Tweet
It was a perfectly useful and narrowly defined term only a few years ago.
-
It still is. Ignore the loony left.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891 -
whats the % of chirstians and muslims there?
do they get along?
who do they support?Periodista : A proposito del escudo de la fe, Elisa, a mí me sorprendía Reutemann diciendo que estaba dispuesto a enfrentarse con el mismísimo demonio (Menem) y después terminó bajándose de la candidatura. Ahí parece que fuera ganando el demonio.
Elisa Carrio: No, porque si usted lee bien el Génesis dice que la mujer pisará la serpiente.Comment
-
It still is. Ignore the loony left.
In Soviet Russia the loony left ignores you!
Only feebs vote.Comment
-
Neither. It was about getting Iraqi oil so we had leverage against OPEC.Originally posted by 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?Comment
-
Prior to 1948 the Christians made up around 60% of the population but Palestinian refuges tipped the balance to around 40% Christian. In the 1970's several PAlestinian terrorist organizations ended up turning the country into a war zone so the Christians (who had always lived there) started to demand the refuges leave the country since they were destabalzing it. The result was a long civil war which lasted until the early 90s.Originally posted by Plan Austral
whats the % of chirstians and muslims there?
do they get along?
who do they support?
The was also the added complication of the Israelis intervining in order to hunt down terrorists but the whole thing didn't go well. Today many of the Christians have left the country plus the muslims have a far higher birth rate so the population is down to around 25% Christian.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
To clarify, in '48 the Christians refused to give the Palestinian refugees citizenship, keeping them in squalid refugee camps, so they could maintain their majority. Then in the mid-50's the Maronite Christians tried to unconstitutionally install their President for a second term (history seems to repeat itself, eh?), which provoked a civil war. The Maronites won and installed a police state. In the '70's, with demographic changes, the PLO rebelled, supported by the Sunnis and Druze against the Maronites (the Maronite militia was called the Phalange, based on the Spanish Falange). Syria invaded and crushed the PLO militia, keeping the country in chaos.
The Israeli intervention was due to trying to permanently crush the PLO, rather than hunting down terrorists (the PLO had launched their "peace offensive" the year prior to Israel's intervention)."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I'd add that the end of the Israeli occupation of parts of Lebanon in 2000 substantially reduced support for the Syrian occupation. The same year, Hafiz Assad, the Syrian dictator died, and his less competent son rose to power. These are IMO the main dynamics (along with the installation of Lahoud for a second term and the assassination of Harimi) that caused this Lebanese rebellion."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Originally posted by Ramo
Which is not an unreasonable idea in of itself, it's just that ideas like economic inequality and labor organization are generally divorced from the dictatorship/terror model. And are generally deemed unimportant anyways.
Which is why i would say no one on the NYT editorial board, or the WaPo editiorial board is a neocon. Neo con as a modern ideology has a substantial economic and cultural component. There is an important (IMHO) segment of opinion in the US that shares many of the foreign policy views of the Neocons, but are NOT neocons. Theres a history to this. In 1973 Podhoretz, Dector, Penn Kemble, some labor types formed the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (yours truely, expressing precocious views, joined, and had the opportunity to meet Dector, Kirkpatrick, among others) CDM was strongly supportive of Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson. In 1980 many of these folk, plus the Kristols (who werent involved in CDM,iirc) joined the Reagan admin, and became GOP. Not all did, nor did all who sympathized with them in the Dem party. Indeed the DLC emerged from the thinking of the "left" of the CDM crowd, although, influenced by southern Dems, it was far less labor oriented, and was downright hostile to the AFL CIO on select issues. while the DLC has been is some dissarray lately, there is still a hawkish new dem position that supported the war in Iraq, and whose principle sounding board is the editorial page of the WaPo, and to a lesser extent the New Republic. It seems to me that the NYT editorial was a bow to the WaPo POV, not to "neocons". As for Friedman, he has his own POV, which shares the WaPo concerns, but is unique to Friedman."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
a few corrections A. while demographic change had happened steadily, the PLO expulsion from Jordan after a civil war in that country, and the resultant transfer of the PLO leadership to Lebanon was also a trigger of the Lebanese civil war, IIRC. B. there were several Maronite militias under different leaders, IIRC only one, led by the Gemayel clan, was called the Phalange. C. While Syria was called in by the Maronites, the Syrian-Maronite alliance was quickly broken.Originally posted by Ramo
To clarify, in '48 the Christians refused to give the Palestinian refugees citizenship, keeping them in squalid refugee camps, so they could maintain their majority. Then in the mid-50's the Maronite Christians tried to unconstitutionally install their President for a second term (history seems to repeat itself, eh?), which provoked a civil war. The Maronites won and installed a police state. In the '70's, with demographic changes, the PLO rebelled, supported by the Sunnis and Druze against the Maronites (the Maronite militia was called the Phalange, based on the Spanish Falange). Syria invaded and crushed the PLO militia, keeping the country in chaos.
The Israeli intervention was due to trying to permanently crush the PLO, rather than hunting down terrorists (the PLO had launched their "peace offensive" the year prior to Israel's intervention)."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
lotm, I'm curious how you define "neoconservatism." I can't say that I've ever come up with a good definition. It just seems to me insane that folks like Kirkpatrick could talk about the betrayal of Somoza or Pahlavi on one hand, and this is somehow consistent with the promotion of democracy and human rights.
B. there were several Maronite militias under different leaders, IIRC only one, led by the Gemayel clan, was called the Phalange.
The Phalange were the biggest players among the Maronites at the time. Indeed, the Gemayels succeeded the Sarkis administration.
While Syria was called in by the Maronites, the Syrian-Maronite alliance was quickly broken.
Not that quickly. IIUC, it wasn't till '82 that the alliance broke, and it never was fully dissolved. Even today, there are prominent pro-Syrian Maronites: Lahoud and more importantly Franjieh."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Incidentally, TNR came out with a good piece on Lebanese politics yesterday."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
Comment