Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Beirut: Syrian Puppet Government Resigns
Naharnet is reporting that "Premier Omar Karami announced his resignation under fire from Parliament over his government's failure to prevent ex-Premier Hariri's assassination."
"I declare the resignation of the government that I had the honor to head. May God preserve Lebanon," Karami said according to wire reports.
Democracy "is now coming to our region," Druze leader Walid Jumblatt told Lebanese who were gathering Sunday for today's dramatic protests. "There is no going back."
[Note: This post has been updated.]
|2.28.05 @ 12:48PM|#
And what should we expect from a Lebanon run by the likes of
Jumblatt?
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16367
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP64904
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP46603
gaius marius|2.28.05 @ 1:04PM|#
q: why is everyone in the west quoting this asshole?
a: because he is telling the deluded what they wish to hear.
|2.28.05 @ 2:21PM|#
Just because you have an election doesn't mean you have a democracy because afterall these people might elect someone we dont' like. They are just animals in the middle east and they need to guided and kept down. We need get Saddam back in power in Iraq and the Taliban back in power in Afghanistan and do something to pay off the Mullahs in Iran and make sure that those towell heads there don't get upidy and demand things like an election or some say in how their government works. As far as the strong men in charge, if we just grovell and debase ourselves enough and pay enough tribute, they will leave us alone and we can get back to important things over here like legalizing drugs getting federal subsidies for Burning Man this year.
|2.28.05 @ 2:41PM|#
Doug,
Of course I thrilled. I hope this movement actually goes somewhere.
Syrian Intelligence really shot themselves in the foot this time.
This has been a long time coming.
What, I wonder, makes you see a particularly joe-esque gloss to
this? Is there an urban design angle I'm missing?
|2.28.05 @ 2:45PM|#
When people in Lebanon demand the end of occupation, their
ultimate inspiration is the occupation of Iraq. If the United
States hadn't invaded Iraq, none of the liberal movements anywhere
else in the world would have any momentum. Everyone concerned about
what sort of government that would likely replace Musharraf or
Fahd/Abdullah is a racist.
...See, I can make a straw man too! And, quite frankly, I think my
strawmen are much less original than his. The truly talented always
get ignored by the Academy...I tell ya!
|2.28.05 @ 2:47PM|#
The truly talented always get ignored by the Academy...I
tell ya!
Ken, your tits aren't big enough.
|2.28.05 @ 2:50PM|#
I'm curious - when did the people who wanted to demonstrate the inferiority of backwards Arab culture by visiting on the Middle East a humiliating, sanguinary military catastrophe develop such a...LIBERAL concern about anti-Arab racism?
|2.28.05 @ 2:52PM|#
Ken Shultz,
I think there ultimate inspiration was the growing economic
downturn Lebanon has witnessed since the late 1990s; that has lead
to the string of street protests that have happened since 2000; the
most recent being over the Harriri murder.
|2.28.05 @ 3:05PM|#
What, I wonder, makes you see a particularly joe-esque gloss
to this? Is there an urban design angle I'm missing?
I think it's carbombs in an area not zoned for it..... :)
|2.28.05 @ 3:18PM|#
"I think there ultimate inspiration was the growing economic
downturn Lebanon has witnessed since the late 1990s; that has lead
to the string of street protests that have happened since 2000; the
most recent being over the Harriri murder."
I think you're right about that Gary. Of course, ultimately, when
the people of Lebanon demand an end to the occupation, their
ultimate inspiration is a desire for the Syrians to end the
occupation.
|2.28.05 @ 3:18PM|#
joe, that is the second funniest thing you've ever posted
here.
The funniest was the bit about the Baptist minister and his family
running in hamster wheels connected to a generator in your
basement.
|2.28.05 @ 4:32PM|#
I think Hit & Run should create a "Good News For Neo-Cons"
post...I get a feeling you're gonna need it, 'cause the pace of
change is so accelerated in the 21st Century, and this sort of
thing is gonna be rolling in almost daily.
Joe, Ken, thoreau and Gary can work out an automatic joint
response:
A.) We didn't forsee this, but...anyone coulda seen it comin',
'cause it must have been due to happen, anyway and...
B.) ...it COULDN'T be Iraq ('cause Mama says, no profit comes of
mischief!) and...
C.) it probably isn't a good thing, anyway and...
D.)...if it IS a good thing, the credit has got to go to the EU,
the UN or Clinton - anybody but the Administration.
Have I got it right?
|2.28.05 @ 4:41PM|#
I dunno, I've got three or comments on the thread - do ANY of them approximate ANY of your points?
|2.28.05 @ 4:42PM|#
Andrew, for the record I think that the resignation of a Syrian
stooge is a very good thing, and I will be very happy if more good
things continue to happen in Lebanon.
Is there anything else you would like me to say?
Prior to this post, I did the following in this thread:
1) Criticized John for his use of strawmen
2) Mocked myself for my previous uses of strawmen
3) Responded to one of Ken's jokes about the Academy Awards
4) Gave joe props for a joke about zoning
|2.28.05 @ 4:43PM|#
In all fairness, joe wants to make the points that Andrew has accused him of, but his computer is running low on power because the Baptist Minister on the hamster wheel just took a break.
|2.28.05 @ 4:43PM|#
I think it's pretty clear that the events and Lebanon and Egypt
are the consequence of Bush's efforts to cultivate closer
relationships with European countries these past weeks.
I mean, one thing happened, then the other happened, and you can't
argue with that.
|2.28.05 @ 4:56PM|#
By the way, I'd like to point out that it's absurd to put Joe,
Ken, Thoreau and Gary in the same bucket.
I'm comin' from an old school Republican, ultra-pragmatic
perspective. My idea of a smart, America first, foreign policy
looks like what Shultz, Kirkpatrick and other pragmatists did in
the 80's under Reagan and Bush the Elder.
Both Joe and Gunnels, mind you, have lambasted this era of foreign
policy pragmatism. I won't speak for them, but my guess is that
they probably don't appreciate being forced into a category with
old school Republicans like me.
As for Thoreau, I don't know where he fits on the spectrum. I'm not
sure he's married to any particular flavor of foreign policy--he
just seems like a free thinker to me, but, once again, I'll let
Thoreau speak for himself.
P.S. Please don't call me a paleo-con. When I see a list of
paleo-cons, anti-immigration folks and, especially, anti-free
traders typically dominate the list. The list typically includes a
few people who are known to bash our traditional allies too. None
of that describes me.
...Besides, the term "paleo-con" seems to presume that the whole
world is a reaction to neoconservatism--it isn't, you know.
|2.28.05 @ 5:03PM|#
I don't think what I wrote is a straw man at all. you either support elections and view people having a say in their government as a good thing or you don't. The people on this thread who opposed the war in Iraq and discount these developments have a pretty low view of the people of the middle-east's ability to govern themselves. As these stories unfold, there is always an "and but" from these people. "Yes there has been an election but the wrong people won and its therefore not a good thing and not really a democracy or anything positive." That just another way of saying that these people are not really worthy of having a democracy. Its interesting, you people claim to be libertarians but you will defend and support any two bit, oppressive thug in the world that will keep things quiet so you don't have to extend one drop of blood or dollar of tax money for anyone's liberty but you own. In that sense what I wrote is not a strawman but the ugly truth.
|2.28.05 @ 5:14PM|#
John --
It may be worth remembering that the US originally supported the
Syrian army entering Lebanon because the alternative was civil war
and nothing to restrain Hizbulah. If that situation returns, it
will be hard to say things have improved.
|2.28.05 @ 5:25PM|#
If you beleive the Syrians are going to do anything to restrain terrorism, I have a bridge to sell you. Reagan's cowardice in Lebanon in 1983 is the biggest black mark against his foreign policy. They killed 300 marines and we did nothing about it but turn tail and run and turn the country over to the Syrians. If we had actually gone in and kicked the hell out of Hizbulah then, perhaps we wouldn't have been viewed as so weak by Islamist radicals before 9-11.
|2.28.05 @ 5:30PM|#
Andrew,
It is not clear to me that the public reaction we're seeing in
Lebanon is a reaction to our efforts in Iraq. Even if this is a
reaction to our efforts in Iraq, is the galvanization of liberal
movements in Lebanon sufficient justification for killing thousands
of Iraqi civilians and sacrificing hundreds of American lives?
