[eklipse]

Bush seems to think so, the Lebanese themselves seem to have different ideas:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7841430

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Tuesday demanded Syria pull troops out of Lebanon before Lebanese parliamentary elections in May and give way to a democracy movement providing hope in the broader Middle East.

"The Lebanese people have the right to determine their future free from domination by a foreign power. The Lebanese people have the right to choose their own parliament this spring free of intimidation," Bush said.

...

In a development that did not fit the U.S. script of events, however, hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese flooded central Beirut on Tuesday for a pro-Syrian rally called by Hizbollah, Lebanon's last armed militia that is backed by Syria and Iran and dubbed a terrorist group by Washington.

It dwarfed previous protests demanding Syrian troops leave Lebanon. Bush did not mention the pro-Syrian rally but White House spokesman Scott McClellan said it did not change U.S. demands.

...

So is Bush right and the 'hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese' wrong?

If this protest really did 'dwarf' previous protests demanding Syria's withdrawal, surely Bush (being the international champion of world-peace, freedom and democracy that we all know and love him to be) would support whatever the apparent majority of Lebanese supported?

Also, I find it highly amusing that Bush & Co. are 'demanding' that a country withdraw it's troops from another country in an effort to establish democracy - especially when, evidently, the locals seem to want the troops there. I can't say I noticed them pulling their own troops out of Iraq for the same reason. Funny how that works.

[von Wrangell]

It's been highly interesting to follow the events in Lebanon lately. The West(USA in particular) has been pushing for a removal of Syrian forces while ignoring the fact that the democratically elected government of Lebanon has wanted Syrian troops in Lebanon.

So much for wanting democracy to flourish in the Middle East.

[BRussell]

Well apparently Syria itself want to pull out, or at least pull back significantly from where they are now.

Lebanon seems to be perhaps the biggest victim of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Coming to a resolution on that will go a long way towards allowing Lebanon to be a stable and independent country. But I suppose resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict will go a long way towards solving all the problems in that region.

Bush is making things worse rather than better. He wants to take credit for this because he's desperate to justify the Iraq war; it seems transparent to me that jumping on this bandwagon is an attempt by him to preemptively take credit in case something good happens.

The problem is, I get the impression that this "pro-Syria" rally was more of an anti-US rally, exacerbated by Bush. The majority of Shiites in Lebanon believe that either the US or Israel was responsible for Hariri's assassination, not Syria. So Bush trying to make this somehow a part of his Middle East strategy and the war on Iraq will just allow the Shiites and other pro-Syrians to claim that the Lebanese nationalists are really US pawns. Not a good argument to give them. Bush just needs to STFU and let things happen.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The majority of Shiites in Lebanon believe that either the US or Israel was responsible for Hariri's assassination, not Syria.

Well that's very understandable since there are absolutely no evidence for Syrian involvement in the assassination. Actually Syria are probably those who would get hurt the most by this assassination. And what country(and it's supporter) are most likely to benefit from it? I'll give you three guesses

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Bush seems to think so, the Lebanese themselves seem to have different ideas...

I find it highly amusing that Bush & Co. are 'demanding' that a country withdraw it's troops from another country in an effort to establish democracy - especially when, evidently, the locals seem to want the troops there.

Many, if not most of the 'locals' you refer to are Syrians living in Lebanon. It would be like 100,000 Americans in Iraq protesting against Iran, and then saying "hundreds of thousands of 'local' Iraqis hit the streets in Baghdad in a mass protest against Iran".

Furthermore, France has been just as intense in their calls for a Syrian pullout, as have other nations (like Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia), so you can chill on the anti-"Bush & Co." platitudes.

This protest was organized and mandated by Hezbollah and Syria. Busloads and busloads of your so-called 'locals' were brought in from Syria for the rally. Armed Hezbollah militants were going through outlying villages and towns, door-to-door, with loudspeakers telling the people to get moving. As they approached Beiruit, they were handed signs written in English denouncing the US and Israel.

Your glee seeing a couple hundred thousand folks with anti-US signs (written in English just for you) is apparent. Al Qaeda could hit the streets tomorrow with anti-US signs, and you'd be pumped up.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Bush is making things worse rather than better. He wants to take credit for this because he's desperate to justify the Iraq war; it seems transparent to me that jumping on this bandwagon is an attempt by him to preemptively take credit in case something good happens.

The UN resolution calling for Syrian pullout of troops was passed in 2004 with strong US, French, Russian, and German support.

If anyone is jumping on a bandwagon, it's you and the usual anti-US suspects. Heck, you didn't even mention those other countries in your post even though they have been calling for the pullout just as long.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Many, if not most of the 'locals' you refer to are Syrians living in Lebanon. It would be like 100,000 Americans in Iraq protesting against Iran, and then saying "hundreds of thousands of 'local' Iraqis hit the streets in Baghdad in a mass protest against Iran".

Furthermore, France has been just as intense in their calls for a Syrian pullout, as have other nations (like Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia), so you can chill on the anti-"Bush & Co." platitudes.

This protest was organized and mandated by Hezbollah and Syria. Busloads and busloads of your so-called 'locals' were brought in from Syria for the rally. Armed Hezbollah militants were going through outlying villages and towns, door-to-door, with loudspeakers telling the people to get moving. As they approached Beiruit, they were handed signs written in English denouncing the US and Israel.

Your glee seeing a couple hundred thousand folks with anti-US signs (written in English just for you) is apparent. Al Qaeda could hit the streets tomorrow with anti-US signs, and you'd be pumped up.

And with all those US soldiers protesting in Iraq...

Back on topic, Syria should leave Lebanon for the natives.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The UN resolution calling for Syrian pullout of troops was passed in 2004 with strong US, French, Russian, and German support.

If anyone is jumping on a bandwagon, it's you and the usual anti-US suspects. Heck, you didn't even mention those other countries in your post even though they have been calling for the pullout just as long.

But UN resolution are worthless, as has been demonstrated and told so often.

So why quote this now?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The UN resolution calling for Syrian pullout of troops was passed in 2004 with strong US, French, Russian, and German support.

If anyone is jumping on a bandwagon, it's you and the usual anti-US suspects. Heck, you didn't even mention those other countries in your post even though they have been calling for the pullout just as long.

Calls for Syria to get out of Lebanon have been going on for much longer than that.

I suppose I shouldn't be pissy with Bush for just repeating what everyone has been saying for decades now. It's just this idea they're openly peddling that the fall of this government was due to the Iraq war that seems like "jumping on the bandwagon." There's no question they're trying to link this with the Iraq war, when doing so can only hurt the situation there.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BRussell:
... It's just this idea they're openly peddling that the fall of this government was due to the Iraq war that seems like "jumping on the bandwagon." There's no question they're trying to link this with the Iraq war, when doing so can only hurt the situation there.

The point with the Iraq (domino) thing is more along the lines that those living in some of these Middle Eastern states who want democratic reforms (or democratic-based government) instead of tyrannical dictatorships feel a bit more emboldened with the US presence in Iraq.

Surely you can see that. Let me think of an example (5 minutes later)... OK, this is the closest I can think of: If I'm being held against my will, and the police all of a sudden are nearby, I would likely be a bit more daring at that moment and scream for help.

I think that's the type of empowerment many of the anti-Syrian Lebanese have found with the US presence and media focus.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
The West(USA in particular) has been pushing for a removal of Syrian forces while ignoring the fact that the democratically elected government of Lebanon has wanted Syrian troops in Lebanon.

why would the lebanese (people/govt) want the syrian occupation to continue?

/don't know a lot about the situation

[Taliesin]

What most people don't know is that there is one small country in the region that really wants Syria to stay in Lebanon and that is Israel. Yes, Israel wants Syria to stay in Lebanon, since Israel wants some quiet in the north and Syria delivers that quiet by restraining the Hezbollah-militants, that Syria surely finances partly.

At least that's what Israel wanted the last ten years, maybe though Israel has developed a new strategy for the north now that US-forces are nearby.

Taliesin

[nath]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Many, if not most of the 'locals' you refer to are Syrians living in Lebanon. It would be like 100,000 Americans in Iraq protesting against Iran, and then saying "hundreds of thousands of 'local' Iraqis hit the streets in Baghdad in a mass protest against Iran".

This protest was organized and mandated by Hezbollah and Syria. Busloads and busloads of your so-called 'locals' were brought in from Syria for the rally. Armed Hezbollah militants were going through outlying villages and towns, door-to-door, with loudspeakers telling the people to get moving. As they approached Beiruit, they were handed signs written in English denouncing the US and Israel.

