Did it bother you as much when March 14 politicians would regularly meet with US officials and representatives?

It was rumoured that only the regular rag tag “soldiers” (you would know what I mean had you seen them in “training” in the mornings)pulled out. The mukhabarat just changed their modus operandi and merged into the population areas as regular “syrian labour”.

As for political influence…You are correct. HA however attained more freedom of decisions and movements in their day to day activities!!

(I have never taken black helicopters seriously but in this case I just cannot get rid of the idea that Syrian troop withdrawl was a sham. I hope that I am totally wrong)

That was my comment initially regarding Landis’ assertion about Syria’s desire to have Golan back! On the contrary Syria always wanted the golden goose that is Lebanon. If peace were to break out; between Syria and Israel; the whole dynamic that keeps these tyrants would change; HA will become irrelevant as far as “Lebanese” matters are concerned…
So why negotiate with Israel over a patch of land where they can have Lebanon??

This. In my opinion.
The withdrawal was but a minor setback. Syria thought, for a moment, that the US was going to push for “regime change” and Bashar would be next after Saddam.
Once it became clear that was not gonna happen, well…we all know how it played out.

What do you think Is Syria back in almost as much of control over Lebanese politics as it was in 2005 but in a more subtle way? Notice all the trips to Damascuss by the PM, Jumblat, Aoun, Suleiman, Nasrallah…Note the lack of any progress on demarcation, Note the never ending supply of illegal weapons to Hezbollah, and finally note that the Lebanese authorities failed to renew the visa of a Syrian political refugee.
Was there ever a so called Cedar revolution or was the Syrian withdrawl only the result of a misreading by the Syrians of the US reaction at the time?

My point is that an academic analysis does not use “eternal truths” or “generalities” in describing situations but always acknowledges possibilities of change–both historical and human transformations.

To keep on claiming that Hizbollah is an Iranian or a Syrian agent (it should be described instead within a current context that is suject to change) without acknowledging that this is a “party” or a “popular movement” or whatever you want to call a dispositif like it — there are real people, real political, cultural, and economic forces, etc., involved in what HA is and how it is “becoming”– and not merely a set “ideology” or a simplistic reduction. It is not defined by its origins, leadership, dominant discourses or practices; it should be “described” as such in a particular social-historical situation, or otherwise, the approach is the same as calling all “jews” or all “arabs” this or that –an eternal quality or a particular “charateristic” considered essential. This is definitely a non-academic and a racist apporach.

Cheers,

Wow!

Just wow!

The degrees of self-delusion that some people exhibit is just…wow. I have no words.

While the US may not be the perfectest of perfect places in the world, it’s far from “close to the end”.

If anyone is “close to the end”, it’s the morally and culturally bankrupt, medieval backwards tyrants of the middle east.

There’s a reason why all the younger, smarter, ambitious people from that part of the world are choosing to emigrate to the “close to the end” countries to further their education and put their talents to good use. I don’t see a lot of people moving to Iran or Syria or Egypt to accomplish anything productive with their lives.