TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Lebanese Government Resigns
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lebanese Government Resigns

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
You guys need to get the news on now.

It seems the entire Lebanese government has resigned, and the population has risen against the Syrian occupation. In the last few weeks, Iraq has had elections, Egypt has stated it will hold "open" elections, and now Lebanon is rising against the Syrians.

Very interesting, no?

This is great.

Best-
Michele
post #2 of 29
Wow, quite interesting. I can't say that I'm really "up" on the relations between Syria and Lebanon, but this sure seems to be a very strong statement.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...sts/index.html
post #3 of 29
Wow, I too don't know the history that well but obviously this is major.
post #4 of 29
Thread Starter 
The Syrian government had backed the Lebanese government...and by backed, I mean installed their own people in leadership positions. The Syrian gov. also backs (openly) the two most heavily active terrorist organizations against Israel (both Hamas and Islamic Jihad) and there is very clear evidence that last Friday's bombing in Tel Aviv was Syrian directed (Islamic Jihad carried out). This would've placed huge pressure on Lebanon as a country by Israel, who likely threatened to bomb them back...further, this weekend's handing over of one of Iraq's most wanted (half-brother to SH) by Syria indicated to the surrounding countries that Syria really does harbor terrorists, and poses a great risk to the stability of the ME. Add to that Syria is clearly culpable in the assassination of Harwiri two weeks (10 days?) ago, and you've got neigbors standing together against a bully on the block.

There's a part of me that feels this throws gasoline on an already contentious situation; and yet another part of me sees this as a huge, amazing, loud cry for self-government and self determination (also seen as democracy) reminiscent of the Berlin Wall being torn down.

My prayers are with those in the ME that have risked their lives to make a stand for what they want, ousting the government installed by Syria.

Best-
Michele
post #5 of 29
All foreign troops and governments backed by foreign powers must leave, except in the case of the US and Halliburton...

Haha, YES! One drink for me for turning this into a Bush bash.

Anywho, on a more serious note does anyone really know the whole history behind Lebanon? From the little I know, things are not really black and white.

I know that they had a civil war in the past. Then Syria invaded in an attempt to destroy the PLO so as to appease Israel or at least to prevent Israeli intervention. Israel then invaded twice. Then the UN and other troops come in. Civil war continued and US troops were killed in a bomb blast. Somewhere in the late 1980s or early 1990, Syria entered the country and together with the Lebanese army successfully put down the civil war and disarmed most of the armed groups. And the civil war was over. That is my short history of Lebanon if I recall correctly.

So, while Syria is not a democracy it had helped Lebanon in resolving the civil war bringing peace to the country so at least on that count Syria is not the "bad guy." Although after 15 years of relative internal peace, it could be argued that perhaps it may be time for Syria to withdraw their troops.

As for the assasination, there is a feeling in Lebanon that Syria is behind it. Is this a true feeling or an attempt to make use of the assasination to put pressure on the government to push Syria troops out. But Syria at least at this moment is not clearly culpable of the assasination. One strong reason is that it does not serve Syria's interest to assasinate especially given the pressure on the country. In the days leading to the assasination, there was extreme argument and mud slinging going on in Lebanon leading to some commentators suspecting an assasination may be coming up.

Anywho, does anyone have a detailed analysis of this country and the events since from what little I know, my thoughts are pulled in multiple directions.
post #6 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpy
All foreign troops and governments backed by foreign powers must leave, except in the case of the US and Halliburton...

Haha, YES! One drink for me for turning this into a Bush bash.

Anywho, on a more serious note does anyone really know the whole history behind Lebanon? From the little I know, things are not really black and white.

I know that they had a civil war in the past. Then Syria invaded in an attempt to destroy the PLO so as to appease Israel or at least to prevent Israeli intervention. Israel then invaded twice. Then the UN and other troops come in. Civil war continued and US troops were killed in a bomb blast. Somewhere in the late 1980s or early 1990, Syria entered the country and together with the Lebanese army successfully put down the civil war and disarmed most of the armed groups. And the civil war was over. That is my short history of Lebanon if I recall correctly.

So, while Syria is not a democracy it had helped Lebanon in resolving the civil war bringing peace to the country so at least on that count Syria is not the "bad guy." Although after 15 years of relative internal peace, it could be argued that perhaps it may be time for Syria to withdraw their troops.

