Toronto Escorts

Syria

antaeus

Active member
Sep 3, 2004
1,693
7
38
What's up with Syria? A bare bones background:

1901 Sykes-Picot defined Syria as French protectorate. Lebanon had been a
province but established independence, never recognized by Syria. Hafez
Assad came to power somewhat paralleling Saddam Hussein. Assad pere
(deceased) gives way to Assad fils, Bashaar, fine empirical nepotism.

Syria, mostly arid rocky desert, landlocked with skinny arm to only Mediterannean
port of Latakia. Lebanon has no desert, net exporter, lots of gulf money,
numerous ports and lovely strategic southern geography bordering Israel.
1976 Syria "invited" into Lebanon ostensibly as peacekeeper; not exactly
welcome sight to the embattled ruling Maronite Christian minority led by
Gemayel pere et fils, later assassinated. And for 20 years Syrian
government adopts terminology repatriating "our province Lebanon".

As Saddam Hussein took grotesque retribution to assert complete power so
too did Assad: Hama, a city of ~1million, I sat in outdoor restaurant by the
river eating tasty kebabs, watching old men in robes, kheffiyeh and aghal
smoking narghili, boys riding waterwheel buckets up then jumping off into the
river, all no longer exist through expulsion and bulldozing; foolish people
supposedly tried to elect non-Baathists.

Now, in 2005, all I see in the media is American government telling Syria to
get out, Lebanese ex-PM assassinated, "spontaneous" public uprising and
"our province Lebanon" president and government resigning.

These aren't people who say "Ok we'll go"... Something else has happened or
is threatening to happen.
 

Hard Idle

Active member
Jan 15, 2005
4,959
23
38
North York
Say what you want about the Baathist countries, but these were the only places in the Middle East where religious fanatics were marginalized. At least people had a choice to live relatively normal lives so long as they didn't push for any change in government. The only use Assad & Hussein had for mullahs & mosques was so far as they served the needs of their regimes and families. No group like Al-queda could ever form a serious relationship with these states, as it would be impossible for them to accept religion being totally subservient to the regime in asecularized state.

I think America is fighting the wrong enemies. If it were up to me, I'd sooner have helped the Baathists to fry the debauched Kuwaiti & Saudi rulling families, and hunt down all the mullahs - the main source of intrnational terror, with their foundations, schools and bogus charities. The bathists have a local thug mentality, whatever their dreams are, in the end they'd settle for being local heavies who could boast of having restored their countries to their ancient glory.
 

Hard Idle

Active member
Jan 15, 2005
4,959
23
38
North York
BTW, notice the enthusiasm with which the rallies in Lebanon are being greeted? CNN would have you believe this is some revolutionary thing spawned by US policy!

Newsflash! Arabs have been demonstrating against occupation for decades in Palestine, and for the past few years in Iraq! But I guess the "Occupier Knows Best" rule doesn't apply unless the occupier is the US approved!
 
Y

yychobbyist

If you listen closely to CNN you come to the conclusion that these poor Lebanese people are now free to determine their own fate, free of Syrian occupation forces and free to run around and sing the theme song from "Sound of Music". I find it interesting that no one at CNN is wondering what the Iraqi's will be doing when the U.S. leaves.....
 

scouser1

Well-known member
Dec 7, 2001
5,666
94
48
Pickering
anateus just a slight correction on your statement there, the Syrians went in to Lebanon to assist the Maronite Christian dominated government against a Palestinian/Sunni Muslim faction, Lebanon was party of Syria till the French decided to carve out a nation that was Christian dominated after World War 2
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
Seriously, you know what I've found interesting is that, aside from Iraq, we're actually seeing more a detente among Sunni- and Shia- dominated nations - a la Syria and Iran's new partnership. Will it be long before there's a de facto union stretching through Syria, the new Iran-friendly government in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan?
 

strange1

Guest
Mar 14, 2004
807
0
0
I agree that the leaders in Iran and Syria would love a pan-arab nation, as long as they are the ones in control. In other words, it will never happen.

Syria has been active since it's creation trying to be a power player and has succesfully used instability in Lebanon and Israel to it's advantage. although they are essentially a secular organization, the government has absolutely no problem sponsoring terrorism, especially against Israel. I'm not just believing the current CNN reports but the years of the Beka Valley. The Syrians were one of the major powers to emerge in the region, ever since Jordan became moderate. Even Abbass has commented on "outside involvement" in the latest car bombing.

Syria now sees a crossroads emerging, with the potential for a settlement to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict and stability in Lebanon encouraging the western, capitalistic culture that was present before the civil war. To defend it's own view of being the regional big shot, it seems pretty obvious that Syria will do whatever it takes to ensure that the region remains unstable.

Many justified the invasion of Iraq as means of denying terrorists a home. Syria has been significantly more involved in providing money, protection, and training camps to many international terror organizations and I wouldn't feel bad if the US did invade. (Besides, you can't bitch that it's all about oil)
 

scouser1

Well-known member
Dec 7, 2001
5,666
94
48
Pickering
Iran isnt Arab but Persian speaking and Shia dominated so the idea of them promoting pan Arabism is simply not true
 

strange1

Guest
Mar 14, 2004
807
0
0
scouser1 said:
Iran isnt Arab but Persian speaking and Shia dominated so the idea of them promoting pan Arabism is simply not true
You're right. I should have used pan-islamic or something similar but it still comes to down to wanting to be the regional big shot.
 

islandboy

New member
Nov 14, 2004
227
0
0
Syrian involvement simply has outlived its usefulness. Had Syria evolved and grown more peacfull - less radical - while playing an international role, this would not be the case. Now its simply time to take Syria off the world stage in so far as Lebanon it concerned. The west let an unfriendly do work that needed to be done as it was better able to deal with a large problem population in Lebanon and now its time to take that work and push it to the next step. Realpolitic, that's all.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts