Lebanon's Pro-Syrian Gov't Resigns

[DrMaddVibe]

Perhaps, but if it was up to some here on this board...we'd STILL be talking about a 52nd, 53rd or a 54th resolution to use armed force against Iraq for failure to comply.


When does Saddam and stalling become part of the libs opinion change? If he didn't have them then why act coy? Why fuck with UNSCOM? Why not throw open the doors to anybody and everybody and state that the information was flawed and here's the people in my administration that headed up the agencies you want to investigate?

I suppose it's just easier to bash away at America for acting in it's leadership role, but some will drone that it's just THIS President we have a problem with! Get over yourselves! There have been Presidents from both sides of the aisle that didn't want to go toe-toe with Saddam because of the political ramifications. Bush did and won! If Clinton claimed he had a mandate, then Bush most certainly has one for ponying up and going "all in" for something.

Anyone that calls him stupid is a real moron for not knowing the difference.

There are dreamers and then there are those that get things done.

I'd love to hear about all of the personal accomplishments that the loudest opponents to our President have that makes them the authority on the topics they rant about.

I'm willing to go on record that most haven't even served in the military, been overseas, owned their own company, hired or fired anyone, risked everything for what they believed in, but yet because someone clashes with their personal beliefs...whoa...troops are dying, we're killing reporters and other bullshit designed to feign away from what really is happening in that region.

FREEDOM.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

I'm willing to go on record that most (of the President's critics) haven't even served in the military, been overseas, owned their own company, hired or fired anyone, risked everything for what they believed in, but yet because someone clashes with their personal beliefs...whoa...troops are dying, we're killing reporters and other bullshit designed to feign away from what really is happening in that region.

FREEDOM.

They also weren't born with a large, silver spoon up their ass! And Bush didn't serve in the military either! No the real military anyway. Although Kerry did!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
When does Saddam and stalling become part of the libs opinion change? If he didn't have them then why act coy? Why fuck with UNSCOM? Why not throw open the doors to anybody and everybody and state that the information was flawed and here's the people in my administration that headed up the agencies you want to investigate?

I have the simple and in my mind 100% accurate reason for this. He was bluffing. He has some nasty neighbors and he wanted them to be afraid. I can't blame him one bit. US is across the world. Iran is right next door.

to answer the rest of your rant gw&friends definitely contributed to this insurgency by going to war with the army they had and made some serious strategic blunders.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
They also weren't born with a large, silver spoon up their ass! And Bush didn't serve in the military either! No the real military anyway. Although Kerry did!

Kerry served less than you!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Kerry served less than you!

But he killed more people. So he has a higher body count.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I have the simple and in my mind 100% accurate reason for this. He was bluffing. He has some nasty neighbors and he wanted them to be afraid. I can't blame him one bit. US is across the world. Iran is right next door.

to answer the rest of your rant gw&friends definitely contributed to this insurgency by going to war with the army they had and made some serious strategic blunders.

Oh bullshit. The root cause of this insurgency is terrorists, pure and simple. It's not Iraqis getting mad at US occupation or any of these other bullshit excuses. It's Zarqawi's men just trying to stir shit up to cause unrest in the area. They don't want the US to succeed because their ass is grass if they do.

I'm tired of this 'we're responsible for the terrorists bombing our asses over there' bit. Gets old real quick.

I suppose you think we were responsible for 9/11 too, right?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Oh bullshit. The root cause of this insurgency is terrorists, pure and simple.
I'm tired of this 'we're responsible for the terrorists bombing our asses over there' bit. Gets old real quick.

I suppose you think we were responsible for 9/11 too, right?

I said "contributed to" not "was the root cause of"

"Terrorists"? In general? Just blowing shit up for the fun of it?

What I said was not bullshit. You didn't even argue against what I said, so... I'm still waiting for you to make a valid point.



"We" weren't responsible for 9-11?

I was responsible because I didn't protest enough or vote enough. Because I drive a car a lot. Because I enjoy cheap prices for food and raw materials that make the products I buy.

We fucked a lot of those people over for a long time and I don't blame them for hitting back.

Fuck them, I want to win and I don't care how many of them dead it takes to do it (although the more we kill them the stronger they get). But one way to win is to get our boot off their fucking neck.

Although in Syria's case, things are progressing. It ain't black and white War-ham.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But he killed more people. So he has a higher body count.

I'd say you have a higher IQ.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I have the simple and in my mind 100% accurate reason for this. He was bluffing. He has some nasty neighbors and he wanted them to be afraid. I can't blame him one bit. US is across the world. Iran is right next door.

to answer the rest of your rant gw&friends definitely contributed to this insurgency by going to war with the army they had and made some serious strategic blunders.

I don't buy that for a minute. If Iran or Syria or any other nation dogpiled on Iraq for opening their doors and complying with UN resolutions we would've been the 1st ones on the ground with them defending their nation!

Saddam knew what he was doing. It didn't work. He was counting on France and Germany as well as the Soviet republics to stall or put off us acting on UN and national interests.

The intelligence was flawed like it had been for past Presidents that stood up to the Saddam regime, but this one dared to put boots on his turf. That's the difference.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
I don't buy that for a minute. If Iran or Syria or any other nation dogpiled on Iraq for opening their doors and complying with UN resolutions we would've been the 1st ones on the ground with them defending their nation!