You have credible sources for all this?

[von Wrangell]

I recommend you guys watch this compilation of news from the Middle East. It shows how most think about this situation and also shows how our leaders in the West are completely engulfed in hypocrisy. Just watch Bush's comments and you'll understand.

http://linktv.org/mosaic/streamsArchive/


check the program for the 8th of March.

and the numbers for the demonstrations are up to 1.5 million people. Compare that to the tens of thousands that wanted Syria out.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by nath:
You have credible sources for all this?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43213

[F]ormer Lebanese Prime Minister Michel Aoun told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview this morning.

"Yesterday's huge protest calling for Syria to stay made it look to the world like a large segment of the Lebanese population actually wants to live under Syrian occupation," said Aoun, speaking to WND from Paris. "But the protest wasn't what it appeared to be. It was an elaborately staged affair."

"This was not a Lebanese showing, and many of those who actually were Lebanese were not there because they support Syria. We know that at least three Palestinian camps were present. And there are 700,000 Syrian workers inside Lebanon, many of whom are not even supposed to be there. They were urged by Syria to attend so it looks like many Lebanese are protesting. Plus Syria bused in their own citizens from Syria through the border into Lebanon to join the rally."

The former prime minister also accused Hezbollah and pro-Syrian Lebanese intelligence forces of coercing students and municipal workers to attend.

"They shut down the schools and all the government and public buildings and pressured students and workers to get to the rally," he said.

"In all, it was a real multinational rally," joked Aoun. "Even watching protestors being interviewed, you hear they had Palestinian and Syrian accents. This was not the Lebanese people expressing their will."

Aoun compared yesterday's rally to the opposition events held almost daily.

"Yesterday was not a spontaneous outpouring; it was planned and orchestrated," he said. "You see in the opposition rallies that they happen every day. People are going because they want to, and they are going regularly."

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43213

[F]ormer Lebanese Prime Minister Michel Aoun...

Interesting that you should pick a former associate of Saddam Hussein with a considerable axe-to-grind as a 'credible source'....


Meanwhile, it looks like Lebanon's outgoing, pro-Syrian prime minister is set to return to his post and form a new government owing to majority support within the Lebanese parliament.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4332117.stm

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Interesting that you should pick a former associate of Saddam Hussein with a considerable axe-to-grind as a 'credible source'....


Meanwhile, it looks like Lebanon's outgoing, pro-Syrian prime minister is set to return to his post and form a new government owing to majority support within the Lebanese parliament.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4332117.stm

Can I help it if you can't find an Arab leader untainted by terrorism or support for terrorism?

Leave it to you to discount any possibility that people who regularly show up in Lebanon might actually be genuinely interested in taking back their country from Syrian foreigners.

In fact the most ironic thing I've heard all day is this:
The Pro-Syrian rally had people holding signs written in English asking for the Syrians to stay and declaring a rejection of foreign interference. Apparently these signs were written without any sense of contradiction.

I'll repeat:
Protestors held signs, in English, reading "Thank you Syria'' and "No to foreign interference"

[nath]

Originally posted by nath:
You have credible sources for all this?

Originally posted by vmarks:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43213

easier just to say 'no', shurely?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
In fact the most ironic thing I've heard all day is this:
The Pro-Syrian rally had people holding signs written in English asking for the Syrians to stay and declaring a rejection of foreign interference. Apparently these signs were written without any sense of contradiction.

I'll repeat:
Protestors held signs, in English, reading "Thank you Syria'' and "No to foreign interference"

Crowds carrying Syrian flags and chanting "Syria and Lebanon are one" converged on the city's central Omayyad square.

Which explains why these protesters don't regard the Syrians to be foreigners. They're all Arabs. It's about time they realised that.

[lil'babykitten]

Re: Should Syria Pull Out of Lebanon?

Syria made it abundantly clear from the beginning - if the Lebanese government asks them to withdraw Syrian troops, they will do so. I don't believe the Lebanese government has actually requested they leave. You've got a minority in Lebanon and a majority in the international community who want them out. Since when did the minority opinion take precedence over the majority, and who really cares what the international community thinks? It's the Lebanese government's decision.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Can I help it if you can't find an Arab leader untainted by terrorism or support for terrorism?

