Lebanese "Government" and George Bush

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
even the NYT editorial page admits Bush deserves some credit.

Wow, who cares?

[Ted Striker]

He told us we were invading Iraq to prevent Saddam from aquiring weapons of mass destruction, not to regime change and install democracy.

This crap about freedom and liberty came after the fact.

So which on is it?

[Drake Tungsten]

Did you hear Jon Stewart say that Bush might be thought of more highly in the future than Reagan? That was awesome.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Wow, who cares?

nanna nannah boo boo!!

[GePap]

Brilliant reply, doing absolutely nothing to state why anyone should care about a paper editorial while sounding infantile enough.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Brilliant reply, doing absolutely nothing to state why anyone should care about a paper editorial while sounding infantile enough.

Why someone should care about a newspaper editorial, esp one that seems to represent a change in view from a large and powerful paper would seem to be obvious - and no, Im not going to get drawn into an obsessive discussion of that. Your "who cares" made no arguement whatsoever, and sounded childish. I deemed it worthy of a parallel response.

[GePap]

Who cares is a pretty valid response to a statement saying "these guys agree with me". It is an obvious question to ask.

As for "change in view", given that this is a nerw situation, how can there be a "change in view"- Man, I did not know the guys at the times are psychic. Please point out the editorial in which they claimed Bush had nothing to do with the events in the region, speically the one that occured prior to killing Harari.

see, in a rational universe, having oposed the neo-con war in Iraq is NOT the same as sayiong said war, after the fact, has had effects.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
.

see, in a rational universe, having oposed the neo-con war in Iraq is NOT the same as sayiong said war, after the fact, has had effects.

precisely the effects that they didnt expect. And no Im NOT gonna google to prove they didnt expect such effects.

[Ramo]

You already have a few neo-cons on the board. It'd just take a Dowd to swing it. That doesn't mean Herbert or Krugman have signed on.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


precisely the effects that they didnt expect. And no Im NOT gonna google to prove they didnt expect such effects.

Well, then, thaksn for the BAM. And lest await somoene who IS willing to back up their claims.

[lord of the mark]

NYT:

It's not even spring yet, but a long-frozen political order seems to be cracking all over the Middle East. Cautious hopes for something new and better are stirring along the Tigris and the Nile, the elegant boulevards of Beirut, and the impoverished towns of the Gaza Strip. It is far too soon for any certainties about ultimate outcomes. In Iraq, a brutal insurgency still competes for headlines with post-election democratic maneuvering. Yesterday a suicide bomber plowed into a crowd of Iraqi police and Army recruits, killing at least 122 people - the largest death toll in a single such bombing since the American invasion nearly two years ago. And the Palestinian terrorists who blew up a Tel Aviv nightclub last Friday underscored the continuing fragility of what has now been almost two months of steady political and diplomatic progress between Israelis and Palestinians.

Still, this has so far been a year of heartening surprises - each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly
astonishing.

Yes, indeed.

The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power. Washington's challenge now lies in finding ways to nurture and encourage these still fragile trends without smothering them in a triumphalist embrace.

I would agree with this last.

Lebanon's political reawakening took a significant new turn yesterday when popular protests brought down the pro-Syrian government of Prime Minister Omar Karami. Syria's occupation of Lebanon, nearly three decades long, started tottering after the Feb. 14 assassination of the country's leading independent politician, the former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

If Damascus had a hand in this murder, as many Lebanese suspect, it had a boomerang effect on Lebanon's politics. Instead of intimidating critics of Syria's dominant role, it inflamed them. To stem the growing backlash over the Hariri murder, last week Syria announced its intentions to pull back its occupation forces to a region near the border - although without offering any firm timetable. Yesterday, with protests continuing, the pro-Syrian cabinet resigned. Washington, in an unusual alliance with France, continues to press for full compliance with the Security Council's demand for an early and complete Syrian withdrawal. That needs to happen promptly.

Yes, agreed.

Once Syria is gone, Hezbollah, which has engaged in international terrorism under Syrian protection, must either confine itself to peaceful political activity or be shut down.

absolutely.

Last weekend's surprise announcement of plans to hold at least nominally competitive presidential elections in Egypt could prove even more historic, although many of the specific details seem likely to be disappointing. Egypt is the Arab world's most populous country and one of its most politically influential. In more than five millenniums of recorded history, it has never seen a truly free and competitive election.