Answer in the affirmative, and I'll remind you that the
Administration never asked the people of the United States this
question.
Until the 9/11 Commission Report came out, a majority of
Americans believed that Iraq was complacent in 9/11. That is to
say, I believe that the people of the United States are still
coming to terms with the realization that the Iraq War was not a
war of self-defense.
That having been said, do I welcome peaceful progress in the people
of Lebanon's struggle for freedom? Of course I do! But the
mechanism by which Reverse Domino Theory works continues to elude
me, and I will continue to resist people spinning every positive
development in the Middle East as further evidence that bombing,
invading and occupying a nation like Iraq somehow boosts liberal
movements in third party countries.
...and, even if our efforts in Iraq are shown to boost liberal
movements in third party nations, I'll continue to deny that this
is a proper use of American troops.
|2.28.05 @ 5:33PM|#
John, let's look back at your original post to see if you used
any strawmen. But before we do that, let's review the definition of
the word "strawman."
from
Merriam-Webster.com:
Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary)
set up only to be easily confuted
2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable
transaction
Just because you have an election doesn't mean you have a
democracy
That much is true. The first election is a very important step, but
the most important step is when an incumbent loses an election or
runs up against term limits. FWIW, my reading of US history is that
the 2 most important elections in US history were 1796 (when
Washington voluntarily stepped down) and 1800 (when Adams handed
over power to Jefferson, a bitter rival, after losing in a fairly
clean election). Only in 1800 did the US really earn the title
"healthy democracy". (And yes, I know, it's actually a republic,
not a democracy, but I'm just using the word that John used for
convenience.)
So far you've characterized my stance reasonably.
because afterall these people might elect someone we dont'
like
I've never said that the election of somebody that I don't like
would mean that Iraq isn't a democracy. That's our first example of
"imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to
be easily confuted".
They are just animals in the middle east and they need to
guided and kept down.
I've never said anything remotely like that.
We need get Saddam back in power in Iraq
I never said that. There's a difference between wanting somebody to
stay in power and not wanting to spend the blood and treasure to
remove him. If you can't see the difference, I don't know what to
say.
and the Taliban back in power in Afghanistan
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and I wish we hadn't
diverted resources away from tracking down the remaining Taliban
fighters.
and do something to pay off the Mullahs in Iran
I've suggested bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, even though I
oppose a full-scale invasion and overthrow of the Iranian
gov't.
and make sure that those towell heads there don't get upidy and
demand things like an election or some say in how their government
works.
I've never opposed that.
As far as the strong men in charge, if we just grovell and
debase ourselves enough and pay enough tribute, they will leave us
alone
Well, with regard to one of the strong men currently in charge,
I've suggested ending our subsidy to Egypt.
we can get back to important things over here like legalizing
drugs
Given how much street crime and corruption of law enforcement is
driven by prohibition, I'd say that drug legalization is
very important. So at least you've accurately
characterized my stance on that issue.
getting federal subsidies for Burning Man this year.
I would oppose such subsidies.
Let's see, you only said 2 accurate things about my stances. I'd
say you used strawmen.
|2.28.05 @ 5:39PM|#
Word, Ken. If the question had been framed like this
mainly (I realise it was posed very weakly), then
at least there could have been dialogue about that potential reason
for going to war. I'm with you that it still would not have made me
support the war.
For instance, the military is having a hard time over in Iraq. I
saw the recent Frontline that showed a few months in the field with
a certain platoon over there, and the language barrier, the
logistics of fighting in a place where people are trying to live
their lives, not to mention a place where it's nearly impossible to
discern friend from foe, makes it seem like a daunting task for us.