Why worry? Hypocrisy has never been a problem for the West in the past - topple the 'psychopath' one day, support the 'progressive reformer' the next.

Leave it to you to discount any possibility that people who regularly show up in Lebanon might actually be genuinely interested in taking back their country from Syrian foreigners.

As far as I know, Aoun has been exiled in France for the past decade or so - he's hardly in a position to be talking about what the Lebanese populace wants and who organized and attended demonstrations in Beirut.

In fact the most ironic thing I've heard all day is this:
The Pro-Syrian rally had people holding signs written in English asking for the Syrians to stay and declaring a rejection of foreign interference. Apparently these signs were written without any sense of contradiction.

I'll repeat:
Protestors held signs, in English, reading "Thank you Syria'' and "No to foreign interference"

OMFG! The protesters were multi-lingual!!!

Such a shame that a demonstration in an Arab capital would be organized well enough to try and ensure maximum outreach for it's message.

Perhaps you think signs written in Arabic would have been more effective on Western audiences?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Which explains why these protesters don't regard the Syrians to be foreigners. They're all Arabs. It's about time they realised that.

By that logic, the Lebanese should be treating the Palestinians in their midst with equal rights. They're all Arabs, right?

But they don't.

And if your contention is right, then how can you explain the daily protests by people in Lebanon to remove the Syrian influence?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
By that logic, the Lebanese should be treating the Palestinians in their midst with equal rights. They're all Arabs, right? But they don't.

That's right, and it's due to the nature of Lebanon's political system, a patrimonial system - which pervades most of the Middle East and is a major source of its weakness. But that's a whole other topic.

Nevertheless, you have to start somewhere.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
What most people don't know is that there is one small country in the region that really wants Syria to stay in Lebanon and that is Israel. Yes, Israel wants Syria to stay in Lebanon, since Israel wants some quiet in the north and Syria delivers that quiet by restraining the Hezbollah-militants, that Syria surely finances partly.

At least that's what Israel wanted the last ten years, maybe though Israel has developed a new strategy for the north now that US-forces are nearby.

Taliesin

Syria's troop move in to Lebanon in 1976 was also sanctioned by both Israel and the US. Funny that.

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Which explains why these protesters don't regard the Syrians to be foreigners. They're all Arabs. It's about time they realised that.

That's a really telling statement. They all are Arabs, including your beloved fictitious Palestinian contingent, who are ethnically and culturally indistinguishable from Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese and the like. It's funny that you do not even realize just how ridiculous your pathetically idiotic signature makes you look. Where do you get that absolutely ludicrous figure from, anyway? I have a simple message for you and your kind: There is no such thing as a "Palestinian," and the pan-Arab/leftist dream of perpetrating a second Holocaust shall not come to pass. The faster Arabists and leftists wake up to that reality, the better off the world will be. Perhaps one day you'll wake up from your delusional coma.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
There is no such thing as a "Palestinian,"

Prove it.

[Big Mac]

There never was a kingdom or country of Palestine. There is no Palestinian language. The Palestinian identity was largely fostered by Arafat's PLO after the Arabs lost their war of "annihilation" against Israel in 1967. Palestinian as an Arab identity is a creation of the latter part of the 20th century. In fact, before Israel's independence, Britain gave Jewish immigrants identity cards with the designation "Palestinian." The Arabs claim that land is holy to them, but the Koran only makes a few oblique references to the holy land - and only in restating Biblical history of the Jewish people. The words Israel or Jerusalem are not found anywhere in the Koran. There never was an Arab nationalist movement to create an independent "Palestine" while the Turks had control of the area. The only reasons why Arabs desire the land is because the Jews are on it. The continued existence of the Jewish people - especially anywhere near Arab countries - is viewed as an insult to Islamic pride and a challenge to its thoroughly supersessionist doctrine. Through decades of aggression and terrorism, the Arab lobby has successfully foisted on much of the world the myth of Palestine. Look at what Arab leaders of yesteryear said on the subject:

"There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937

"Palestine was part of the Province of Syria... politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity."
- The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted this in a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
- Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, to the UN Security Council

"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian People, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people."
- Syrian President Hafez Assad to PLO leader Yassir Arafat.