To be realistic, Egypt isn't likely to see one this year either. For all his talk of opening up the process, President Hosni Mubarak, 76, is likely to make sure that no threatening candidates emerge to deny him a fifth six-year term. But after seeing more than eight million Iraqis choose their leaders in January, Egypt's voters, and its increasingly courageous opposition movement, will no longer retreat into sullen hopelessness so readily. The Bush administration has helped foster that feeling of hope for a democratic future by keeping the pressure on Mr. Mubarak. But the real heroes are on-the-ground patriots like Ayman Nour, who founded a new party aptly named Tomorrow last October and is now in jail. If Mr. Mubarak truly wants more open politics, he should free Mr. Nour promptly.

It is similarly encouraging that the terrorists who attacked a Tel Aviv nightclub on Friday, killing five Israelis, have not yet managed to completely scuttle the new peace dynamic between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel contends that those terrorists were sponsored by Syria, but its soldiers reported discovering an explosives-filled car in the West Bank yesterday. The good news is that the leaders on both sides did not instantly retreat to familiar corners in angry rejectionism. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, have proved they can work together to thwart terrorism and deny terrorists an instant veto over progress toward a negotiated peace.

Over the past two decades, as democracies replaced police states across Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America, and a new economic dynamism lifted hundreds of millions of eastern and southern Asia out of poverty and into the middle class, the Middle East stagnated in a perverse time warp that reduced its brightest people to hopelessness or barely contained rage. The wonder is less that a new political restlessness is finally visible, but that it took so long to break through the ice.

Indeed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, then, thaksn for the BAM. And lest await somoene who IS willing to back up their claims.

Sh*t, ge. If i was saying "Syria has nukes" and didnt provide evidence, that would be a BAM. If i say a NYT editorial matters, I DONT have to make a case why. You dont have to agree that it does but I dont have to prove every damned thing I say just cause you decide to quibble over it. Look, if you want to make the case the NYT editorials are unimportant as a general rule, go ahead and do so. This is a thread about democratic reforms, NOT about the importance of editorials. Some people will naturally weigh some opinions more or less, in any discussion. Thats ok. Its part of having a DISCUSSION - which is what this is - not a trial where you get to play prosecutor.

Try switching to decaf, my friend.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
You already have a few neo-cons on the board. It'd just take a Dowd to swing it. That doesn't mean Herbert or Krugman have signed on.

None of whom are on the editorial board - theyre just oped columnists. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/editorial-board.html

So do you think there was a rebellion against Gail Collins?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Sh*t, ge. If i was saying "Syria has nukes" and didnt provide evidence, that would be a BAM. If i say a NYT editorial matters, I DONT have to make a case why. You dont have to agree that it does but I dont have to prove every damned thing I say just cause you decide to quibble over it. Look, if you want to make the case the NYT editorials are unimportant as a general rule, go ahead and do so. This is a thread about democratic reforms, NOT about the importance of editorials. Some people will naturally weigh some opinions more or less, in any discussion. Thats ok. Its part of having a DISCUSSION - which is what this is - not a trial where you get to play prosecutor.

Try switching to decaf, my friend.

The arguement here is how much Bush has to do with the current goings on.

Lets retrace this arguement.

You say :the NYT htinks so.
I ask: who cares [that the NYT thinks]
You make a reply, I comment on it as childish.

Then YOU make the claim this was a change of opinion by the times. I ask how can they change their opinion on something that had not even happened?

You say they did not expect this to happen- this is another arguement, that somehow the NYT editorial board at some point had said that a war in Iraq would NOt lead to democracy in the area. This is the claim I asked you to back up.

Its a simple line of arguement, you bieng the one who claims that at some point the NYT's said a war in Iraq would not lead to democratizing pressures, which is a tangent on the main thread. Why you decided to make it, well, that was your choice, I don;t know.

As for the issue of whether the NYTimes editorial matters, exactly why I asked who cares, cause I read the NYT daily, but the paper editorial is something I don;t read, why? Cause like I care about the boards opinions. Better to take facts in the paper and use them to back up your own opinion.

[Ramo]

Hmmm... well, I had a totally different idea of who made up the editorial board.

'Course, I only read individual columns, rarely the editorials.