Syria backs down; will leave Lebanon

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



Yup, the sort of discipline that can give parties huge electoral victories in open elections-

Especially when one political group is armed and the others arent. Note that all other militias in Lebanon have been disarmed, pursuant to the Taif accords, while Hezbollah has not been. And which Hezbollah continues to refuse to do, cause as far as Hezb is concerned theyre NOT another political party, theyre the RESISTANCE. Resistance to a country that hasnt occupied Lebanon for 5 years now, yet supportive of the country that DOES occupy Lebanon.

Open elections will require all "parties" to be on even playing field.


I note with interest that the Hezb rally also was supported by the Lebanese Baathist party (color me unsurprised) and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, the old party of Greater Syrianism.

[Ramo]

Not necessarily. Option I, for example, is a strong re-assertion of Lebanese sovereignity. Hell, none of the options are really pro-syria. That is again why this is a stupid poll.

Just because it's not asking what you want it to ask, doesn't make it a stupid poll. It's asking what the biggest problem in Lebanon's security situation is. A lot of people are not saying Syria.

[lord of the mark]

its not asking what the biggest problem is, its asking what the SOLUTION is, and presenting non-exclusive options.

For example 10% of Maronites, but only 2% of Shiites, say an international force is the best solution. I presume those 10% had a non-Syrian force in mind, and were thinking of it as something to take the place of the Syrians. Why didnt someone put keeping the Syrians in as an option?




Az is right, its a stupid question. The poll did NOT ask people directly about their opinion of disarming Hezbollah which would have been interesting. Also would have been interesting to ask how many want to normalize relations with Israel.

re the assasination, a very interesting q would have been how many trust Lahoud and Lebanese security to investigage the assasination.

Zog asked none of those questions.

[Sava]

one question... will there be cool war coverage on CNN if this gets bloody'?

[Az]

Just because it's not asking what you want it to ask, doesn't make it a stupid poll. It's asking what the biggest problem in Lebanon's security situation is. A lot of people are not saying Syria.

No that's not what the poll is asking. It is asking what is the solution, not the problem. Besides, security is far from being the only problem the lebanese are facing.

[lord of the mark]

Daily Star:

"Many opposition supporters were insisting that the pro-Syrian demonstrators were mostly Syrians who were allowed to cross the border Tuesday morning.

Nadia Harb, 50, said: "I saw them. Most of them are Syrians, and some are Palestinians, there were very few Lebanese."

But although some Syrians were spotted among the demonstrators, most of the people attending the rally were Lebanese."

[Ramo]

its not asking what the biggest problem is

The problem is implied by the solution. If the big problem with the situation is Syria, one would naturally expect either option 2 (or 3, to a lesser extent).

Why didnt someone put keeping the Syrians in as an option?

Because it's not a change. The Syrians are already in, and have been for a few decades. How could keeping them in possibly be the solution to security problems?

Zog asked none of those questions.

So what? Just because it asks different questions than you would've, doesn't mean it's a worthless poll. Hell, maybe he did ask some of these questions, but the results aren't public.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava
one question... will there be cool war coverage on CNN if this gets bloody'?

Of course.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Odin


Of course.

HOORAY!

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava
HOORAY!

BOOM!

[Sava]

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Azazel
I guess that's what going to happen.

Hizbullah made it's stance clear.

From Hezbollah's view point it may even be in its interests to restart a bit of civil warfare since it would give their Syrian patrons an excuse to come back.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
It is unclear to me who would be available to remove Hezbollah by force. They have about 12% of parliament as well.

The goal would not be to remove Hezbolah by force instead the goal would be for Lebanon to sign a peace treaty with Israel, to have the state agree to stop supporting terrorist organizations, and in the long term to try to talk Hezbollah out of the armed terrorism business the way the British talked the IRA out of the terrorism business. It won't be easy but carrot and sticking them may work the way it worked for the IRA when they were offered political recognition in return for giving up terrorism.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

its not asking what the biggest problem is

The problem is implied by the solution. If the big problem with the situation is Syria, one would naturally expect either option 2 (or 3, to a lesser extent).

No either 1 or 4 or for could be solutions to the problem of Syria. Certainly 4 has been suggested so far in the context of Syrian withdrawl. And one has been suggested in conjunction with the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Ok - suppose you asked Iraqis what the solution to their security problems is, and the presented options were 1. Withdrawl of US forces 2. Entry by a UN force 3. Disarmament of the Kurdish Peshmerga 4. Building up the Iraqi army - would it be fair to say that only those who chose option 1 actually wanted US troops to depart? I dont think so.