US Wants Syria out of Lebanon

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2004-09-04 11:02pm

Axis Kast wrote:Most former colonial powers do that to some degree or another, owing to the large immigrant populations from and former economic ties with former territories.

Naturally. I was just speculating that was more of the reason than to bac the US. Though it would be nice for everyone to reconcile in the future.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-09-05 12:10am

Axis Kast wrote:
Vehicles which offer zero evidence of anything.
And yet whose passage was cited by both David Kay and Charles Duelfer as being of key interest in the search for weapons of mass destruction and related information. As I said before, we have plenty of reason to want to turn the screws on Syria.

Right. Keep clutching at those straws, tiger-boy.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-05 10:13am

Right. Keep clutching at those straws, tiger-boy.

You deny that the passage of unknown vehicles, unchecked, across the Syrian border is a reason the U.S. government is putting pressure on Damascus?

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-09-05 07:15pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Right. Keep clutching at those straws, tiger-boy.
You deny that the passage of unknown vehicles, unchecked, across the Syrian border is a reason the U.S. government is putting pressure on Damascus?

What does this have to do with the US demanding Syria back out of Lebanon- unless you think they are using it to build a case for war?

Besides, Lebanon is a power vaccuum because of its divided government- I guarantee you that even if the Syrians backed out, they would slowly seep back over the years.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-09-05 10:11pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Right. Keep clutching at those straws, tiger-boy.
You deny that the passage of unknown vehicles, unchecked, across the Syrian border is a reason the U.S. government is putting pressure on Damascus?

Sigh...:

U.S. drafts U.N. resolution to force Syria out of Lebanese presidential politics

By Edith M. Lederer
ASSOCIATED PRESS

6:41 p.m. August 31, 2004

UNITED NATIONS – The United States is calling for the immediate withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, according to a a draft resolution circulated in the U.N. Security Council late Tuesday.

The new measure also offers support for elections under the current Lebanese constitution, which would rule out a second term for pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud.

The United States decided to press for a resolution – with the support of France, Lebanon's former colonial ruler – after what many saw as a Syrian-engineered move to change the constitution to extend Lahoud's term.

The resolution calls on the council "to consider additional measures," which are not specified, if the Syrians and Lebanese don't comply.

Lebanon accused the United States and France Tuesday of trying to "blackmail" it and Syria, and create trouble between Beirut and Damascus.

U.S. deputy ambassador Anne Patterson said the United States wants the Security Council to vote on the draft resolution "hopefully by Wednesday or Thursday." But the draft is almost certain to face opposition from Algeria, the only Arab nation on the council, and probably from Russia and China, which traditionally oppose council interference in a country's internal affairs.

In Washington, the Bush administration sharply criticized Syria for meddling in Lebanon's politics, and a senior U.S. diplomat was likely to go to Damascus for high-level talks.

But Lebanese Foreign Minister Jean Obeid said Lebanese-Syrian relations are a matter for both countries to decide. He said Lebanon "completely separates between dealing with our internal affairs and international attempts at blackmail with the aim of fomenting a dispute between us and our brothers (in Syria)."

Syria's involvement in Lebanon dates back to 1976, when it sent its troops to Lebanon to help quell a year-old civil war that raged on for another 14 years. The West tolerated its control and even credited Syria with securing stability.

But since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Western nations have been calling for democracy to take hold in the Arab world as a way to fight extremism – and President Bush's administration has repeatedly accused Syria of sponsoring terrorism.

The draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, calls for "the strict respect of Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence."

It "demands that Syrian forces withdraw without delay from Lebanon" and declares the Security Council's "support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon's upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence."

The Lebanese Cabinet last week approved an amendment to the constitution to allow Lahoud to stay in power three more years.

Parliament, instead of voting for a new president for the next six years, will have to vote on an extension to Lahoud's term, which expires Nov. 24. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called late Tuesday for a meeting of the 128-member legislature on Friday to amend the constitution to extend Lahoud's term.

The draft resolution asks Secretary-General Kofi Annan to report on implementation within 30 days. It was not drafted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, so military action would not be an option.

The Lebanese Foreign Ministry said in a letter to the Security Council that U.N. action would be "a dangerous precedent."