Why no one realised this at the beginning eludes me. Yes, it's
great that there were actual elections, but it's far from over in
Iraq. I personally believe that countries like Lebannon and Iran
will eventually throw off their oppressive rulers without our help
and without pre-emptive strikes, a thing which still bothers me
greatly.
Ok, enough rambling - too much caffine.
|2.28.05 @ 5:47PM|#
Reagan's cowardice in Lebanon in 1983 is the biggest black
mark against his foreign policy.
I never knew that there were people who think Reagan was too much
of a softy.
You learn something new every day.
|2.28.05 @ 5:54PM|#
"Reagan's cowardice in Lebanon in 1983 is the biggest black
mark against his foreign policy. They killed 300 marines and we did
nothing about it but turn tail and run and turn the country over to
the Syrians. If we had actually gone in and kicked the hell out of
Hizbulah then, perhaps we wouldn't have been viewed as so weak by
Islamist radicals before 9-11."
You're projecting cowardice onto President Reagan. It's hard to go
back in time and see things the way people saw them then, but I'll
remind you that Reagan had bigger fish to fry in 1983.
Having said that, I agree that Syria is a state sponsor of
terrorism, and you're absolutely right about Syria supporting
Hezbollah, elements of which murdered hundreds of American Marines.
I might have supported an invasion of Syria as a part of
the War on Terror.
In regards to the suggestion that 9/11 may not have happened if we
had invaded Lebanon in response to the murders in 1983, I disagree.
We had a long history of tepid responses to terror including our
responses to the more immediate bombing of the Cole and the whole
episode in Somalia.
...Reagan's response to Libya's sponsorship of terrorism was more
effective, was it not?
Tim Cavanaugh|2.28.05 @ 6:16PM|#
John and Ted,
Hizbollah did not exist in 1976, when the Syrians entered Lebanon
(at the invitation of the nearly defeated Christians and with, as
Ted notes, the approval of the Ford Administration). Nor did
Hizbollah exist in 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon; in fact, the
Shi'ites of South Lebanon largely welcomed that invasion initially,
as it cleared the PLO out of the area. Nor did Hizbollah exist in
1983, when the U.S. Marines were dispatched to Lebanon to oversee
the evacuation of the PLO. And while the bomber of the Marine
barracks may well have come from one of the Shi'ite factions which
later coalesced into Hizbollah, Hizbollah did not exist at that
time either. Hizbollah does not even have the distinction of being
the first Shi'ite militia; that was Amal. In evacuating the Marines
from Lebanon, Reagan was not turning the country over to the
Syrians; at the time, Israel occupied the entire country up to and
including Beirut, and the Syrians were in severe disarray. (Do you
people know anything about this stuff?)
These are all facts. Now for some interpretation: The idea that
President Reagan showed cowardice and emboldened Islamists by
leaving Lebanon is a fantasy in which the neocons and Osama bin
Laden have both found it convenient to believe. This was an
insignificant country of no strategic interest to the United
States. The American military had punished the countryside of
Lebanon through naval shelling that nobody maintains had any
strategic value. The American mission in Lebanon had from the start
been a limited operation with strictly defined goals and a minimal
commitment. The only known American client in Lebanon had been
assassinated months before, and there was no perceivable solution
to the country's woes. (In fact, looking back from more than twenty
years' distance, it's still not clear what might have solved the
Lebanese situation in 1984.) The Marines had just lost 241 people
in a matter of seconds, most likely (if we assume they were
Shi'ites) at the hands of people whose existence the U.S. had been
barely aware of before entering Lebanon. There was absolutely no
national will to remain in a country diseased in countless ways,
with no plan of action, no local allies, and no credible hope for
pacifying the place. Reagan did the right thing in cutting his
losses. To pretend that there is a straight line from Beirut to
9/11 is to ignore nearly two decades of history that include the
end of the Afghan war, the downfall of the USSR, the first Gulf
War, etc.
|2.28.05 @ 6:20PM|#
joe,
That was funny I have to admit. :)
Ken Shultz,
I am pretty much in favor of very limited military engagements
worldwide and expanding free trade.
