It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush demands Syria quit Lebanon by May

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   
US President Bush has called on Syria to quit stalling and leave Lebanon by May, saying that this is a huge victory for democracy in the Middle East. He believes the move to topple authoritarian rule in Lebanon "is going to ring the doors of every Arab regime.", saying that progress is coming in "small but welcoming steps". He vowed that the United States will not rest until countries under authoritarian rule are freed and said he had no doubt that will happen saying democracy is terror's antidote.

 



toledoblade.com
WASHINGTON - Decades after Syria invaded Lebanon, President Bush has used his strongest language yet to demand that Syria pull its troops out, insisting that "freedom will prevail" in Lebanon and that democracy is coming to the Middle East in "small but welcome steps."
Sounding optimistic in a speech at the National Defense University at Fort McNair, Mr. Bush said he is encouraged by the signs of a "hopeful new direction" toward democracy across the Middle East. If the move to topple authoritarian rule is successful in Lebanon, he said, "It is going to ring the doors of every Arab regime."

Authoritarian rule, he said, "is the last gasp of a discredited past."




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It is strange the way Bush talks about the uprise in Lebanon, indicating a sense of victory for him personally over there, with his War on Terror responsible. It seems he sees this as a vindication and a victory, but the US has had little to no involvement to what has gone on in Lebanon.

Is he trying to blur the lines of what's gone on with the WOT and exploited the situation in Lebanon for his own political gain, or is he right that the war in Iraq has had a knock on effect in the rest of the region? Is this a victory for the War on Terror? Opportunitism or not?

Related News Links:
www.metronews.ca
news.independent.co.uk
www.azcentral.com


[edit on 9-3-2005 by Banshee]




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   


Is he trying to blur the lines of what's gone on with the WOT and exploited the situation in Lebanon for his own political gain, or is he right that the war in Iraq has had a knock on effect in the rest of the region? Is this a victory for the War on Terror? Opportunitism or not?


"Opportunism"?
Hardly.
Since Iraq and the democratic styled elections were successfully held:
* Libya has exposed and dismantled its nuclear program.
* Palestinians have democratically voted a replacement for Arafat.
* Palestine and Israel have ceased hostilities and are currently still at a truce/ceasefire.
* Saudi Arabia is 'toying' with democratic styled elections.
* Egypt is allowing 'stacked' democratic styled elections.
* Lebanon has demanded the withdrawal of Syrian occupying forces.
* Lebanon will be holding democratic elections in April.

No....I would simply call it the "Bush Effect", Maybe. Maybe not.
Nonetheless, democracy, in its various forms, limited or not, is refreshing and encouraging coming from the Middle East region, no?








seekerof



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Ha, Bush is taking the victory for what? For what we have known already that perhaps US had something to do with what happend in Syria.

But people in their “democracy” euphoria has forgotten that Lebanon will become officially own and rule by Hezbollah, they are the ones with the victory.

So what is Israel and the US going to do with Lebanon now and with the Hezbollah majority Shiite party.

Yeah, I guess the “shows of Freedom” takes away the fact that Israel and Hezbollah have been at each other for a while.

I wonder what in the world is the accomplishment here, taking Syria out of Lebanon and Lebanon will still be a terrorist state to Israel.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   
You can't underestimate how much the impact of just seeing Iraqis vote on television had on the Arab street, no matter how biased the coverage of Al Jazeera or state owned media. I think Seekerof's political cartoon says it all.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Your attempts are futile, at best...


as posted by Marg
I wonder what in the world is the accomplishment here, taking Syria out of Lebanon and Lebanon will still be a terrorist state to Israel.


Research is a wonderful tool, Marg.
If one had been paying attention, one will notice that there have been posts made on this and Lebanon is not seeking anything with Israel, other than pease and an end to the ceaseless cycle of violence that has been ongoing in that region for ohhhhhhhhhhh, quite some time!?
The problem is Hezbollah in Lebanon, not Lebanon, k?

And for Bush taking "credit". Hardly, but if he does, more "credit" to him, cause if it hadn't have been for him going into Iraq "UNJUSTIFIED" according to those who think and feel like you, chances are slim that what is currently taking place in the region, wouldn't be taking place at all!.

Hello?!





seekerof



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
djohnsto77,

Yes it was very hart warming and I am not going to denied that, Irag does have good people that wants change.

But reality strikes, you know Iraq was a mess after invasion and is still a biggest mess after election, and the good people are dying.

Afghanistan democratic elections did looked good on TV also, but guess what is not control beyond the borders of their main cities, and is turning into a drug state.

Yes elections does look good on TV.


[edit on 9-3-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   


Regard the following:




Beirut's Berlin Wall

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, February 23, 2005; Page A19



The leader of this Lebanese intifada is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. But something snapped for Jumblatt last year, when the Syrians overruled the Lebanese constitution and forced the reelection of their front man in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud. The old slogans about Arab nationalism turned to ashes in Jumblatt's mouth, and he and Hariri openly began to defy Damascus.

I dined Monday night with Jumblatt in his mountain fortress in Moukhtara, southeast of Beirut. He moved there for safety last weekend because of worries that he would be the next target of whoever killed Hariri. We sat under a portrait of Jumblatt's father, Kamal, who was assassinated in 1976 after he opposed the initial entry of Syrian troops into Lebanon. With me was Jamil Mroue, a Lebanese Shiite journalist whose own father was assassinated by Arab radicals in the 1960s. It was an evening when the ghosts of the past mingled with hopes for the future.