As for the assasination, there is a feeling in Lebanon that Syria is behind it. Is this a true feeling or an attempt to make use of the assasination to put pressure on the government to push Syria troops out. But Syria at least at this moment is not clearly culpable of the assasination. One strong reason is that it does not serve Syria's interest to assasinate especially given the pressure on the country. In the days leading to the assasination, there was extreme argument and mud slinging going on in Lebanon leading to some commentators suspecting an assasination may be coming up.

Anywho, does anyone have a detailed analysis of this country and the events since from what little I know, my thoughts are pulled in multiple directions.

Yes, I do recall Syria did have some reasonable reasons for their presence in there.

A problem always is the US does put standards on other countries they don't follow themslves, for instance not seeing themselves as occupiers when we are etc. But then again I would rather have a US occupation than a Syrian!
post #7 of 29
Lehrer hour on PBS Is doing a longer piece on this.
post #8 of 29
I saw this on CNN - and my first thought was "Someones going to get into trouble for the title - a whole goverment can't resign!"

Oh my - it will be an interested news hour tonight!
post #9 of 29
Thread Starter 
How in heck did this get to Bash Bush hour?

Yes, Talon, the whole gov't resigned. Kind of hard to believe...I listened carefully, and still didn't believe what I was hearing.

This is gonna get interesting.

Best-
Michele

this is the edit: I hit send, looked at my post, and realized I was not quite done. Do you all realize how silly you look, making this somehow a bash Bush thread? Do you understand the implications of what happened today? Or are you all so narrow viewed that it doesn't matter if it's good, bad, or indifferent, it's just another opportunity to take apart the President of the United States, elected, and serving a second term?

If this is truly a bash Bush thread, then you really must believe that Bush created the (peaceful, so far) overthrow of a sitting government. That Bush is responsible for free elections in Iraq, which then spawned The Saudi Emerates to declare that they will have free(er) elections, created the environment for the PLO leadership to be free(ish)ly elected, and see the seeds of peace in Israel. You must also see that the beginning of all this was Afghanistan, where they had free elections, women voted, are in school and are now trying out for the Woman's Soccer League.

So let's recap a bit, shall we?

Since Bush was elected the first time, at least three countries have changed governments, 5 have had free elections, and all this in the middle of the most hostile territory we could possibly be in.

Know what? I say

ROCK ON PRESIDENT BUSH! Not too shabby, not too shabby at all.

There. I feel better now.

Best-
Michele
post #10 of 29
post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by noni
How in heck did this get to Bash Bush hour?

Yes, Talon, the whole gov't resigned. Kind of hard to believe...I listened carefully, and still didn't believe what I was hearing.

This is gonna get interesting.

Best-
Michele

this is the edit: I hit send, looked at my post, and realized I was not quite done. Do you all realize how silly you look, making this somehow a bash Bush thread? Do you understand the implications of what happened today? Or are you all so narrow viewed that it doesn't matter if it's good, bad, or indifferent, it's just another opportunity to take apart the President of the United States, elected, and serving a second term?

If this is truly a bash Bush thread, then you really must believe that Bush created the (peaceful, so far) overthrow of a sitting government. That Bush is responsible for free elections in Iraq, which then spawned The Saudi Emerates to declare that they will have free(er) elections, created the environment for the PLO leadership to be free(ish)ly elected, and see the seeds of peace in Israel. You must also see that the beginning of all this was Afghanistan, where they had free elections, women voted, are in school and are now trying out for the Woman's Soccer League.

So let's recap a bit, shall we?

Since Bush was elected the first time, at least three countries have changed governments, 5 have had free elections, and all this in the middle of the most hostile territory we could possibly be in.

Know what? I say

ROCK ON PRESIDENT BUSH! Not too shabby, not too shabby at all.

There. I feel better now.

Best-
Michele
I don't think Bumpy was bashing, just pointing out as long as it's the U.S. and our interested parties, occupying then it's ok. But I mean my gosh I would rather have a US occupation than a Syrian one.

But truly Michele, I am being optimistic, I mean there is a great line in Shakespeare:

"What your wisdom could not discover, these shallow fools have brought to light"

Sometimes the wrong person does the right thing, kind of like stumbling on to gold in CA or something. I mean I don't think Bush knew what the hell he was doing, but that doesn't mean it can't turn out right! I mean hell if there are no WMD's, then why not just spread liberty! That's right
post #12 of 29
Wow....just wow. Some of you need to wake up and smell the coffee and actually start paying attention to world events instead of taking pot shots at the president. Maybe you're just upset that Bush has finally succeeded where your beloved Bill Clinton could not, peace in Israel.