John,
I think its you who has a dim view of the Lebanese actually. After
all, its the hawks who are always arguing that the Lebanese can't
act without some external catalyst, namely the U.S. invasion of
Iraq.
Indeed, if you actually read my comments on the situation in
Lebanon, its pretty clear that I am stating that the actions there
are the result of the actions of the Lebanese. But you probably
can't be bothered with the whole reading bit.
If you beleive the Syrians are going to do anything to restrain
terrorism, I have a bridge to sell you.
Supporting Syria was the position of the Bush administration
through the start of 2003. Indeed, while the Lebanese were
protesting in the streets in 2000, 2001, 2002 and into 2003 the
U.S. ignored their efforts. For all the boastfulness of the U.S.
efforts in Lebanon, just like in Poland in the 1980s, the U.S. is
the late-comer to the game trying to claim all the success for
themselves when in fact the success is based on the efforts of
others.
|2.28.05 @ 6:29PM|#
It's hard to go back in time and see things the way people
saw them then, but I'll remind you that Reagan had bigger fish to
fry in 1983.
...it's hard to go back in time and see things the way people saw
them then, but Cavanaugh can do it with ease.
Thanks Tim.
|2.28.05 @ 8:19PM|#
Tim:
I bet a dollar that many of those Syrian withdrawal entusiasts from
Lebanon had no problem with the Israeli occupation of Lebanon or
the atrocities they committed there.
I just wanted to add a word about the Taif agreement which ended
the Lebanese civil war. It has specifics about the Syrian military
presence in Lebanon many of the bushites do not want you to
know.
From the agreement:
"the Syrian forces shall
thankfully assist the forces of the legitimate Lebanese government
to
spread the authority of the State of Lebanon within a set period of
no
more than 2 years, beginning with ratification of the national
accord
charter, election of the president of the republic, formation of
the
national accord cabinet, and approval of the political
reforms
constitutionally. At the end of this period, the two governments
--
the Syrian Government and the Lebanese National Accord Government
--
shall decide to redeploy the Syrian forces in Al-Biq'a area from
Dahr
al-Baydar to the Hammana-al-Mudayrij-'Ayn Darah line, and if
necessary,
at other points to be determined by a joint Lebanese-Syrian
military
committee."
Full Text http://www.meij.or.jp/text/PeaceProcess/taif.htm.
|2.28.05 @ 8:22PM|#
"that many of those Syrian withdrawal entusiasts from
Lebanon"
should be "that many of those Syrian withdrawal enthusiats here
.."
|2.28.05 @ 9:45PM|#
Tim --
I should have been more specific - I was referring to the
post-civil war era in Lebanon, and my understanding of that is
this: "In 1989, the civil war was brought to an end under Syrian
sponsorship by the National Reconciliation Accord, commonly known
as the Taif Accord, which provided for an even distribution of
seats between Christians and Muslims, divided the three top
political positions among Maronites, Sunnis and Shi'ites, and cast
Syria as the guarantor of the Lebanese political system. The first
postwar election in 1992 was held under the Taif system, as have
the subsequent elections of 1996 and 2000." (Taken from here:
http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/ which a colleague of mine from Egypt
who does Mideast politics took a quick look at and said it looked
accurate to him, but perhaps it's bad information nonetheless). So
that was what I knew, or thought I knew, and what I was trying to
refer to, though possibly not clearly; after the civil war ended,
the Syrians stayed, and part of why the US wanted them to do that
is that unlike the Lebanese government they were actually stronger
than Hizbulah and could control them. And Hizbulah clearly did
exist in 1989. I may misunderstand what's going on here, but I'm
not just pulling stuff out of the air, so there's no need to be
unpleasant. I suppose one test of whether they were needed to
control Hizbulah will come after they leave, although obviously the
situation was different fifteen years ago.
Also, contrary to what you say above, there are a number of
websites that claim that Hizbulah was founded in 1982 by Sheik
Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah; but I'm no expert in this matter and
perhaps you are.