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity.... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."
- Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head of the PLO and member of its Executive Council (Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977)

[zigzag]

Before 1776 or so, there was no U.S. of A. There is no American language. If I'm not mistaken, before the mid-20th Century there was no country or language per se of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, etc. Whether there is a Palestine or Palestinians strikes me as academic - to borrow a phrase from the gay lib movement: they're here, they're queer, and you've got to deal with it. The Palestinians need to deal with reality as well. All the talk about who is who and who was where before who and who has divine rights is basically just lung exercise.

[Big Mac]

The only motive for the promotion of the Palestinian myth is the desire to destroy the sole homeland of the Jewish people. The Arabs have twenty-two nation-states, and in total there are 52 Islamic countries. There is only one Jewish state, one comparatively miniscule plot of land for the self-determination of the Jewish people. And for much of the world, that is simply too much.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
The only motive for the promotion for the Palestinian myth is the desire to destroy the sole homeland of the Jewish people. The Arabs have twenty-two nation-states, and in total there are 52 Islamic countries. There is only one Jewish state.

Fine, but if they decide to call themselves Palestinians, for whatever reason, do you think you're going to solve anything by telling them that "There's no such thing as a Palestinian"? You might as well tell Brigham Young that there's no such thing as a Mormon, since they effectively invented themselves as well.

The amount of hot air that comes out of both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict puts the sun itself to shame.

[Big Mac]

I understand your point, zigzag, but I have every right to reject the term Palestinian as illegitimate. Are you next going to tell me that I should embrace the term Aryan? The Aryan identity is just as legitimate as the Palestinian identity.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
I understand your point, zigzag, but I have every right to reject the term Palestinian as illegitimate. Are you next going to tell me that I should embrace the term Aryan? The Aryan identity is just as legitimate as the Palestinian identity.

Yes, you have the right, and I have the right to say that Kenny G isn't real jazz. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to make much of an impression on Kenny G fans.

I'm interested in whatever works, not who calls themselves what. If the so-called Palestinians are out to eliminate the State of Israel, it doesn't much matter what they call themselves, they're going to do it anyway.

Sensible people need to come together and find a pragmatic solution. I do not assume that the so-called Palestinians have behaved better than the Israelis. I would simply like to see the extremists on both sides sit down and shut up.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
I understand your point, zigzag, but I have every right to reject the term Palestinian as illegitimate. Are you next going to tell me that I should embrace the term Aryan? The Aryan identity is just as legitimate as the Palestinian identity.

You have every right to deny reality.

"Aryan" becomes a national identity when people make the claim for it, just like any group can make a claim as a foundation for national identity. Some do that because of religion, geographical origins, or because they invaded a land that they'll rename and take over for themselves and deny/destroy any of the natives...

Being Aryan, by the way, is not a sin. Saying that one is better than everyone else because of it is racism.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
That's a really telling statement. They all are Arabs, including your beloved fictitious Palestinian contingent, who are ethnically and culturally indistinguishable from Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese and the like.

There doesn't have to be something truly palestinian, they were arabs, that were driven off of their lands and homes by european colonists, that's all that is necessary to know.

There is also nothing truly israeli, before Israel was founded, there was no Israel, except in the minds of people that think they are descendants of some people that lived once in an area called Israel some thousands of years ago. All the zionists are truly europeans and russians, with european and russian education, culture, languages, etc...

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Except of course for the Jews from Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Morroco, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, who came and helped establish Israel in its early days.

But get back to this nonsense about Israel and US supporting Syria's occupation of Lebanon? I can't find good evidence to back that up, so let's hear your theory on it?

And how do you answer the daily protests of Lebanese who truly want Syria to end their decades-long occupation of Lebanon?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:

But get back to this nonsense about Israel and US supporting Syria's occupation of Lebanon? I can't find good evidence to back that up, so let's hear your theory on it?

And how do you answer the daily protests of Lebanese who truly want Syria to end their decades-long occupation of Lebanon?

That was lil'babykitten that said that Israel and the US sanctioned the occupation by Syria. I have only said that Israel has had an obvious interest in Syria occupying Lebanon for the last ten years, and that maybe Israels strategic decision has changed with the presence of US-forces nearby.

Besides I'm not against Syria withdrawing troops, but I would like to see the withdrawal as part of a peace-agreement between Syria and Israel.

