preferable that Syria leaves, though I do have my reservations. Considering America and Israel are so keen to see this happen, I sure hope they don't have their incentives and put troops in Lebanon. Some people feel that without Syria's presence, Israel is likely to invade, whilst others feel this is extremely unlikely, and that the Lebanese people would never let this happen. I hope they won't, but personally I don't think the Lebanese have a lot of power at the moment.

Syria should defiantly get out, but I'd much prefer Syrian occupation than American or Israeli occupation (Heaven forbid).

Also, while America and Isreal's insistence for Syria to get lost is likely to benefit Lebanon, (if they don't have any secret greater motives) it's terribly hypocritical, considering Israel is occupying the land of the Palestinians (not even co-existing equally) and America is occupying Iraq.

I meant in general

When your own journalist is standing there watching the US troops drive casually up and down the street...

and at the same time, another of your journalist/cameramen films Baghdad Bob saying, 'there are no Americans in Baghdad, they are committing suicide at the gates of the city'

and you report the second one as fact when you can see with your own eyes that it is not a fact

that's not misreporting, or a casual mistake

Can you find an incident where Fox showed a film of one thing happenning, and said that the scenes you're seeing aren't really happenning?

When your own journalist is standing there watching the US troops drive casually up and down the street...

and at the same time, another of your journalist/cameramen films Baghdad Bob saying, 'there are no Americans in Baghdad, they are committing suicide at the gates of the city'

and you report the second one as fact when you can see with your own eyes that it is not a fact

that's not misreporting, or a casual mistake

Can you find an incident where Fox showed a film of one thing happenning, and said that the scenes you're seeing aren't really happenning?

I'm afraid that I can't, however, I can recall one American news anchor as saying "if the President tells me to lie to you, I will. God Bless America" while on air. Everyone has an agenda, and the American media are far from the opposite.

I'm afraid that I can't, however, I can recall one American news anchor as saying "if the President tells me to lie to you, I will. God Bless America" while on air. Everyone has an agenda, and the American media are far from the opposite.

You should have been overseas (not in Iraq) in an Arab country when they finally figured out that al-Jazeera had not only been "lying" in accordance with an "agenda", but that the lie had been so fucking big that it was an embarassment to the entire Arab world.

Want to see people dismayed in the streets? It was as if they had all suddenly had their pants pulled down simultaneously in public. It was one thing for the US to invade. Another for the Iraqi Army to collapse suddenly. But... for an independent Arab press to lie so badly - and to get the story so completely and utterly wrong...

there's nothing in any Western press event that seems to compare to this.

OK, so what does everyone think of Syria and Lebanon now? Reports (both from yahoo and al jazeera) are saying the size of the protests to keep Syria in Lebanon dwarf the size of the anti-Syria protests? If democracy and the will of the people should reign, shouldn't Syria stay and the US/Isreal keep their noses out?

For those who haven't read it....

From Yahoo:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050309/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_syria

From Al Jazeera:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/884A76F6-3F34-4781-AE9D-1EA859C159CF.htm
ahahahaha ALLAH WINS

You should have been overseas (not in Iraq) in an Arab country when they finally figured out that al-Jazeera had not only been "lying" in accordance with an "agenda", but that the lie had been so fucking big that it was an embarassment to the entire Arab world.

Want to see people dismayed in the streets? It was as if they had all suddenly had their pants pulled down simultaneously in public. It was one thing for the US to invade. Another for the Iraqi Army to collapse suddenly. But... for an independent Arab press to lie so badly - and to get the story so completely and utterly wrong...

there's nothing in any Western press event that seems to compare to this.

No, I can't think of any comparable Western event of the top of my head. However, lying in the media is hardly an only-Arab world trait.

It's not as though the US and Israel are the only ones who have said that Syria should get out.

France, for one.
Saudi Arabia, for another.
Russia.

Don't say that it's all the US's idea...

When your own journalist is standing there watching the US troops drive casually up and down the street...

and at the same time, another of your journalist/cameramen films Baghdad Bob saying, 'there are no Americans in Baghdad, they are committing suicide at the gates of the city'

and you report the second one as fact when you can see with your own eyes that it is not a fact

that's not misreporting, or a casual mistake

Can you find an incident where Fox showed a film of one thing happenning, and said that the scenes you're seeing aren't really happenning?

