Political Crossfire Forums

[Timmytour]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6174102.stm

Quote: Last Updated: Wednesday, 22 November 2006, 18:09 GMT

Bush pledges to stand by Lebanon

Lebanon is holding three days of mourning for Mr Gemayel
US President George W Bush has pledged to support Lebanon's independence from what he called the "encroachments of Iran and Syria", a US official said.
Mr Bush's promise came in a call to Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, following Tuesday's murder of leading anti-Syrian politician Pierre Gemayel.

Many people in Lebanon blame Syria but Damascus has denied any involvement and condemned the assassination.

Crowds have gathered in Mr Gemayel's village for his funeral on Thursday.

Mr Gemayel, Lebanon's industry minister, was shot in broad daylight in his car in a Christian area of Beirut.

He was the fifth anti-Syrian Lebanese politician to be killed in the past two years, and his murder happened at a time of acute political crisis in Lebanon.


In his telephone call to Mr Siniora, Mr Bush reiterated the "unwavering commitment of the United States to help build Lebanese democracy and to support Lebanese independence from the encroachments of Iran and Syria," an official at the White House said.

Mr Bush has not specifically blamed Iran or Syria for Mr Gemayel's murder but he has called for a full investigation to identify "those people and those forces" behind the killing.

How good of Bush to "support Lebanese independence from the encroachments of Iran and Syria"...

Happens though that the most encroaching done in recent times was by Israel! No mention of protection from that source of encroaching though...

This pledge of Bush´s sounds strangely familiar :think:

Ahh yes...it takes me back to when.........

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060418-2.html

Quote: PRESIDENT BUSH: It's been my honor to welcome the Prime Minister of Lebanon to the Oval Office. Prime Minister, thanks for coming.

PRIME MINISTER SINIORA: Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, we just had a really interesting discussion. I told the Prime Minister that the United States strongly supports a free and independent and sovereign Lebanon

Not to the extent that it would stint on its support of Israel violating that sovereignty though hey.......less than two months later :shock:

I wonder if this is some kind of obscure clearance for Israel to have another go with Us blessing in a couple of months time :wink:

The Department of State is still saying the same thing that it said prior to Israel´s invasion...

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35833.htm

Quote: The United States seeks to maintain its traditionally close ties with Lebanon, and to help preserve its independence, sovereignty, national unity, and territorial integrity

:roll:

[Tono]

Timmytour wrote:
How good of Bush to "support Lebanese independence from the encroachments of Iran and Syria"...

Happens though that the most encroaching done in recent times was by Israel!

You nailed it.

[mendosan]

Quote: Happens though that the most encroaching done in recent times was by Israel!

Well there was a revolution which led to the withdrawal of Syrian Occupation, in case you forgot have a Link

Should probably also be noted that Hezzbolah are pro-Syrian so is Amal the other main Shi'ite party.

Perhaps the US should let Syria reoccupy Lebanon, then let Amal and Hezbollah create an Islamic state ignoring the people that took to the streets for greater freedom?

[Mr.Bill]

This whole problem would go away if the UN, and Lebanese Army, and the world community would do their jobs and dis-arm Hezbollah.

5 anti-Syrian Lebanese government officials killed in the past 2 years, but somehow, someway Israel will be blamed for that too.

[Vexillum]

Timmytour wrote: How good of Bush to "support Lebanese independence from the encroachments of Iran and Syria"...

Happens though that the most encroaching done in recent times was by Israel!

Well, what do you expect from Psychopath 'n' President, Mr. Bush?

[sLiPpY]

:think: If I were Lebanon and Bush offered to support me?...I'd run like hell.

[CountryGuy]

Vexillum wrote: Timmytour wrote: How good of Bush to "support Lebanese independence from the encroachments of Iran and Syria"...

Happens though that the most encroaching done in recent times was by Israel!

Well, what do you expect from Psychopath 'n' President, Mr. Bush?

What a BS set of answers, no offense. Can people stop whining about Bush in general ever, and actually look at specific issues critically?

Would you prefer the US did NOT give vocalize support for Lebanon -- Note I'm not asking you what you WANT us to do, but whether or not this specific action (stating support for Lebanon) is GOOD or BAD.

If (when?) Bush screws up in Lebanon, or backs out of this statement, THEN say something. Otherwise, you all sound like a bunch of old hags crowing about the local gossip.

[Vexillum]

CountryGuy wrote: Would you prefer the US did NOT give vocalize support for Lebanon -- Note I'm not asking you what you WANT us to do, but whether or not this specific action (stating support for Lebanon) is GOOD or BAD.

