Previous Next Index Thread
Previous Next Index Thread
In article <01bb6518.fd32b580$02101dcc@cindymoe.halcyon.com>, "Cynthia Moe" <cindymoe@halcyon.com> wrote: > > Whereas Syria has pledged publicly and privately to abide > > by the Taif agreement of 1989, which required that 2 years > > after certain Lebanese political conditions were achieved > > in September 1990, Syria would withdraw its armed forces > > stationed in Lebanon to the gateway of the Bekaa Valley > > with complete withdrawal occurring shortly thereafter; > > Good. so you approve. > [...] > > A lot of good those resolutions did for Lebanon! so you do approve of the resolutions intent, but you think they are ineffective, but you do approve. > [...] > > and we all know what happened as a result of this strong urging. So you do approve but you think it is ineffective > [...] > > Whoppie I take it that you approve > [...] > > Duh! and this is coming to light only now? so you agree > [...] > > Yes, but do you notice how they avoided the Israeli onslaught against > Lebanese civilians? Lebanese civilians died, and this one-sided resolution > casts that aside by putting the blame on a group that does not receive its > orders from Lebanon, resulting in hundreds of civilian Lebanese deaths. Yes I noticed, so you approve but think it is incomplete. > [...] > > Lebanon should have been there (on principle, but of course was not > allowed to by Assad), but the motivation was hardly *peacemaking*, it was > just another Clinton foreign policy flop and an attempt to shore up the > Israeli PM's chances for re-election. I agree 100%. But the bill is punishing Syria NOT Lebanon. It is punishing Assad for preventing us to go. So I think you approve. > [...] > > Good. so you approve > [...] > > and with the implicit approval of the US, so what is this group of > congressmen telling us? I disagree. the US did criticize it but not strongly enough because they really needed Syria. But IF what you say is true, they are