LS_Debunks

Can you believe the audacity of the above? The arrogance of the soon to be defeated? You’ve the US administration hosting a near provisional Syrian government in Washington almost weekly. An administration which doesn’t deny it funds, advises and trains Syrian opposition elements all over the globe and demands regime change. But the Admin wants “a gesture of good will”, while Gates and Condi prepare the long knifes, Steve wants Syrian neutrality. When Syria hosts more than a million Iraqi refugees that are taxing every resource it possesses, the Admin questions Syria’s business in Iraq. It really don’t matter no more, because Syria is out of its isolation, it won the stare down with utter resistance instead of cowardly kiss ass like the gulf states. And while our administration is in full recovery mode, yours is in shambles. ”actively helping make things worse [for the US]” has been very good to Syria, why change when we’re now certain that your game will forever remain that, a game.

Here’s LoneSyrian refreshing the “historian’s” “facts”. Steve, I respectfully say you give the word FACTUAL a very, very bad name, and some members of this board will have to restrict your liberal and overconfident use of it. I retort that it’s your facts that are light years from the truth, and for someone who has amassed vast data about Syria, you no longer can be excused as a strictly western historian, but can be held accountable for historical misstatements you make about Syria. So here are the real and true facts. NO, unlike what Steve says, Syria didn’t choose “to go with the Stalinist foreign policy” and didn't have a choice back then", nor would it have made “that” choice. Why? Because during Woodrow Wilson’s and FDR’s respective and consecutive terms, Syria was under French occupation. Woodrow Wilson’s presidency spanned from 1913 – 1921 and everyone knows about FDR’s three terms and when they ended. Nor did Syria have a choice in molding and modeling a foreign or national policy until its independence from France in 1946, hitherto, it wasn’t an independent state. The Syrians’ only policy until 1946 consisted of resisting France. And no, not a resistance aided by Stalin. Take the Clinton presidency, an administration under which Syria was very pliable and accommodating because the policy itself back then was fair by American standards, no one could’ve expected more of Clinton. And Syrian American relations have never historically reached an entente and a rapprochement more than they did in the Clinton era. Enter Steve’s “Stalinist” comment; to the contrary, from the date of its independence, Syria was a nationalist, democratic republic with fair presidential and parliamentarian elections until the coups era from the mid to late 50s. My father was a witness to the latter so-called golden era, and the fact it existed is indisputable and undeniable. The powers that Steve abhors didn’t materialize on the Syrian scene until 1963. The Baathist Socialists didn’t begin to assert influence in Syria until 1960, and the Alawites (Assad’s sect) didn’t assert total power till 1970. Nor did Syria ever adopt a pure “Stalinist” model of governance due to the strong Islamic fabric of its populace. A Socialist, oligarch, or even Fascist Syria, OK, but “Stalinist” never. The ideology, style and model of governance Syria’s regimes had the luxury of molding and adopting materialized well after Woodrow Wilson and FDR perished. I admire the superb games Steve develops and the class he projects, but he gives the word “FACTUAL” a very bad name.