We are way past the point where anyone of credibility could think that Bush has any interest in the welfare of Lebanon, or for any descendant of Abraham on Ishmael's side, or for the significant portion of Lebanese who are Christians.

Any aid given to Lebanon by the Bush administration will be designed to get Lebanon to decrease its ability to resist hostile Israeli action as well as to further bash Syria.

[Timmytour]

mendosan wrote: Quote: Happens though that the most encroaching done in recent times was by Israel!

Well there was a revolution which led to the withdrawal of Syrian Occupation, in case you forgot have a Link

Should probably also be noted that Hezzbolah are pro-Syrian so is Amal the other main Shi'ite party.

Perhaps the US should let Syria reoccupy Lebanon, then let Amal and Hezbollah create an Islamic state ignoring the people that took to the streets for greater freedom?

I find the tone of your response very strange. It's almost as if you are assuming that I am not aware of the history of Lebanon and that I think Bush shouldn't be protecting Lebanon against Syria :shock:

I'm really baffled by that logical process and would like it explained to me.

Let me put my thoughts another way.

It's great that Bush is offering to protect Lebanon's sovereignty against Iran and Syria, but why on earth doesn't he offer to protect it against Israel as well? After all, it was Israel who in the last year or so who have violated their sovereignty the most.

It's a bit like offering Poland protection only against Germany invading it , and not talking about what would happen if Russia decided to move against it.

[mendosan]

Timmytour wrote: mendosan wrote: Quote: Happens though that the most encroaching done in recent times was by Israel!

Well there was a revolution which led to the withdrawal of Syrian Occupation, in case you forgot have a Link

Should probably also be noted that Hezzbolah are pro-Syrian so is Amal the other main Shi'ite party.

Perhaps the US should let Syria reoccupy Lebanon, then let Amal and Hezbollah create an Islamic state ignoring the people that took to the streets for greater freedom?

I find the tone of your response very strange. It's almost as if you are assuming that I am not aware of the history of Lebanon and that I think Bush shouldn't be protecting Lebanon against Syria :shock:

I'm really baffled by that logical process and would like it explained to me.

Let me put my thoughts another way.

It's great that Bush is offering to protect Lebanon's sovereignty against Iran and Syria, but why on earth doesn't he offer to protect it against Israel as well? After all, it was Israel who in the last year or so who have violated their sovereignty the most.

It's a bit like offering Poland protection only against Germany invading it , and not talking about what would happen if Russia decided to move against it.

Dude, Hezbollah is a threat to the non-Muslims the Sunni and the Druze, if you want to protect Lebanon you need to get rid of them, using Israel if necessary to do your dirty work.

[Nico]

mendosan wrote:
Dude, Hezbollah is a threat to the non-Muslims the Sunni and the Druze, if you want to protect Lebanon you need to get rid of them, using Israel if necessary to do your dirty work.



It's been tried. Turns out that Israel is not the country you want saving you from a nationasl annoyance. Somewhat like hitting your head with a hammer is not how you get rid of a headache.

[Timmytour]

mendosan wrote: Timmytour wrote: mendosan wrote: Quote: Happens though that the most encroaching done in recent times was by Israel!

Well there was a revolution which led to the withdrawal of Syrian Occupation, in case you forgot have a Link

Should probably also be noted that Hezzbolah are pro-Syrian so is Amal the other main Shi'ite party.

Perhaps the US should let Syria reoccupy Lebanon, then let Amal and Hezbollah create an Islamic state ignoring the people that took to the streets for greater freedom?

I find the tone of your response very strange. It's almost as if you are assuming that I am not aware of the history of Lebanon and that I think Bush shouldn't be protecting Lebanon against Syria :shock:

I'm really baffled by that logical process and would like it explained to me.

Let me put my thoughts another way.

It's great that Bush is offering to protect Lebanon's sovereignty against Iran and Syria, but why on earth doesn't he offer to protect it against Israel as well? After all, it was Israel who in the last year or so who have violated their sovereignty the most.

It's a bit like offering Poland protection only against Germany invading it , and not talking about what would happen if Russia decided to move against it.

Dude, Hezbollah is a threat to the non-Muslims the Sunni and the Druze, if you want to protect Lebanon you need to get rid of them, using Israel if necessary to do your dirty work.

Lebanon's a democracy isn't it

Why not let them decide?

Or is democracy not in favour any more?

[Lumina]

Tell foreigners, particularly Syrians, to stop meddling. Then, I am quite confident that the Lebanese can figure out what they want for themselves.