Noni hit the nail on the head. Syria is quickly painting itself into a corner with it's actions in Lebenon and now the link to the attack in Tel Aviv. Soon there will be change there too, from within.
post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by noni
The Syrian government had backed the Lebanese government...and by backed, I mean installed their own people in leadership positions.
Michele
...and their army were there too 'keeping the peace'.

I saw some of the protests on last nights' news. It all looked very chaotic, and I just hope it doesn't inflame an already tense situation. Let's hope for an outbreak of peace and understanding.

Sue
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeye23
Wow....just wow. Some of you need to wake up and smell the coffee and actually start paying attention to world events instead of taking pot shots at the president. Maybe you're just upset that Bush has finally succeeded where your beloved Bill Clinton could not, peace in Israel.

Noni hit the nail on the head. Syria is quickly painting itself into a corner with it's actions in Lebenon and now the link to the attack in Tel Aviv. Soon there will be change there too, from within.
Not to take away from the skilled diplomacy of W, but I think the real difference right now...is the a certain man has passed on.

You know Clinton "failed" due to Arafat, and after reluctance at first, even the Bush crowd admitted the Clinton plan was a good one.
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeye23
Wow....just wow. Some of you need to wake up and smell the coffee and actually start paying attention to world events instead of taking pot shots at the president. Maybe you're just upset that Bush has finally succeeded where your beloved Bill Clinton could not, peace in Israel.

Noni hit the nail on the head. Syria is quickly painting itself into a corner with it's actions in Lebenon and now the link to the attack in Tel Aviv. Soon there will be change there too, from within.
Let me put it this way - I'll believe it when I see it. I remember the optimism following Camp David and Oslo, et. al.. We may experience peace in Israel, the entire Middle East, or Northern Ireland, but it probably won't be soon.
There are two big questions regarding Lebanon. First, will the Moslems, Christians and Druze in Lebanon be able to maintain a peaceful co-existence without being occupied, whether by Syria, NATO or UN troops? And second, how much power does Bashar Assad actually have? Many experts describe Syria as a collection of competing "fiefdoms", tolerating, rather than supporting, Assad and any reform plans he may have.
I think it's too soon to read "peace in the Middle East" into the resignation of the Lebanese government.
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Not to take away from the skilled diplomacy of W, but I think the real difference right now...is the a certain man has passed on.

You know Clinton "failed" due to Arafat, and after reluctance at first, even the Bush crowd admitted the Clinton plan was a good one.
A certain man (or in this case MEN-- Arafat and Along with the Lebanon President declaring that the goverment null and void) may have passed on but you cannot ignore whats going on in that region. It may because Bush, it may not. However... its hard to ignore. Just becasue your favorite person couldn't get it done doesn't mean someone else can't do it.

Clintons Plan may have failed and the Bush team may have said it was a good one, however, it STILL FAILED. End of story. Nothing more to say.

I find it amazing that this thread about democracy in the middle east, especially one that took the world by storm, was turned into *another* Bush bash thread... the democrats must be staggering drunk by now... I also have to add one thing: this hatred for OUR President is amazing. Just amazing... this is what makes this great country more divided and more hated. I don't care that you don't like him and don't like some, if not all his policies, he is in the office for the next 4 years. This pointless bickering and whining has to F'ing stop. Seriously. I may not have liked Clinton, however, he was my President and Boss, I lived with it...
post #17 of 29
How in heck did some people fail to see I was trying to parady Bush bashing and make a joke that was more poking fun of the Bush bashers than anyone.

Yes, apparently, the whole department of humor resigned. Kind of hard to believe ... I thought I chose my words carefully and even including a smiley so as not to be misinterpreted, and still didn't believe what I am reading.

This is truly interesting.

Best-
Mickey

this is the edit: I hit send, looked at my post, and realized I was not quite done. Do you all realize how silly you look, interpreting this somehow into a bash bush thread? Do you understand the implications of what was written that day? Or are you so narrow viewed that it doesn't matter that it was a joke, indifferent even to words (disparaging about the seriousness of the initial part) that tell one it is a joke just in case my sense of humor is not shared, just so that you have another oppotunity to take apart anyone, unelected, and trying to serve a joke so that you can engage in some hardcore bashing yourself, served even with hint of the F word by some.

sigh...
----
By the way
Who is the Saudi Emirates? I thought Saudi Arabia was ruled by a King rather than an Emir. For a true Emirate, look no further than United Arab Emirates, which you have to visit, it is beautiful. I guarantee you, most or a bulk of your preconceptions of the "hostile" Middle East would be changed. Now, if only I can get a few million dollars to buy some property on The Palm in UAE before they are snapped up by all those millionaires and especially those European soccer players.
Also why President of US, elected. Why is the word "elected" used. That is like saying, President Bush, male. Or is there something going on subconsciously in your mind?
Last point, my name is not Micky, just so you know.
post #18 of 29
The supposed "Bush bashing" consisted of this statement and joke:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumpy
All foreign troops and governments backed by foreign powers must leave, except in the case of the US and Halliburton...

