I defy anyone on the Left to come up with...

[Nbadan]

It was the Europeans as well as the people of the region who invested time and resources to help resolve the Palestinian-Israel issues. They did what we should have done in Iraq. Work behind the political scene and pressure resentment for the status quo from within the Palestinian population, especially the presence of Syrian troops, keep pressure on the Israelis to the negotiation table and wait for a Palestinian leader who was willing to crack down on attackers in his territory for real diplomacy to take place.

[gtownspur]

once again you need to look at the fact that iraqs demise took the legs out of the syrian occupation because syria and iraq where allies and sadaam backed syria against national pressure. The syrians were not convinced or persuaded by the lebanese but were pressured by Bush and Chirac. THis was part of bringing democracy in the middle east to which Bush stated months before the assasination of The lebanese official that was murdered by the syrians. The lebanese victory was done by world pressure and bush.
If only the UN and Chirac pressured Syria to pullout there might have been a different response from the syrians. Also it was Bush who backed the Palestinian State as part of his agenda from Day one of his administration that pressured Sharons govt. to pullout and not retalliate swiftly if attacked.




http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/08/bush.mideast/

"Before the speech, Bush had <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=telephone&v=56">telephone</a> conversations with French President Jacques Chirac and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to discuss efforts to pressure Syria as well as other political developments in the region, U.S. officials said."

[190 Octane]

gtown, citing an article that is nothing more than Bush tooting his own horn in a press conference isn't proof of anything. Why can't you look at history? The war was going on thirty years before Bush. The pullout negotiations came a year before Bush. Like I said, it's good that the U.S. (and not the U.S. only, mind you) is keeping an eye on the pullout. But you say that Iraq took the legs out of Syria - then why did Syria agree to a pullout three years before Hussein was ousted? And you're going on pure speculation, "might have been a different response." Might. Strong evidence, but no precedent to back it, and as the fact Syria agreed to pull out in 2000, no direct history to suggest it.

Furthermore, Bush has touted "democracy" as being his driving force, but from the very article you cite, he says this:

The Iranian regime should listen to the concerns of the world and to the Iranian people, who want their liberty," he said. "We look forward to the day when the Iranian people are free."

As much as I don't like the government in Iran, which has some seriously messed up views of the world, it was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. Democratically. The president whose doctrine you say is leading the Middle East to democracy is trying to lead a campaign against a democratically chosen government. Just because you don't like the democracy doesn't mean it's not a democracy.

The Syria-Lebanon situation isn't proof against the success or lack thereof of the Bush doctrine, but it's not proof for. That's a cycle that began years before he was president. And the second part of your article, which I cited, shows apparent hypocrisy in Bush's own doctrine.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Not on my ing watch.

What specific civil liberties as laid out by American forefather's do you volunteer on behalf of all Americans?

Please....if youre a coward and fear violence, dont take my civil liberties away.

The Patriot Act is one thing (and has been severly newtered), but the removal of liberties is a sure-fire way to ignite a revolution.

Wow...and youre from Texas? Where the is your gun-rack?

dude i was playing devils advocate

thats not how i really think

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The Lebanese credit Bush and Iraq for the pullouts? THEY BEGAN THE PULLOUT PROCESS IN 2000. One more time: THEY BEGAN THE PULLOUT NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL AND SYRIA IN 2000. Period. One year before Bush was President, three years before Iraq. Whoever is spinning that to be the heroics of the great crusader Bush isn't giving the people of Lebanon enough credit for three decades of civil war and years of negotiations.

Next, it's great the Iraqi people voted. Good for them. I didn't say they weren't happy to have democracy, but you completely dodged the point. What happens when the U.S. isn't happy with who they chose to lead? It's happened many times before (Cuba, Panama), and to some degree it happened in Iraq. Our government gave Hussein increased power by arming him in the 1980s, then less than a decade later, we were fighting him. In that scenario, it's just more money and more resources pumped into a nation that NEVER SOUGHT OUR HELP.

Next, "Soviet weaponry." Nice. Too bad Hussein was armed with American weaponry. The U.S. supplied him with his weaponry in the 1980s. The USSR never had anything to do with Iraq. Nice try to completely mis-spin it, though.

gtownspur has now been severely owned (bukkake style)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

gtown, citing an article that is nothing more than Bush tooting his own horn in a press conference isn't proof of anything.

its all the proof that chickenhawks needs though