Taliesin

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
But get back to this nonsense about Israel and US supporting Syria's occupation of Lebanon? I can't find good evidence to back that up, so let's hear your theory on it?

At the time, Damascus was backing the US in its campaign against Saddam Hussein in Kuwait. So it was in the US's interests to keep cozy with Syria, thus they gave them the go ahead.

As for Israel, Rabin told a BBC journalist in an interview that he wanted the Syrians to come right down to the border so they'd be in control and thus be the ones accountable. It didn't happen but Israel was still in favour of the move.

Originally posted by vmarks:
And how do you answer the daily protests of Lebanese who truly want Syria to end their decades-long occupation of Lebanon?

Syria's involvement in Lebanese politics hasn't been clean, so over time the resentment has built up - particularly since their presence is no longer seen as necessary for Lebanon's stability, as was the case during the civil war. The protests have been stepped up because of Hariri's death - he was well known for his anti-Syrian stance.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
There is no such thing as a "Palestinian,"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
At the time, Damascus was backing the US in its campaign against Saddam Hussein in Kuwait. So it was in the US's interests to keep cozy with Syria, thus they gave them the go ahead.

Syrian troops have been in Lebanon since 1976. The Gulf War was in 1990-91.

[budster101]

I have given this the considerable deliberation and thought that the magnitude of the current status as to and hither to the two nation-states involved in this unfortunate controversy. I think that if I had two-hundred dollars in my left hand, I could deliniate a more perfunctory answer, and hither to gather a sumptrious resultant answer. Until then gentlemen, you remain highly suspect!

--

Answer: Yes, doze guyz, o'r by dare should pull-out forthwith, immediately if not sooner.

--

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Syrian troops have been in Lebanon since 1976. The Gulf War was in 1990-91.

I'm referring to the Syrian incursion in to Baabda in 1989-1990.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I'm referring to the Syrian incursion in to Baabda in 1989-1990.

You said that the US supported Syria because Syria was an ally of the US during the first Gulf War. That was late 1990 to early 1991.

I'm not great at math, but 1989 - 1990 is still before 1990 - 1991. Your theory doesn't hold up chronologically.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You said that the US supported Syria because Syria was an ally of the US during the first Gulf War. That was late 1990 to early 1991.

I'm not great at math, but 1989 - 1990 is still before 1990 - 1991. Your theory doesn't hold up chronologically.

It's really not that difficult to comprehend, Simey. Gulf War hostilities began in January 1991 - The US had to build up a coalition prior to invasion, just like they attempted to do before their latest expedition. Or are you suggesting that the US made a spontaneous decision to start a war, with no planning and no coalition building?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
It's really not that difficult to comprehend, Simey. Gulf War hostilities began in January 1991 - The US had to build up a coalition prior to invasion, just like they attempted to do before their latest expedition. Or are you suggesting that the US made a spontaneous decision to start a war, with no planning and no coalition building?

Maybe you are just too young to remember, but the invasion of Kuwait was a complete surprise to everyone, and it didn't happen until August 1990. The US rushed the 82nd Airborne in the following month, and the real build up began in November, 1990. Meanwhile, the US worked on building up its coalition, which by about late january, early February 1991 included traditional SOVIET allies like Syria. Remember, 1990, let alone 1989 was still during the Cold War. Soviet ally = not friend of the US. The Syrians weren't really on board until Gorbachev abstained in the UN on the use of force.

You are saying that an event almost two years before this all happened happened because of the future event. George Bush Sr. may have been pretty good at foreign policy, but he wasn't that good.

Nice try, but you failed to check your facts.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You are saying that an event almost two years before this all happened happened because of the future event. George Bush Sr. may have been pretty good at foreign policy, but he wasn't that good.

Actually, my recalling of the date's of the Syrian incursion (where I said 1989-1990) were slightly off - it was actually mid-October 1990. I don't think it's inconceivable to say that by that time Syria was on board with US plans to attack.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Actually, my recalling of the date's of the Syrian incursion (where I said 1989-1990) were slightly off - it was actually mid-October 1990. I don't think it's inconceivable to say that by that time Syria was on board with US plans to attack.