I remember in a American newspaper (I forget which but I know it's famous and based in New York) there was a photograph that was digitally manipulated showing one thing happening when in reality another was.

It's not as though the US and Israel are the only ones who have said that Syria should get out.

France, for one.
Saudi Arabia, for another.
Russia.

Don't say that it's all the US's idea...

All but... oh.... the Lebanese

I remember in a American newspaper (I forget which but I know it's famous and based in New York) there was a photograph that was digitally manipulated showing one thing happening when in reality another was.

To find something equivalent, I think I would have to go with the CBS faking of the Bush National Guard documents.

When it turned out that the documents were fake, there were probably thousands of viewers who were shocked and dismayed that the story was fake - they believed in the story so strongly that it was hard for them to come to grips with the fake story.

But nothing comes close to the al-Jazeera mistake during the recent Iraqi invasion. Nothing.

But nothing comes close to the al-Jazeera mistake during the recent Iraqi invasion. Nothing.

Yea, that's your opinion to justify what you're saying.... but, even though, this is another topic... if you like I can start another thread.

Well, I'm inclined to follow Straw on this one.

Yes, the Syrians should pull out.
But, the UN should put in some peacekeepers to prevent Hezbollah from running amok in their absence (and prevent a civil war).
You know - nation building, elections, that sort of thing.

The Syrians obviously aren't doing any of those pro-active things that would make Lebanon a viable nation. They see it as more Syria.

I also hear that the primary reason they want to stay, at least in South Lebanon, is so that they'll have something else to bargain with when they negotiate further with Israel. Other than that, they give a rat's ass what happens to the Lebanese.

Well, I'm inclined to follow Straw on this one.

Yes, the Syrians should pull out.
But, the UN should put in some peacekeepers to prevent Hezbollah from running amok in their absence (and prevent a civil war).
You know - nation building, elections, that sort of thing.

The Syrians obviously aren't doing any of those pro-active things that would make Lebanon a viable nation. They see it as more Syria.

I also hear that the primary reason they want to stay, at least in South Lebanon, is so that they'll have something else to bargain with when they negotiate further with Israel. Other than that, they give a rat's ass what happens to the Lebanese.

1) If they should pull out, this goes against the accord of the majority of the people. Where's the spread of democracy now?

2) If they don't give a rat's ass about Lebanon, then why do the people support them so much? (Surely, they have their self interests as all nations do, but yesterday the people of Lebanon made a statement. One that might get ignored by America but hopefully won't by the rest of the Arab world.)

1) If they should pull out, this goes against the accord of the majority of the people. Where's the spread of democracy now?

2) If they don't give a rat's ass about Lebanon, then why do the people support them so much? (Surely, they have their self interests as all nations do, but yesterday the people of Lebanon made a statement. One that might get ignored by America but hopefully won't by the rest of the Arab world.)

It already looks like the members of the Arab League have already asked Syria to leave. You act as though this is a strictly American idea - but it's not. It's a French idea. It's a Russian idea (Syria's only military supplier).

It already looks like members of Hezbollah have their own fears - that's why they support Syria. If Syria no longer protects them, they cannot shell the Israeli border anymore. That's also why Syria's pullout basically moves their troops to the Bekaa Valley, where they can support Hezbollah.

If you wanted to know what everyone really thought, you would have to disarm Hezbollah and remove the Syrian troops first.

Syria may not have a choice. If France isn't giving you any cover, and the Russians who give you weapons tell you you're going to have to leave, you are dangerously exposed to the possibility that the US could step in, kick your ass, and you're not even going to get the sympathy that France and Russia gave Iraq. In fact, they might even help with the occupation of Lebanon through a UK sponsored resolution - all while the US is subjugating Syria.

The Arab League, on the other hand, seems to want Syria out.

It already looks like the members of the Arab League have already asked Syria to leave. You act as though this is a strictly American idea - but it's not. It's a French idea. It's a Russian idea (Syria's only military supplier).

It already looks like members of Hezbollah have their own fears - that's why they support Syria. If Syria no longer protects them, they cannot shell the Israeli border anymore. That's also why Syria's pullout basically moves their troops to the Bekaa Valley, where they can support Hezbollah.

If you wanted to know what everyone really thought, you would have to disarm Hezbollah and remove the Syrian troops first.