Tim Cavanaugh|2.28.05 @ 10:24PM|#
Gotcha, Ted. By the way, there's considerable dispute over whether Fadlallah is in fact the "spiritual leader" of Hizbollah. Michael Young, for one, always dings people when they refer to him this way. 1984-85 is generally seen as the birthday of Hizbollah, although it's not set in stone. There was a period, beginning in 1982, when Shi'ite militants first started appearing in force, and nobody knew what to call them. A Hizbollah member told me in an interview that they didn't exist in 1983, although this was in the context of of denying involvement in the barracks bombing, so take it with a grain of salt. In any event, if you go back and read newspaper coverage from the period of the Marine deployment, you'll see that Hizbollah was not on anybody's radar screen: It was all about "Christians vs. Muslims," "Druze strongholds in the mountains," "Phalangists," etc.-terms that now seem almost nostalgic.
|2.28.05 @ 10:58PM|#
Aw thoreau!
I wuz bein' SARCASTIC...whazzmatta, can't you take a joke?
I feel like my post was the seed-chrystal that caused the solution
to set - NOW you.re all making the Four Points, right?
joe...I am trying to picture Lebanon shaking off the Syrian yoke,
or Egypt experimenting with multi-party democrqacy IF a.) President
Gore is enlisting Mubarak's and Baby Assad's help in "keeping
Saddam contained" or b.) President Kerry is enlisting the same
rogues to "stabilize" Iraq while we follow a rapid withdrawl from
Iraq...and my mind just won't run to it.
How about you, joe? Do you picture effective international pressure
on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. if we were say...trying to
"replace" Americans with Egyptian and Syrian troops- that make
sense to you joe?
Tim, I suppose the principal reason neo-cons, and other naifs,
think Reagan's abrupt departure from Beirut had a lot to do with
bin-Ladin and his movement's assessment of American resolve, is
because he says so...a lot. He talks about it all the time, along
with Mogadishu - he almost never talks about America's
under-reaction to Cole and Kenya...although, I'm sure that didn't
help.
|3.1.05 @ 12:52AM|#
Andrew,
It would be helpful if you could use standard English. Thanks.
:)
I am trying to picture Lebanon shaking off the Syrian yoke, or
Egypt experimenting with multi-party democrqacy IF ... President
Kerry is enlisting the same rogues to "stabilize" Iraq while we
follow a rapid withdrawl from Iraq...and my mind just won't run to
it.
That's or course exactly what the Bush administration was doing re:
Syria until quite recently. Post-9/11 Bush administration policy
was to stop needling Syria about Lebanon. Oh how quickly you
forget.
And its easy to imagine Lebanon doing this entirely on its own.
Again, because there have been protests in the streets, articles in
the papers, etc. about Syria's occupation since at least 2000.
Syria is the catalyst for the most recent reaction; not the U.S.
Not murder of Harriri, no march to protest his death. Why is the
chronology of these events so hard for you to bend your mind
around?
Do you picture effective international pressure on Syria to
withdraw from Lebanon.
Well, "international pressure" isn't causing the events on the
ground in Syria; the Lebanese are causing those events on the
ground. Why you so blithely discount the efforts of the Lebanese I
cannot say; but its quite insulting to the years of effort they put
in so far into gaining their freedom.
|3.1.05 @ 12:54AM|#
Andrew,
I do expect you to avoid my statements, BTW. I know that they are
hard for a TBer like you to take. :)
|3.1.05 @ 12:56AM|#
BTW, I now see that neo-conservatives are now claiming that events in the Ukraine are all about Bush. *shakes head in incredulity*
|3.1.05 @ 1:13AM|#
John:
They killed 300 marines and we did nothing about it but turn
tail and run and turn the country over to the Syrians.
To Tim Cavanaugh's response, I would only add that our government
shouldn't have had troops there in the first place.
|3.1.05 @ 1:35AM|#
Andrew:
I suppose the principal reason neo-cons, and other naifs, think
Reagan's abrupt departure from Beirut had a lot to do with
bin-Ladin and his movement's assessment of American resolve, is
because he says so.
The important point is that we were targeted by bin-Laden's gang
because of our government's Mid-east interventions, especially for
our government's financing the Israeli government's occupation.