Maybe not inconcievable, but highly doubtful. You'd have to look at the precise dates but Syria did start moving troops to Saudi Arabia before it formally joined the coalition. From memory, both Generals Powell and General Pagonis wrote about it. The "alliance" with Syria was particularly strained. Essentially they (and also the Egyptians) were there for political reasons.

But that doesn't really make them allies. Syria was primarily a Soviet client, and although there was an east-west thaw in the air, you shouldn't forget that background. Syria was still pretty much hostile to the US. Don't forget their backing of groups like Hezbollah and the PLO, neither of whom are friends of the US. Don't forget also the US backing of Israel, no friend of Syria. It was a marriage of temporary convenience, no more.

It is possible I suppose that the Syrians took advantage of the fact that the world's attention was elsewhere when it took over the presidential palace. The world does tend to deal with one crisis at a time, and nations do take advantage of that. That doesn't mean the US (or anybody else) supported the occupation, which in any case began in 1976, long before the events you point to. Those events however symbolic to Lebanese, were minor. Syria was deeply in Lebanon long before October 13 1990.

If you have any evidence other than coincidence of timing, please present it, because as far as I can see, the US position never changed from when it voted in the UN to condemn the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, for example, in Resolution 520. There are a string of resolutions going back to 1978 calling for the Syrians to withdraw. That's actually fairly remarkable considering the fact that the Soviets were there in the UN with their veto. Andrei Gromyko (Mr. Nyet) wasn't scared to veto criticism of the Soviet Union's friends.

You are an international relations major, right? A tip I was told was to always write out a timeline of events before attempting to make an assertion about cause and effect. It is very easy with history to telescope and collapse events. It is also easy to assume that the political atmosphere from one time can be transplanted to another. The world pre-Gulf War was very different from the world after.

With respect to Lebanon, it is also important to remember that the US bowed out after Hezbollah blew up 240 Marines who were there as part of a multinational UN peacekeeping operation. The US withdrew and pretty much wrote Lebanon off (as did the other former members of the multinational force). It wasn't that anyone was supporting Syrian colonization of Lebanon, it was that there wasn't political support in the US (or anywhere else) to really give a damn what happened there. Most Americans probably took the position that we sent the Marines there to help, and they got slaughtered by way of thanks. So Lebanon got written off.

Also contributing to that attitude was the series of barbaric kidnappings in the 1980s. Those also lead to the worst political scandal of the Reagan Administration (which the Bush Administration inhereted). So to say the least, there wasn't much appetite for intervention in Lebanon. So no, there wasn't US support for Syria, but there was disinterest from the US, and support from the Soviet Union. The combination gave Syria a free hand, which I would say they took full advantage of.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
With respect to Lebanon, it is also important to remember that the US bowed out after Hezbollah blew up 240 Marines who were there as part of a multinational UN peacekeeping operation. The US withdrew and pretty much wrote Lebanon off. It wasn't that anyone was supporting Syrian colonization of Lebanon, it was that there wasn't political support in the US to really give a damn what happened there. Most Americans probably took the position that we sent the Marines there to help, and they got slaughtered by way of thanks. So Lebanon got written off.

Not saying Hezbollah haven't done some horrific things in the past I'm still wondering about this. Is there are evidence that Hezbollah was responsible for it? Because one of their signatures is to take responsibility for all their attacks. No matter how unpopular they were.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Not saying Hezbollah haven't done some horrific things in the past I'm still wondering about this. Is there are evidence that Hezbollah was responsible for it? Because one of their signatures is to take responsibility for all their attacks. No matter how unpopular they were.

I understand that the evidence points to them. It doesn't really alter the point I was making if it was another group. It was the fact of the bombing that lead to the US pulling out of Lebanon, not who did it.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I understand that the evidence points to them. It doesn't really alter the point I was making if it was another group. It was the fact of the bombing that lead to the US pulling out of Lebanon, not who did it.

True.

It just seems nowadays that people automatically assume Hezbollah did it while nothing has yet been established.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Except of course for the Jews from Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Morroco, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, who came and helped establish Israel in its early days.

Hmm, the arabic jews that weren't already living in Palestine came mostly after Israel was established by the european zionists. The european zionists wanted them to replace the arabic muslims they expelled from Palestine, in order to work as farmers, which the urbanized european jews weren't willing to do to the extent that was necessary.

Taliesin