Syria may not have a choice. If France isn't giving you any cover, and the Russians who give you weapons tell you you're going to have to leave, you are dangerously exposed to the possibility that the US could step in, kick your ass, and you're not even going to get the sympathy that France and Russia gave Iraq. In fact, they might even help with the occupation of Lebanon through a UK sponsored resolution - all while the US is subjugating Syria.

The Arab League, on the other hand, seems to want Syria out.

The Arab League wantED Syria out and askED them to leave BEFORE the pro-Syria protests. Everyone, the French, Russians, Americans, maybe even Arabs, want Syria out except the 1.5 million who protested (how many times do I have to say this). Although Hizb Allah has its interests in Syria (as Isreal has its interests in America), they still don't have the kind of power to force that many people to protest like that. Finally, the people will be their own cover. I propose the question AGAIN, do you want another Iraq?

The Arab League wantED Syria out and askED them to leave BEFORE the pro-Syria protests. Everyone, the French, Russians, Americans, maybe even Arabs, want Syria out except the 1.5 million who protested (how many times do I have to say this). Although Hizb Allah has its interests in Syria (as Isreal has its interests in America), they still don't have the kind of power to force that many people to protest like that. Finally, the people will be their own cover. I propose the question to AGAIN, do you want another Iraq?

The US probably has an interest in attacking Syria. Most of the new insurgents come across the border from Syria. Most of their weapons and money come from Syria. Just this morning, they killed some Iraqi civilians near the border - just so they could use their homes as hiding places after crossing the border.

Stop the flow at the source, I say. If they don't have a place to hide and regroup...

But, it is possible that 1.5 million people are members or beneficiaries of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not just a fighting organization - they run schools, etc.

Yes, invading Lebanon with the UN (since France and Russia are going along with it, that's possible) and invading Syria with the US is OK with me.

Maybe you don't understand - the US is certainly capable of fighting and defeating an insurgency without sustaining the casualty level that they used to get in Vietnam - and they are confining the insurgency to one area of Iraq.

OK, so what does everyone think of Syria and Lebanon now? Reports (both from yahoo and al jazeera) are saying the size of the protests to keep Syria in Lebanon dwarf the size of the anti-Syria protests? If democracy and the will of the people should reign, shouldn't Syria stay and the US/Isreal keep their noses out?
Um, no. The Syrains are just reacting to the same thing that applies to sex: there is a substantial penalty for early withdrawal.

No, I can't think of any comparable Western event of the top of my head. However, lying in the media is hardly an only-Arab world trait.


Really! Ask the French about Cote d'Ivorie and Rwanda!!!

The US probably has an interest in attacking Syria. Most of the new insurgents come across the border from Syria. Most of their weapons and money come from Syria. Just this morning, they killed some Iraqi civilians near the border - just so they could use their homes as hiding places after crossing the border.

Stop the flow at the source, I say. If they don't have a place to hide and regroup...

This is the reason the US wants Syria out of Lebanon. I don't think they really have the proof to show insurgents are in Syria. At best they might have some proof, but US intelligence is under heavy scrutiny after the fiasco with Iraq's WMD. So, they have chosen something that they thought Syria won't back down from. Syria did so, but the people Lebanon don't want it. If the people of Lebanon step in and say stay, the US and any other outside country is going to have a hard time justifying their intervention.

But, it is possible that 1.5 million people are members or beneficiaries of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not just a fighting organization - they run schools, etc.

Whatever the reasons are for those people to like Hizb Allah, they like them and they want them. This is the bottom line if you want to spread democracy.

If Hizb Allah is running schools and taking care of the people, then they are doing some good (and that's why the people there want them). Also, you can call Hizb Allah a terrorist organization but the people of Lebanon would say they are freedom fighters, and fighting to protect Lebanon and the Palestinians against the Isrealis(and that's also why the people there want them).

Also, how you were saying that Hizb Allah forced the people. If Hizb Allah has the power to put hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people on the streets to protest, then they would also have the power to keep a mere tens of thousands off the streets, such as when there were protests for Syria to leave. Hizb Allah just isn't that strong of a force.

Yes, invading Lebanon with the UN (since France and Russia are going along with it, that's possible) and invading Syria with the US is OK with me.

Maybe you don't understand - the US is certainly capable of fighting and defeating an insurgency without sustaining the casualty level that they used to get in Vietnam - and they are confining the insurgency to one area of Iraq.