Steve is acting like Alberto Gonzales, prevaricating, discrediting, belittling, experiencing convenient memory lapses and wishfully thinking. The following are excerpts from a substantive, extensive and germane “DIALOGUE”, for if the following isn’t the “dialogue” LoneSyrian is “avoids and is incapable of”, do point out what is: I accept this line of argument as logical and reasonable. It is best described as Realpolitik. However, by making this argument you must then withdraw all criticism of the West for trying to influence things for their own national security purposes. As your girlfriend said, you don't want to be the pot calling the kettle black Another one is "what is good for the goose is good for the gander". I don't think anybody really understands where that saying came from, but the meaning is still relevant. This is the unfortunate position the US has been put in, both because of its own actions and the opinions of others. A large part of the US and world's population demand the US fix the problems all around the world. In fact, many (especially outside of the US) feel it is the US' obligation because of its economic, political, and military power. This is commonly called the "World's Policeman" syndrome. When the US is slow to react to something, like Sudan or Ruwanda, it is heavily criticized for doing nothing even though the tie to national interests is very thin. So there is a lot of pressure on the US, from outside of the US, to interfere. At the same time there is a lot of pressure on the US to not interfere. Obviously the "thugs" around the world don't want the US to come in and "fix" things because they might actually have to work for a living or go to prison (or worse) for their crimes. These people usually manage to corrupt a certain portion of their own population to hate the US instead of them. Even some of the US' allies do this, such as Saudi Arabia. There is also a genuine fear that the US will bring about other changes that will not be positive, such as becoming less independent and consumerism destroying native cultures. The latter is a very difficult problem since given a choice most people willingly choose to become mindless consumers. So the US is in a no-win position. If it does nothing it gets blamed for the problems that exist. If it tries to do something it gets blamed for creating new problems. There is no way to satisfy the world when it has two diametrically opposed expectations in such large numbers. Since this is in your neighborhood, and obviously you understand the area much better than I ever could, I am interested to know who you think is responsible and why? If that was the impression I gave, and I guess I did, I wish to correct it. I know that Hezbollah is not a puppet in the true sense of the word. If you look at earlier posts about the accusation that Iran ordered Hezbollah to attack Israel this summer, I supported the theory that Iran was not behind the decision and was possibly even opposed to it. I also have a great deal of respect for Nassrallah's capabilities as a leader. Very impressive and not entirely counter-productive. At least Hezbollah actually helps its people instead of pretending to, as most nations in the region are guilty of. This is my point. If Syria arms, trains, and otherwise helps Hezbollah to wage war and terror then it is in some way responsible for what Hezbollah does. If Syria wishes to get benefits from such support then it loses all ability to claim the penalties for such support are unjust. Don't even get me started on what problems I think Israel makes in the Middle East And sadly, I have to blame US foreign policy for a lot of these problems. Like Syria sharing responsibility for the problems Hezbollah causes, the US must share responsibility for the problems Israel causes. Syria could, however, take the "high road" to achieve its aims, but it does not. Because it has chosen the "low road" it loses its ability to be critical of the other side's "low road". You mean like Hezbollah kidnapping and killing IDF soldiers in an attempt to get Israel to attack? Yes, of course I think this is foolish and criminal behavior that should be punished. BTW, there was an incident a couple years ago where a Cuban exile propaganda plane, unarmed, was shot down over Cuban airspace. I think it shows the moral corruption of a government when it has to kill civilians armed with only words, but legally they had every right to down that aircraft. The people on board knew exactly what they were doing and the risks, so they lost the moral ability to "cry foul" for that specific engagement. Then we get into larger issues of morality and things become, as they often do, a lot less clear. Stupid, naive, arrogant, short sighted, incompetent, idealistic, and other things... yes. There is no question about this now. The neocons planned for a war without the planning part. Very true. And I agree that the US policy so far has been incompetent in general and barely acceptable even on its best days. But note that Syria could do things as a gesture of good faith, but it does not. Let me illustrate... If Syria applied its internal security services to clamping down on cross border incursions into Iraq, I bet they could make a lot of progress with fairly minimal effort. This is presuming that they already know the major players, routes, and methods. I believe that they do. So shut down a couple, show the US that it is willing to do so, and then ask for something in return. And not something stupidly huge like the Golan Heights. Start smaller and work up to that. If the US gives nothing in return, then take the people out of the jails and put them back into business and ask the US if this is really the way they want it to be. This all boils down to two thick headed, egotistical groups of people that want to show no weakness. Weakness, unfortunately, is defined by them as anything sensible and fair. So again, criticize the US for its part, but do not excuse Syria for its own failings. The US is in no way forcing it to behave in such a mutually counter-productive manner. True, but there is a difference between not helping make things better and actively helping make things worse. Europe largely fits into the latter, states like Syria and Iran fit into the latter. That presumes that Bush is really running foreign policy. While he is certainly involved in it, there is no question in my mind that generations of historians will argue to what degree Bush is calling the shots. There will be the extremes saying he is just a puppet, there are others that will say he is the "mastermind" behind it all, and most will fall somewhere in the middle. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that this President will largely be thought of negatively and heavily influenced by a very small group of thinkers. Only the degree of negativity and degree of submission to others will vary. Quite the opposite. From time to time we get people on this Forum that can't, or won't, engage in an honest debate. I commend you for not being one of them for those people *are* boring. Steve</font>