That's Reality disputing you.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-09-05 10:25pm

I don't suppose any vague idea of the kind of vehicles are known?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-06 12:13am

I did not say the reason, you fucking moron. I said a reason. As in, it's one reason the United States is eager to punish and challenge Damascus for its actions in Lebanon. But this, of course, escaped you.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-09-06 05:57am

Axis Kast wrote:I did not say the reason, you fucking moron. I said a reason. As in, it's one reason the United States is eager to punish and challenge Damascus for its actions in Lebanon. But this, of course, escaped you.

Nothing escapes me, tiger-boy. This is you yet again projecting your own obsessions into the picture.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-06 09:44am

Nothing escapes me, tiger-boy. This is you yet again projecting your own obsessions into the picture.

Liar. If that were the case, you would have answered my question, not posted an article recounting other reasons Syria has earned Washington's ire.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-09-06 09:47am

Axis Kast wrote:
Right. Keep clutching at those straws, tiger-boy.
You deny that the passage of unknown vehicles, unchecked, across the Syrian border is a reason the U.S. government is putting pressure on Damascus?

By “a reason” do you mean “a pathetic, bullshit excuse to go after Syria like they always wanted to”? If so I’d agree

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-09-06 10:01am

Axis Kast wrote:
Nothing escapes me, tiger-boy. This is you yet again projecting your own obsessions into the picture.
Liar. If that were the case, you would have answered my question, not posted an article recounting other reasons Syria has earned Washington's ire.

Once again, a demonstrated liar calling me a liar. Talk about chutzpah...

And that article was the answer, fuckface. Zero mention of any truck traffic, which is a non-issue in this matter.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-09-06 10:11am

Patrick Degan wrote: And that article was the answer, fuckface. Zero mention of any truck traffic, which is a non-issue in this matter.

Kast brought it into this conversation in the first place

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-06 10:12am

By “a reason” do you mean “a pathetic, bullshit excuse to go after Syria like they always wanted to”? If so I’d agree.

I wouldn't call concern over the fate of undetermined persons or objects leaving a country accused of having weapons programs "a pathetic, bullshit excuse," but I do agree that Washington is looking for reasons to take Syria to task because of issues surrounding the War in Iraq.

And that article was the answer, fuckface. Zero mention of any truck traffic, which is a non-issue in this matter.

No, that article discussed the immediate issues surrounding the American response to Syria's actions in Lebannon. It was by no means a comprehensive appraisal of our recent relationship with that country, and our long-term goals in the area.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-09-06 10:33am

Axis Kast wrote:
By “a reason” do you mean “a pathetic, bullshit excuse to go after Syria like they always wanted to”? If so I’d agree.
I wouldn't call concern over the fate of undetermined persons or objects leaving a country accused of having weapons programs "a pathetic, bullshit excuse," but I do agree that Washington is looking for reasons to take Syria to task because of issues surrounding the War in Iraq.

But isn’t “undetermined persons or objects leaving a country” that’s being attacked or is about to be attacked by a massively superior force quite common in war time? I think you’ll find they’re called refugees.

If I’d been an Iraqi with a truck I might well have nipped over the border into Syria, Iran or where ever as that way me and my family might well stand less chance of becoming ‘colateral damage’.

If Bush and Blair want to drag us into another war they’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than “some trucks crossed the border” of a country “accused of having weapons programs“ because many people are increasingly sceptical about these “programme related activities” or whatever B&B have backtracked to calling them now, what was it that Bush said about not getting fooled again?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-06 10:58am

But isn’t “undetermined persons or objects leaving a country” that’s being attacked or is about to be attacked by a massively superior force quite common in war time? I think you’ll find they’re called refugees.

In the context of this particular situation, the United States is concerned that Syria was unable to document or track these persons.

If Bush and Blair want to drag us into another war they’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than “some trucks crossed the border” of a country “accused of having weapons programs“ because many people are increasingly sceptical about these “programme related activities” or whatever B&B have backtracked to calling them now, what was it that Bush said about not getting fooled again?

I never argued that we were going to war with Syria because of the issue of their porous borders, but rather that it was one reason Washington wished to punish them.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-09-06 12:07pm

Axis Kast wrote:
And that article was the answer, fuckface. Zero mention of any truck traffic, which is a non-issue in this matter.
No, that article discussed the immediate issues surrounding the American response to Syria's actions in Lebannon. It was by no means a comprehensive appraisal of our recent relationship with that country, and our long-term goals in the area.