Note that the findings of the 9/11 commission reveal:
"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong
disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final
report of the Sept. 11 commission."
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm
The neocons prevailed with their interventionist ways and disaster
befell us.
|3.1.05 @ 1:51AM|#
Ok, everyone keeps on tossing around this 300 number and stating
that they were all U.S. Marines; this is incorrect. This is what
actually happened.
Early in the morning of October 23 one truck struck the Marine
barracks at the Beirut International Airport and another attacked
the French military barracks some kilometers away. The first of
these attacks left 241 Marines dead; while the latter left 56
French soldiers dead. The total dead that day came to 297. Note
that there were approximately 800 Marines in Lebanon and another
800 French Marines.
Postscript: The following March (I believe) the U.S. embassy in
Lebanon was attacked in the same manner (the dead ranged in the
60s). And in December 1984 the American and French embassies in
Kuwait were also attacked by trucks armed with explosives and
driven by suicide bombs. A couple of other truck bombings followed
this at U.S. installations in the middle east after this. Are we
just stupid or what?
phoenix|3.1.05 @ 3:22AM|#
Syria is the catalyst for the most recent reaction; not the
U.S. Not murder of Harriri, no march to protest his
death
This is surely true, Gary.
Lebanese people have been reeling from Syria's military occupation
since 29 years now.As it is known,Lebanon is very different from
Syria in terms of its openness to Western culture and norms . This
is what Syria's minority rulers cannot tolerate. They are one-party
rulers;the infamous Baath party. They fear that the Lebanese
political situation in terms of freedom and democratic values would
be contagious and would spread to their own country. They are
trying to subdue and tame the Lebanese society by killing its
strong independent leaders.
Facts:
1) Kamal Joumblatt had been killed for opposing the Syrian
army.
2) The president Bashir Gemayel had been assassinated 20 days after
being elected in 1982.
3) Mufti Hassan Khaled, a moderated sunnite religious leader was
killed too.
4) Rene Mouawad, another president elect, was killed in a car
explosion very similar to Hariri's.
Hariri's death galvanized the country because, unlike the other
instances which happened during the civil war, he was liked by
various portions of Lebanese: Christians, Muslims and Druze.
Reagan's cowardice in Lebanon in 1983 is the biggest black mark
against his foreign policy. They killed 300 marines and we did
nothing about it but turn tail and run and turn the country over to
the Syrians
A large portion of Lebanese saw it this way too.
After this hasty departure of the Marines, the Iranians and Syrians
took a hard grip on the country. The first arming Hizbollah and
extending its influence to the Middle East, the second, controlling
Lebanese political and business lives.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing (turning blind eye) happened
again when the U.S. gave the green light for Syrian troops to enter
by force the Christian regions in 1990, which incidentally happened
the same time as the U.S. freed Kuwait of Saddam's army.
Things are different now after 9/11, the U.S. willing to foresee
things for the longer terms and to embrace freedom movements in the
world. Let's hope this time it will be fruitful for the Lebanese
cause for freedom.
|3.1.05 @ 4:04AM|#
gee GG
So...the demonstrations of this past week have nothing to do with
the assassination of Hariri? You're right - I DON"T know how to
respond to a "point" like that.
I am waiting for you and joe to concoct the grand Theory of
Theories: where the downfall of Saddam has nothing to do with the
Bush administration...all those American troops milling around
Baghdad were a mere coincidence to the dissolution of the Iraqi
tyranny.
Demonstrations("articles in the paper, etc.") in 2002-2003 are
followed by Syria illegally extends the term of the puppet
President.
Demonstrations in 2005 bring down the government...in a week. Silly
me - to think this had anything to do with elections in Iraq.
|3.1.05 @ 5:00AM|#
Still waiting for joe on how many revolutions - "velvet", or
otherwise - he expected to see, if the President of the world's
most powerful nation had been a NOT-COWBOY trying to be friends
with every crap-artist who was a leader of state.
Always amusing to see Ken learning from gaius that the
international order in March 2003 was the Best Of All Possible
Worlds...and all the departures since are unpleasantly scary.