Haha, YES! One drink for me for turning this into a Bush bash.
Overreacting to the above may very well completely derail this thread, as well as "overreacting to the overreaction". Suppose we all try to avoid a

To get back on topic, IMO, it's rather premature for anybody to claim "success" in the Middle East. Let's not forget that Rabin and Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, and that "peace" didn't materialize, for many reasons. There's too much that can still go sideways there.
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arg0
A certain man (or in this case MEN-- Arafat and Along with the Lebanon President declaring that the goverment null and void) may have passed on but you cannot ignore whats going on in that region. It may because Bush, it may not. However... its hard to ignore. Just becasue your favorite person couldn't get it done doesn't mean someone else can't do it.

Clintons Plan may have failed and the Bush team may have said it was a good one, however, it STILL FAILED. End of story. Nothing more to say.

I find it amazing that this thread about democracy in the middle east, especially one that took the world by storm, was turned into *another* Bush bash thread... the democrats must be staggering drunk by now... I also have to add one thing: this hatred for OUR President is amazing. Just amazing... this is what makes this great country more divided and more hated. I don't care that you don't like him and don't like some, if not all his policies, he is in the office for the next 4 years. This pointless bickering and whining has to F'ing stop. Seriously. I may not have liked Clinton, however, he was my President and Boss, I lived with it...
You know when did arguing become like this treasonist thing? So we don't like the guy, big deal. That doesn't mean we don't like people who like him.... And not all of us just adored Clinton like you think, I have major issues with his trianglization, you know I dont know why the right hates him so much, he was a republican in many ways.
post #20 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Also why President of US, elected. Why is the word "elected" used. That is like saying, President Bush, male. Or is there something going on subconsciously in your mind?
Nope, just heading off all those who believe he was "appointed" the first time. There are many of those people here...

Quote:
Last point, my name is not Micky, just so you know.
I fail to see where I ever called you Micky, Mickey, or Mickie.

Something subconsious going on there? Or just selective editing of an easily checked post?

BTW, I always sign my posts...

"Best-
Michele"

Michele is my name. Best is the salutation I habitually use.

That being said, you're not the first person who's taken offense at my signature line. It baffles me here as well as when it was first done. I just can't see it as offensive.

Best-
Michele
post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
The supposed "Bush bashing" consisted of this statement and joke:

Overreacting to the above may very well completely derail this thread, as well as "overreacting to the overreaction". Suppose we all try to avoid a

To get back on topic, IMO, it's rather premature for anybody to claim "success" in the Middle East. Let's not forget that Rabin and Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, and that "peace" didn't materialize, for many reasons. There's too much that can still go sideways there.
Right, I mean we shoudl remain optimistic, however it's kind of like Liz and Dick getting back together, normal to
question for how long (for the youngsters, Liz and Dick are Liz Taylor and Richard Burton who had a rocky marriage)
post #22 of 29
Thread Starter 
Curious - how is it more of a flame war because I spoke my mind about President Bush than it is a flame war when someone else does it? Should I just not speak my mind? Should I not say anything when I'm ticked off at people for not seeing the reality of the situation? What?

Best-
Michele
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by noni
Curious - how is it more of a flame war because I spoke my mind about President Bush than it is a flame war when someone else does it? Should I just not speak my mind? Should I not say anything when I'm ticked off at people for not seeing the reality of the situation? What?

Best-
Michele
Personally I don't care if you go off or not. I consider flame wars more like "you ignorant misguided slut" stuff than
"I hate/love Bush"
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by noni
Curious - how is it more of a flame war because I spoke my mind about President Bush than it is a flame war when someone else does it? Should I just not speak my mind? Should I not say anything when I'm ticked off at people for not seeing the reality of the situation? What?