I disagree with that assessment. We always love to see other countries do our dirty work. I think it was all bluffing. The motive and the means where there.

Saddam knew what he was doing. It didn't work. He was counting on France and Germany as well as the Soviet republics to stall or put off us acting on UN and national interests.

You're right about that.

The intelligence was flawed like it had been for past Presidents that stood up to the Saddam regime, but this one dared to put boots on his turf. That's the difference.

You're right about that too. But I argue that the plan was fundamentaly flawed. That what I'm pissed about. People talk about how quickly we rolled Saddam. No shit we'd roll Saddam. That's the easy part, you know? They said they'd burn the ground under us and they weren't kidding. We should have planned for that in order to minimize it, but we didn't. Because of Rumsfeld's arrogance and incompence. That's my view anyway.

[DrMaddVibe]

KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia -- It was a scene the Arab world's autocratic regimes have dreaded - and through the power of satellite TV, it could catch on as fast as the latest hit music video: Peaceful, enormous crowds carrying flags and flowers bringing down a government.

What happened in Lebanon this week, analysts say, is the beginning of a new era in the Middle East, one in which popular demand pushes the momentum for democracy and people's will can no longer be disregarded.

Story Continues Below

Television stations broadcast Beirut's protests live into homes, coffee shops and clubs across the Middle East, with the dramatic images of Lebanese youths wearing red-and-white scarves and waving the country's red, white and green flag as they handed out roses Monday to troops who had been ordered to block them. The coverage, lasting all day with hardly a break on some stations, culminated with the Syrian-backed government's resignation.

Inevitably, it raised the question among many spectators: What about here?

"I wish this could happen in Yemen," Ahmed Murtada, an unemployed Yemeni, said in San'a. "But here, tanks would prevail."

Anas Khashoggi, a 46-year-old management consultant in the Saudi city of Jiddah, said he followed Monday's events from beginning to end. "I wanted ... to see how the government reacts to the will of the people," he said.

Was he disappointed? "Not at all," he said.

The scenes from Lebanon come as Saudis are having their first - albeit small - taste of democracy. In the second round of the country's first nationwide elections ever, Saudi men go to the polls Thursday in the kingdom's east and south to choose municipal councils. The monarchy has been promising reform, but going slowly.

Newspapers in Saudi Arabia and Egypt - authoritarian nations where the state heavily influences the press - did not shy away from showing the protests.

"The Lebanese street joins the opposition," read the banner headline across the front page of the Saudi daily Okaz, along with photos of the Lebanese protest tents and a banner in Arabic reading, "We want the truth."

In Syria, however, the state-controlled media was largely silent. It reported on the resignation of Prime Minister Omar Karami but did not mention - much less show pictures - of the protests. State TV aired none of the dramatic footage the few Syrians with satellite dishes could see with a flick of the channel.

Syria has kept a firm hand on its small reform movement. But it had a rare instance of civil violence last year, when riots in March between Kurds and police spread to parts of northeastern Syria and killed at least 25 people in unrest sparked by a soccer brawl but fueled by Kurdish resentment.

"What happened in Lebanon conforms with our hopes for every Arab country," said Michel Kilo, a Syrian intellectual. "It was a rehearsal for a peaceful popular movement that unfolded right before our eyes."

The protests in Lebanon - triggered by the assassination of the popular former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14 - come on the heels of a string of democratic steps in the Arab world, including elections in Iraq and by the Palestinians, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's promise to allow multi-candidate presidential elections.

But the forcing out of Lebanon's government sets a very different precedent in a region where freedom of speech is muzzled, human rights activists are jailed and sons either succeed or are being groomed to succeed their fathers.

"For the first time in the history of the Arab world, a country's policy has come face-to-face with the will of the people who went down to the street and said: 'We don't want you,"' said Dalal al-Bizri, a Cairo-based Lebanese sociologist.

"The minimum feeling among Arab masses now will be: 'Are the Lebanese better than us?"' she said.

Many may be wary of where the people spirit takes Lebanon. If the protests drag the country into civil war or prompt a fierce Syrian response, as some critics have warned, bloodshed could scare off others.

Also, Lebanon's uniqueness in the region could lessen the events' impact. Its 3.5-million people belong to 17 sects, with large Christian and Shiite communities. Its press is the freest in the Middle East. Its issues are with external domination from Syria, not a domestic government, and the protests resulted from the explosive trigger of Hariri's murder.

Still, with television making people power visible to all, "it's a phenomenon that will catch on the way music video clips have caught on," said al-Bizri.

It may not spread quickly, however. Sherine Bilal, a 19-year-old Egyptian student, was wary of the limits imposed in her country, where protests are usually restricted to university campuses.

"Here, if we try to demonstrate, we can only do it inside these walls," Bilal said from at the American University in Cairo. "Even then, it's only about certain things."

But Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi talk show host on Dubai TV, had a warning for Arab governments, pointing to Ukraine's Orange Revolution: "Either they embrace the orange, or they will find themselves slipping on the peels of bananas."

© 2005 The Associated Press