God, it's rich to see you guys make fools of your selves!
Gary Gunnels|3.1.05 @ 5:14AM|#
Andrew,
So...the demonstrations of this past week have nothing to do
with the assassination of Hariri?
"Not murder..." should read "No murder..." Of course the fact that
you chose to ignore my earlier, clearer statement is telling. This
is one of your typical obfuscating tactics. And note that you
undermine the whole "USA is the reason" argument by admitting that
it was Harrari's death at the heart of the most recent protests.
You can't have it both ways.
I am waiting for you and joe to concoct the grand Theory of
Theories: where the downfall of Saddam has nothing to do with the
Bush administration...
And I am waiting for you stop building strawmen. Do quit being such
a prat.
Demonstrations("articles in the paper, etc.") in 2002-2003 are
followed by Syria illegally extends the term of the puppet
President.
Get the dates right prat; 2000-2005. You're so dishonest you'll
even fudge the dates.
Demonstrations in 2005 bring down the government.
These demonstrations were part of a long-standing protest and not
isolated incidents. Of course, that was the whole point of my
argument to begin with. That you blithely ignored it and then tried
to portray my argument as if it created some sort of chasm between
2003 and 2005 is just further evidence of your intellectual
dishonesty.
Gary Gunnels|3.1.05 @ 5:20AM|#
Andrew,
Now, if you could give us something more than a claim of causality
based on chronology I'd be interested in seeing it. But any
understanding of Lebanese politics must acknowledge that the events
of today are not predicated on the invasion of Iraq but the
frustration with the regime dating back to the initial protests of
2000.
That you choose to treat the Lebanese as helpless slugs instead of
as agents of change in their society isn't very endearing, BTW.
Neo-conservatives always characterize those doubtful of the Iraqi
war as "racists" and the like, but it appears that the real
"racists" are people like you who cannot fathom a world where
people do not work via the signals of U.S. foreign policy.
|3.1.05 @ 5:55AM|#
Ted:
I'm acquainted with The Head Heeb from a USENET group we both
participate in. He is one sharp guy, and very knowledgeable.
Kevin
Gary Gunnels|3.1.05 @ 6:01AM|#
Tim Cavanaugh,
Its interesting how we can get so wedded to terminology that it
gets in the way of rational analysis.
|3.1.05 @ 9:48AM|#
Has it occured to you, Andrew, that the Lebanese people might be
capable of generating their own polical activities without the
Great White Fathers in Washington putting them up to it?
However, I'm glad to see so many rightists coming around to the
importance of democratic governance in the developing world. We
certainly are a long way from the days when you were cheerleading
for coups against the presidents of Haiti and Venezuela.
|3.1.05 @ 9:54AM|#
"I am waiting for you and joe to concoct the grand Theory of
Theories: where the downfall of Saddam has nothing to do with the
Bush administration"
You're going to be waiting a long time, then. Are there American
troops milling around Beirut? No? Those are Lebanese people? That
can't be right; people in the middle east can't possibly act of
their own volition. There must be some AEI interns hiding under
chadors and telling everyone what to do.
|3.1.05 @ 12:24PM|#
"Always amusing to see Ken learning from gaius that the
international order in March 2003 was the Best Of All Possible
Worlds...and all the departures since are unpleasantly
scary."
I wish I knew what you were talking about.
Tim Cavanaugh|3.1.05 @ 5:20PM|#
"Tim, I suppose the principal reason neo-cons, and other naifs,
think Reagan's abrupt departure from Beirut had a lot to do with
bin-Ladin and his movement's assessment of American resolve, is
because he says so...a lot. He talks about it all the time, along
with Mogadishu"
Which is probably why I said
The idea that President Reagan showed cowardice and emboldened
Islamists by leaving Lebanon is a fantasy in which the neocons and
Osama bin Laden have both found it convenient to
believe.
It's really a puzzler that a sworn enemy who has declared war on
the United States would choose to keep talking about the only two
recent cases where U.S. troops were defeated in the field.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245