[Timmytour]

Lumina wrote: Tell foreigners, particularly Syrians, to stop meddling. Then, I am quite confident that the Lebanese can figure out what they want for themselves.

Are you including Israelis in your definition of foreigners

Just curious :wink:

If foreigners were meddling in the US do you think Americans would not be able to recognise it and vote out those responsible for collaborating them?

Or would they need people from south lower Lichenstein to tell the foreigners to stop meddling first, before true democracy could prevail?

[Lumina]

Timmytour wrote: Lumina wrote: Tell foreigners, particularly Syrians, to stop meddling. Then, I am quite confident that the Lebanese can figure out what they want for themselves.

Are you including Israelis in your definition of foreigners

Just curious :wink:

If foreigners were meddling in the US do you think Americans would not be able to recognise it and vote out those responsible for collaborating them?

Or would they need people from south lower Lichenstein to tell the foreigners to stop meddling first, before true democracy could prevail?

I'm not going to define "foreigners" for you; it's self-explanatory.

And my opinion is that of my friends in Beirut who have said, for the nearly 20 years I've known them, that Lebanon's great trouble is the foreigners' meddling.

[sLiPpY]

Lumina wrote: Tell foreigners, particularly Syrians, to stop meddling. Then, I am quite confident that the Lebanese can figure out what they want for themselves.

Would you also advocate a non-meddling policy for one US Gov?

[Tono]

sLiPpY wrote: Would you also advocate a non-meddling policy for one US Gov?

Would providing the bombs Israel used to blow up Lebanon be considered meddling? Because if so, and I were Lebanon, I'd definately want the US gov to stop meddling. Fo sho.

[mendosan]

Timmytour wrote: mendosan wrote: Timmytour wrote: mendosan wrote: Quote: Happens though that the most encroaching done in recent times was by Israel!

Well there was a revolution which led to the withdrawal of Syrian Occupation, in case you forgot have a Link

Should probably also be noted that Hezzbolah are pro-Syrian so is Amal the other main Shi'ite party.

Perhaps the US should let Syria reoccupy Lebanon, then let Amal and Hezbollah create an Islamic state ignoring the people that took to the streets for greater freedom?

I find the tone of your response very strange. It's almost as if you are assuming that I am not aware of the history of Lebanon and that I think Bush shouldn't be protecting Lebanon against Syria :shock:

I'm really baffled by that logical process and would like it explained to me.

Let me put my thoughts another way.

It's great that Bush is offering to protect Lebanon's sovereignty against Iran and Syria, but why on earth doesn't he offer to protect it against Israel as well? After all, it was Israel who in the last year or so who have violated their sovereignty the most.

It's a bit like offering Poland protection only against Germany invading it , and not talking about what would happen if Russia decided to move against it.

Dude, Hezbollah is a threat to the non-Muslims the Sunni and the Druze, if you want to protect Lebanon you need to get rid of them, using Israel if necessary to do your dirty work.

Lebanon's a democracy isn't it

Why not let them decide?

Or is democracy not in favour any more?

Who called for a democracy not Hezbollah, why are they armed to the teeth, why did they support and still support Syrian control of Lebanon, Lebanon is about to tear itself apart again and you want to make cheap points about Israel and US involvement.

You need to think what does greater Hezbollah control of Lebanon mean for the region, it means civil war in Lebanon, foreign funding of factions and massacres.

[Vexillum]

mendosan wrote: Who called for a democracy not Hezbollah, why are they armed to the teeth, why did they support and still support Syrian control of Lebanon, Lebanon is about to tear itself apart again and you want to make cheap points about Israel and US involvement.

You need to think what does greater Hezbollah control of Lebanon mean for the region, it means civil war in Lebanon, foreign funding of factions and massacres.

So, that's what you call it when people poke holes in your arguments. "Cheap." :lol:

If they Lebanese don't like Hezbollah, they can vote them out of office and pressure their government to disarm Hezbollah. But, many Lebanese consider Hezbollah a necessary defensive force against Israeli aggression.

It is outside meddling that contributes to the possibility of civil war in Lebanon. And, if they want to have a civil war, what business of yours is that?

[Timmytour]

mendosan wrote: [
Who called for a democracy not Hezbollah, why are they armed to the teeth, why did they support and still support Syrian control of Lebanon, Lebanon is about to tear itself apart again and you want to make cheap points about Israel and US involvement.

I think your questions might be better directed at those people who voted in a government that included Hezbollah... :roll:

That is, if you think democracy is of any importance...