Best-
Michele
You might not have noticed that I said, "Suppose we all try to avoid a ", which is hardly an accusation of flaming directed against any particular poster(s), but simply an expression of my anxiety that the thread could deteriorate into such an "encounter", which would be counter-productive, to say the least, as it might lead to removal of the thread, or drastic editing of posts.
Please keep in mind that your reality may not be somebody else's. We all interpret the world through our senses, past experiences, prejudices, preferences, and so on. Just to give a concrete example: I can clearly (in my mind) distinguish various hues of red, yellow, and orange, but my husband cannot. My "reality" is that strawberries and oranges are of different colors; hubby's "reality" is that they are exactly the same color. I imagine Jamie sees both in yet another way. Does that make any one of us "right", and the others "wrong"?
I do realize that there are some members who are upset at what they perceive as "Bush bashing" on this forum, and there obviously has been some of that. However, I'd like to point out that there has been relatively little pouting on the part of his critics when Clinton, Hillary, or Kerry have been the objects of contempt. Why is there a need to convince people that they're "wrong" about their political beliefs? Time may tell what the best course of action in any given situation would've been, but all of us will probably be long gone by then.
post #25 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Please keep in mind that your reality may not be somebody else's. We all interpret the world through our senses, past experiences, prejudices, preferences, and so on. Just to give a concrete example: I can clearly (in my mind) distinguish various hues of red, yellow, and orange, but my husband cannot. My "reality" is that strawberries and oranges are of different colors; hubby's "reality" is that they are exactly the same color. I imagine Jamie sees both in yet another way. Does that make any one of us "right", and the others "wrong"?
I understand your example, and I agree...who's to say what's right and what's wrong?

But the initial post I made said NOTHING about Bush. Halliburton and Bush came in later, and not by me. So maybe, what happened was that someone took a poke at a time when I was fed up about the partisan bickering, and I responded. Did I respond too harshly? No more so than many others who've gotten to say that republicans are (add your stereotype here) without someone saying "hey, let's not get into a flame war."

Considering the pm's I've received from people who've told me they've stopped posting here because of the Bush bashing that went on, or because their views were denegrated, and considering the pm's I've received saying "well done; 'bout time someone stood up and said something," I'd say that there is a significant portion of people who've stopped posting because flames were sent in their direction, and those flamers who weren't told "hey, we're gonna have a flame war, play nice."

That's what I'm talking about, Trish. I completely understand (and respect) differences when they are brought to the table in rational discourse and respectful disagreement. I have a limit on what I will tolerate at times, and that limit also changes at times. In no way was I flaming, or initiating a Bush bash flame war. I spoke my mind - which, in regards to this, happens to be strongly in favor of Bush; and why is that bad, anyway? Why is it inappropriate to voice my support for the President of the United States? Why would that instigate a flame war?

Trish, I really do understand others' opinions. I don't appreciate someone intentionally changing/misquoting my post to reflect something that wasn't even there, seemingly without reason, and expressing derisive umbrage, utterly unjustified as it wasn't even something I wrote. Furthermore, I don't believe that a smiley can take away the intent of a post. I could say "Joe is a raging A****le" and I'm still saying what Joe is...a smiley is NOT a pass to hide behind, to later turn and say "hey, I didn't say Joe was an A****le, didn'tcha see my winkie?".

I'm tired of the same old song, so I sung a different one. If my supporting President Bush is offensive, then so be it. But I will always stand up for what I believe...always.

Best-
Michele
post #26 of 29


(For some reason the last page wasn't showing up, so I'm writing a post to see if it does.)
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb


(For some reason the last page wasn't showing up, so I'm writing a post to see if it does.)
Thanks, Heidi, now it has shown up. Weird, huh?
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by noni
I understand your example, and I agree...who's to say what's right and what's wrong?

But the initial post I made said NOTHING about Bush. Halliburton and Bush came in later, and not by me. So maybe, what happened was that someone took a poke at a time when I was fed up about the partisan bickering, and I responded. Did I respond too harshly? No more so than many others who've gotten to say that republicans are (add your stereotype here) without someone saying "hey, let's not get into a flame war."

Considering the pm's I've received from people who've told me they've stopped posting here because of the Bush bashing that went on, or because their views were denegrated, and considering the pm's I've received saying "well done; 'bout time someone stood up and said something," I'd say that there is a significant portion of people who've stopped posting because flames were sent in their direction, and those flamers who weren't told "hey, we're gonna have a flame war, play nice."