The US might have that capacity to minimize causalties, but how long will the war in Iraq last? Remember, Bush's plan was to go into Iraq, take out Saddam, and reconstruct the country in a 2-3 years time span. He did the first two just fine but reconstruction does no good if someone comes by and blows something up right after you built it. Bush wants to reconstruct Iraq again so the oil starts flowing again. This is America's interest in Iraq. Once the oil starts again, Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction, America can get its cheap oil, and American investors can profit from Iraq. Syria must be a big problem for America if they need to go into Syria and put a handle on it. They wouldn't take that large of a step if the issue was minor. Evidently, they can't contain the people coming in for the insurgency from within Iraq.

Here is America's problem as I see it:

1) Stop the insurgency to start making money (after all, it is costing the US taxpayer!).

2) Insurgents are coming in from Iran and Syria (mostly Syria I think, because the Shia are laying low).

3) America needs justification to go into either country. With American intelligence already shaky, where will they find it?

4) Use Lebanon. But if Lebaonese people say stay out, now America contradicts itself. This fuels the fire for insurgents in Iraq and all over the world. Expand the war to Lebanon/Syria going against Lebanon's wishes and you'll do just that. Spread an insurgency into other countries. This is what's called a wildfire.

You may argue against this reasoning because France and Russia were against America when going into Iraq so why would they support them going into Syria? I would say good question but the operative word is WERE. This is France's and Russia's stand beofre the war. America is already there and no matter what France and Russia does now, they can't do anything about it. I think there new position is that it would behoove them to play ball.

Really! Ask the French about Cote d'Ivorie and Rwanda!!!

Good point. I hadn't thought of those- it isn't just an American trait either.

The US probably has an interest in attacking Syria. Most of the new insurgents come across the border from Syria. Most of their weapons and money come from Syria. Just this morning, they killed some Iraqi civilians near the border - just so they could use their homes as hiding places after crossing the border.

Stop the flow at the source, I say. If they don't have a place to hide and regroup...

But, it is possible that 1.5 million people are members or beneficiaries of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not just a fighting organization - they run schools, etc.

Yes, invading Lebanon with the UN (since France and Russia are going along with it, that's possible) and invading Syria with the US is OK with me.

Maybe you don't understand - the US is certainly capable of fighting and defeating an insurgency without sustaining the casualty level that they used to get in Vietnam - and they are confining the insurgency to one area of Iraq.

Hezbollah is hugely supported by the Shi'ite Lebanese community (40 percent of the popluation), the largest ethnic group along with many Sunnis. It is really only the Maronite Christian minority (20 percent of the population) and the very small Druze ethnic group along with some Sunni Lebanese want Syria out. It seems clear a majority of Lebanese want Syrian troops to some extent or another. IT makes little since to complain about democracy being blocked by Syria when in fact a democratic majority supports Syrian troops presence is some form or another. Furthermore democraticly elected legislature of Lebanon seems poised to return pro syria prime minister Omar Karami to power who resigned from office following the assassination.

As far as the European powers are concerned, it is clear the west misinterpretted the political attitudes in Lebanon, after the widely publicized and much trumpeted anti syria protests. The impression that Lebanonese overwhelmingly wanted Syria out turned out to be false and the Europeans reason for demanding Syria to pull out no longer exists.

As for the weapons from Syria it is pretty obvious that Iraq is flooded with weapons anyway. It is legal for all Iraqis to own fully automatic AK-47s and there were massive weapons stockpiles of all sorts of ammo looted in the aftermath of the war. Even if syria was nuked out of existence, their still would be an insurgency raging in Iraq.

If he's not wearing a condom he should most certainly pull out!!!

Ohhh.... Syria... not Syrano... my bad...

(sorry all, it was looking a little too serious, I thought id lighten it up around here - hope you got a laugh at my pitiful childish humor ;) )

You would be surprised at the paranoid crap that passes for news in Arab papers.

Same could be said for yours and ours.

It's the choice of the Lebanese people that matters.

Damn, somebody beat me to it!!!!

Same could be said for yours and ours.

It's the choice of the Lebanese people that matters.

Then perhaps the Syrians should leave them to it.

I think it would be a good idea for Syria to leave - intelligence agents and all.

Then hold some elections under UN supervision.

If they want to invite the Syrians back after that, more power to them.