Jumblatt dresses like an ex-hippie, in jeans and loafers, but he maintains the exquisite manners of a Lebanese aristocrat. Over the years, I've often heard him denouncing the United States and Israel, but these days, in the aftermath of Hariri's death, he's sounding almost like a neoconservative. He says he's determined to defy the Syrians until their troops leave Lebanon and the Lahoud government is replaced.

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

www.washingtonpost.com...






Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine

History has begun to speak, and it says that America made the right decision to invade Iraq

Charles Krauthammer


Jon Stewart, the sage of Comedy Central, is one of the few to be honest about it. "What if Bush ... has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may ... implode." Daniel Schorr, another critic of the Bush foreign policy, ventured, a bit more grudgingly, that Bush "may have had it right."

Right on what? That America, using power harnessed to democratic ideals, could begin a transformation of the Arab world from endless tyranny and intolerance to decent governance and democratization. Two years ago, shortly before the invasion of Iraq, I argued in these pages that forcefully deposing Saddam Hussein was, more than anything, about America "coming ashore" to effect a "pan-Arab reformation"--a dangerous, "risky and, yes, arrogant" but necessary attempt to change the very culture of the Middle East, to open its doors to democracy and modernity.

The Administration went ahead with this great project knowing it would be hostage to history. History has begun to speak. Elections in Afghanistan, a historic first. Elections in Iraq, a historic first. Free Palestinian elections producing a moderate leadership, two historic firsts. Municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, men only, but still a first. In Egypt, demonstrations for democracy--unheard of in decades--prompting the dictator to announce free contested presidential elections, a historic first.

And now, of course, the most romantic flowering of the spirit America went into the region to foster: the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, in which unarmed civilians, Christian and Muslim alike, brought down the puppet government installed by Syria. There is even the beginning of a breeze in Damascus. More than 140 Syrian intellectuals have signed a public statement defying their government by opposing its occupation of Lebanon.

To what do we attribute this Arab spring? While American (and European) liberal and "realist" critics are seeking some explanation, those a bit closer to the scene don't flinch from the obvious. "It is strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt explained to David Ignatius of the Washington Post. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

www.time.com...






When Good News Feels Bad

After Iraq’s vote, New York liberals are in a serious moral-ideological-emotional bind. And the only way out is to root for Bush’s victory.

By Kurt Andersen


After the blizzard and before the fashion shows, you may have heard, the elections in Iraq went off extremely well. Remember? Or, like most New Yorkers, perhaps you let that fact slide from your consciousness as quickly as possible . . . Hey, speaking of Fashion Week, what is it with this renaissance in corseting?

Seriously: The success of the elections poses a major intellectual-moral-political problem for people in this city. The cognitive dissonance is palpable.

New Yorkers think we are smarter than other Americans, that the richness and difficulty of life here give our intelligence a kind of hard-won depth and nuance and sensitivity to contradictions and ambiguity. We feel we are practically French. Most New Yorkers are also liberals. And most liberals, wherever they live, believe that they are smarter than most conservatives (particularly George W. Bush).

And finally, most liberals and New Yorkers suspect that we may be too smart for our own good. It is a form of self-flattery as self-criticism. During these past few years, I have heard it said again and again that liberals’ ineffectiveness derives from their inability to see the world in the simple blacks and whites of the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Bushes. (Why else, the argument goes, did John Kerry lose?)

Maybe. But now our heroic and tragic liberal-intellectual capaciousness is facing its sharpest test since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Back then, most of us were forced, against our wills, to give Ronald Reagan a large share of credit for winning the Cold War. Now the people of this Bush-hating city are being forced to grant the merest possibility that Bush, despite his annoying manner and his administration’s awful hubris and dissembling and incompetence concerning Iraq, just might—might, possibly—have been correct to invade, to occupy, and to try to enable a democratically elected government in Iraq.

newyorkmetro.com...



It's not just Bush taking credit for the changes in the Arab world, it's a lot of other people too, including the Arab world itself.

A little background on Walid Jumblatt.

www.frontpagemagazine.com...


[edit on 05/3/9 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Yes Grady the Arab world is going to turn Christian, democratic, Israel loving.

And Mohamed will be exposed for the false prophet that he is and the Christ will rule, the holy land will be conquered.

Yes bush will become a Marty and will be canonized.

And the media propaganda will have it all in the pages of their magazines and in the TV news.

Way to go Grady.
Nice articles.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
O_o
Oyyyyy, Marg, good thing that you said that an not one of us 'neocons' or 'Bu#es' cause the wind would really have blown then, eh?


What I do believe though is that you are in error in your sarcasm enriched mentions:
Intentions are not to make the Arab Islamic believing world a Christian believing people.
Never fear, Marg, Israel will be continue to be viewed as the thorn in Islam's side. Hatred is a terrible thing, but it will endure, in this case concerning Israel.
Muhammad will continue to be the spiritual leader of Islam.
Being that Bush is not a practicing Catholic or even accepted as one, he will not be "canonized."
And the media propaganda seems to be working perfectly well for your side, huh? They definately aren't nor have been for backing Bush.


Next?




seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join