That's what I'm talking about, Trish. I completely understand (and respect) differences when they are brought to the table in rational discourse and respectful disagreement. I have a limit on what I will tolerate at times, and that limit also changes at times. In no way was I flaming, or initiating a Bush bash flame war. I spoke my mind - which, in regards to this, happens to be strongly in favor of Bush; and why is that bad, anyway? Why is it inappropriate to voice my support for the President of the United States? Why would that instigate a flame war?

Trish, I really do understand others' opinions. I don't appreciate someone intentionally changing/misquoting my post to reflect something that wasn't even there, seemingly without reason, and expressing derisive umbrage, utterly unjustified as it wasn't even something I wrote. Furthermore, I don't believe that a smiley can take away the intent of a post. I could say "Joe is a raging A****le" and I'm still saying what Joe is...a smiley is NOT a pass to hide behind, to later turn and say "hey, I didn't say Joe was an A****le, didn'tcha see my winkie?".

I'm tired of the same old song, so I sung a different one. If my supporting President Bush is offensive, then so be it. But I will always stand up for what I believe...always.

Best-
Michele

It's funny, maybe they just aren't used to political banter so the bashing upsets them? I mean my gosh I heard more Clinton bashing over those years and I just smiled and nodded for the most part. I never really let it bother me too much. I have a friend whose husband is really right wing and he even tried to get my into arguments and I just didn't back then.

The ironic thing is often people don't know what they are upset about, for instance Clinton was pretty much republican lite, I am sorry to offend his haters but it's true. NAFTA, the death penalty etc.
So why the right hates him I don't get it. I think it's just ego that their trend was upset though of dominating the
system after the Reagan revolution.
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by noni
I understand your example, and I agree...who's to say what's right and what's wrong?

But the initial post I made said NOTHING about Bush. Halliburton and Bush came in later, and not by me. So maybe, what happened was that someone took a poke at a time when I was fed up about the partisan bickering, and I responded. Did I respond too harshly? No more so than many others who've gotten to say that republicans are (add your stereotype here) without someone saying "hey, let's not get into a flame war."

Considering the pm's I've received from people who've told me they've stopped posting here because of the Bush bashing that went on, or because their views were denegrated, and considering the pm's I've received saying "well done; 'bout time someone stood up and said something," I'd say that there is a significant portion of people who've stopped posting because flames were sent in their direction, and those flamers who weren't told "hey, we're gonna have a flame war, play nice."

That's what I'm talking about, Trish. I completely understand (and respect) differences when they are brought to the table in rational discourse and respectful disagreement. I have a limit on what I will tolerate at times, and that limit also changes at times. In no way was I flaming, or initiating a Bush bash flame war. I spoke my mind - which, in regards to this, happens to be strongly in favor of Bush; and why is that bad, anyway? Why is it inappropriate to voice my support for the President of the United States? Why would that instigate a flame war?

Trish, I really do understand others' opinions. I don't appreciate someone intentionally changing/misquoting my post to reflect something that wasn't even there, seemingly without reason, and expressing derisive umbrage, utterly unjustified as it wasn't even something I wrote. Furthermore, I don't believe that a smiley can take away the intent of a post. I could say "Joe is a raging A****le" and I'm still saying what Joe is...a smiley is NOT a pass to hide behind, to later turn and say "hey, I didn't say Joe was an A****le, didn'tcha see my winkie?".

I'm tired of the same old song, so I sung a different one. If my supporting President Bush is offensive, then so be it. But I will always stand up for what I believe...always.

Best-
Michele
For some odd reason, you post was "lost in cyberspace" until Heidi posted. I don't know if it was a problem with the site, or my computer.

Michele, if I'd thought you were trying to start a flame war, I would have edited your post. I also let the reply you're talking about stand because I felt it was illustrative of how easily misunderstandings, or a perceived wrong choice of words, can lead to problems.
I, too, have gotten PMs and emails from people saying that they weren't going to post on IMO any longer, but many of them stated it was because they felt they were being attacked any time they said something critical of the current administration, the invasion of Iraq, or the Pentagon, and that they were wondering why it was okay to make fun of or "insult" Clinton, Dean, Kerry, and the like, but not Bush. So I'd have to say there are problems "to the left and right of center".

As far as Lebanon is concerned, Assad has announced today that he'll be addressing the Syrian parliament tomorrow, and the assumption is that he'll react to the demands of France, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, etc., to withdraw from Lebanon by announcing a partial withdrawal. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ria/index.html
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Lebanese Government Resigns