Translation: you have zero support for your contention, but you'll speculate on reasons and pretend they are fact for the purposes of this little thread-hijack.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-09-06 12:11pm

Axis Kast wrote:
But isn’t “undetermined persons or objects leaving a country” that’s being attacked or is about to be attacked by a massively superior force quite common in war time? I think you’ll find they’re called refugees.
In the context of this particular situation, the United States is concerned that Syria was unable to document or track these persons.

Maybe I’m being overly cynical but I don’t think the US Gov is really concerned about those trucks the neo-cons are simply looking for any mud what so ever they can sling. The complete and utter lack of any absence of any evidence of active WMD programs in Iraq will have reassured any analysts not predisposed to see WMD that the trucks contain nothing to get overly excited about.

I never argued that we were going to war with Syria because of the issue of their porous borders, but rather that it was one reason Washington wished to punish them.

Well in that case then I apologise for jumping the gun a little I suppose I just assumed you were getting warmed up so I got my retaliation in first kind of thing.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-06 01:35pm

Translation: you have zero support for your contention, but you'll speculate on reasons and pretend they are fact for the purposes of this little thread-hijack.

Nice try, Mr. "My article is the be-all, end-all on American relations with Syria."

As for accusations of a thread-hijack, concerns over Syria's connections to Iraq have dominated thinking in the White House for quite some time. You're only crying because it's me.

Maybe I’m being overly cynical but I don’t think the US Gov is really concerned about those trucks the neo-cons are simply looking for any mud what so ever they can sling. The complete and utter lack of any absence of any evidence of active WMD programs in Iraq will have reassured any analysts not predisposed to see WMD that the trucks contain nothing to get overly excited about.

It's not the only reason. The neo-cons, however, are now wondering whether or not Syria was a conduit for more than just bad money to leave Iraq during the war. And, given the cold reception our inquiries recieved in Damascus, the U.S. is moving to punish them.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-09-06 01:44pm

Can't we just liberate Lebanon because it would be the Right Thing to Do(TM)?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-06 01:45pm

Can't we just liberate Lebanon because it would be the Right Thing to Do(TM)?

What?!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You take drugs, don't you?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-09-06 06:57pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Can't we just liberate Lebanon because it would be the Right Thing to Do(TM)?
What?!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You take drugs, don't you?

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that my grandmother would like to see her sisters again before she dies, but Syria decided she was a "terrorist" in the 1970's because she had been living outside of the US for so long. So they won't let her into the country of her birth. But I'm crazy.

You're right. What was I thinking?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-06 10:15pm

Unfortunately, your grandmother is likelier than not to be unable to see her sisters, and the sad truth of it is, if we do change that fact, it won't be because it was "the right thing to do."

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-09-07 01:13am

Axis Kast wrote:
Translation: you have zero support for your contention, but you'll speculate on reasons and pretend they are fact for the purposes of this little thread-hijack.
Nice try, Mr. "My article is the be-all, end-all on American relations with Syria."

As for accusations of a thread-hijack, concerns over Syria's connections to Iraq have dominated thinking in the White House for quite some time. You're only crying because it's me.

Nice try, Mr. "Everything ties into Iraq", but it doesn't. Plain fact is, you still have no support for your contention beyond mere assertion that it does. It really would be a refreshing change if you'd at least try to offer some evidentiary backing for your spew.

An alternative speculation which might be closer to the mark would be this: that this is yet another instance of this White House carrying Ariel Sharon's water in all matters of policy.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-09-07 01:49am

Axis Kast wrote:Unfortunately, your grandmother is likelier than not to be unable to see her sisters, and the sad truth of it is, if we do change that fact, it won't be because it was "the right thing to do."

Sad but true. Thank you for sympathy.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-09-07 09:24am

Nice try, Mr. "Everything ties into Iraq", but it doesn't. Plain fact is, you still have no support for your contention beyond mere assertion that it does. It really would be a refreshing change if you'd at least try to offer some evidentiary backing for your spew.

An alternative speculation which might be closer to the mark would be this: that this is yet another instance of this White House carrying Ariel Sharon's water in all matters of policy.

It's common sense, you idiot. The United States is, in part, angry at Syria because of its connections to Iraq.

Here's another interesting article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1192302/posts