U.S. will get Syria out by May

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
'U.S. will get Syria out by May'
Former Lebanese PM says war in Iraq will allow his country to be free

Posted: February 25, 2005
9:00 a.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
JERUSALEM -- The U.S. led war against terrorism and its advances in Iraq and Afghanistan have enhanced the climate in the Middle East and will enable the international community to force Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon likely by May, former Lebanese Prime Minister Michel Aoun told WorldNetDaily today in an exclusive interview.

"The U.S. and EU are backing us in our movement to free Lebanon," said Aoun, speaking to WND from France. "They are interfering through diplomacy and threats of sanctions, and the situation is such today that Syria must comply. If the U.S. and Europe follow through, Syria will be obliged to withdraw before Lebanese elections in May."



Former Lebanese Prime Minister Michel Aoun


Without offering a timeline, Syria announced Wednesday it will withdraw its troops from Lebanon to the eastern Bekaa Valley on the Syrian border in accordance with a 1989 agreement that requires Damascus to remove its nearly 20,000 soldiers.

The decision followed increased international pressure on Syria amid a mass civil uprising to free Lebanon from Syrian occupation launched after the assassination last week of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, an advocate of Lebanese independence.


Many opposition figures have said they are skeptical of the Syrian withdrawal announcements, particularly because Damascus has not offered a timetable.

But Aoun, who was prime minister when the 1989 withdrawal agreement was signed, told WorldNetDaily the climate in the Middle East now requires Syria to comply.

"The U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed the Middle East. Not only the attacks to oust the rulers of those countries, but the consequences of the attacks changed things as well. They are democratizing the region and this will put pressure on [Syrian President Bashar] Assad to follow through," said Aoun.

"All these changes in the Middle East make obsolete the previous ways of Syria in dealing with Lebanon and Syria's involvement with political terrorism, which is not accepted anymore."

Aoun is no stranger to revolt against Syria. While prime minister in 1989, he launched a "war of liberation" against Syrian military forces which had earlier invaded Lebanon. The war was highly popular with Lebanese citizens, but failed to garner the international opposition needed to successfully oust Syrian troops. It ended in a cease fire and the signing of the American and Saudi backed Ta'if accord, which required Syria to redeploy its troops to the Bekaa valley and confer with Lebanon on further redeployments.

Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the American government garnered Syria's participation in the U.S.-led coalition against Baghdad, and critics charge in return the previous Bush administration gave Damascus a green light to complete its conquest of Lebanon, allowing it to launch an invasion of East Beirut and the surrounding areas controlled by Aoun's government.

The invasion forced Aoun into exile in France. But the former prime minister said this time Syria will withdraw: "The situation today is totally different. They (the international community) are on our side."


Aoun said the opposition has no plans for violence or war.


"It's not needed. We are making a peaceful movement against Syrians. Having demonstrations, sit-ins, protests. And most importantly, we are heard and listened to by the international community, especially the U.S. and EU. They are backing us and interfering through diplomatic ways," he said.

Analysts explain the loss of Lebanon could devastate the current Syrian regime. They say Assad considers his influence in Lebanon a key factor to his position in the Middle East, and that a successful campaign to drive Syrian troops from Lebanon would devastate the Syrian government.

Assad largely depends on Lebanese trade to fuel the Syrian economy, and has used Hezbollah militants, who maintain over 3,000 missiles on the Lebanese-Israeli border, to threaten the Jewish State and solidify Syrian regional power.

"Too bad for Syria," said Aoun. "They didn't have to build their economy at our expense! Now they have to deal with the consequences. They have to figure out how to leave Lebanon, which they counted on too much to sustain them."

Joining the chorus of Lebanese opposition, Aoun blamed Syria for the assassination of Hariri. "The Syrian occupation forces are behind the attack. This fits completely their style and tradition."

He sneered at other Arab countries who have been using their state-run media to claim Israel was responsible for Hariri's death.

"We know the reality. We are not looking for fictitious murderers. We have an effective murderer in Syria."


Despite his exile, Auon has remained a highly popular leader in Lebanon, considered by many to be the country's most prominent opposition figure. There have been calls throughout the decade, both from the Christian community and from a significant portion of the Lebanese Muslim population for his return to power.

Auon told WND he plans to move back to Lebanon in April and may run for top office. "My goal at the moment is simply to free Lebanon. If the Lebanese people want me to be the head of state, then I will assume responsibility."

Howdy Y'all,

I think that Aoun's statement,is telling- "The U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed the Middle East. Not only the attacks to oust the rulers of those countries, but the consequences of the attacks changed things as well. They are democratizing the region and this will put pressure on [Syrian President Bashar] Assad to follow through," said Aoun. "

None of this would be possible,if we hadn't gone into Iraq and Afghanistan,and got rid of the 2 most brutal goverments in the middle-east..2 down..2 to go.
Sometimes..being redneck-is a good thing..don't ya think ?

If the cowardly Left had their way,saddam and sons,and the Taliban,would still be in power..and Zarqawi would be in this country,blowing things and folks up,as well as cutting their heads off..instead,he will be captured and/or killed,in Iraq..and he will not bring his bloody campaign of terror,to America.

Have a good one...Torog

FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

None of this would be possible,if we hadn't gone into Iraq and Afghanistan,and got rid of the 2 most brutal goverments in the middle-east..2 down..2 to go.
Sometimes..being redneck-is a good thing..don't ya think ?

---

Tell me what you think, Torog: If 9/11 had never happened, do you think the US would have invaded Iraq anyway? Do you think Bush would have used (or created) another disaster in order to fool the population into thinking you HAVE to invade Iraq? Did the Iraq invasion have anything at all to do with 'liberating' and 'democratizing' the poor, oppressed Iraqis?

Whoa, we really misunderestimated Bush's strategery for the embetterment of mankind.

hahahaha.

that was great.

even though i don't vote for democrats, i hope thinking this is funny doesn't make me a pro-saddam anti-american terrorist sympathizer liberal lefty democrat.

misunderestimated dosen't even come close.sheep to the slaughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

Tell me what you think, Torog: If 9/11 had never happened, do you think the US would have invaded Iraq anyway? Do you think Bush would have used (or created) another disaster in order to fool the population into thinking you HAVE to invade Iraq? Did the Iraq invasion have anything at all to do with 'liberating' and 'democratizing' the poor, oppressed Iraqis?

---

Howdy FLESH,

You ask:"Tell me what you think, Torog: If 9/11 had never happened, do you think the US would have invaded Iraq anyway?"

Yup..because saddam was in violation of all UN sanctions,he was still attacking US forces on a daily basis,in the No-Fly zones..that alone,was justification for the use of force to ensure compliance with UN sanctions.

You ask:"Do you think Bush would have used (or created) another disaster in order to fool the population into thinking you HAVE to invade Iraq? "

Nope

You ask:"Did the Iraq invasion have anything at all to do with 'liberating' and 'democratizing' the poor, oppressed Iraqis?"

Yup..it sure did,and that's exactly what was accomplished..the elections occured,where none had occured,the oil-for-food program,was found to be defrauded,it was saddam,who starved his people..not UN sanctions or America,Libya turned over it's wmd program,now Lebanon is throwing out Syrian forces..all sorts of good things happen-when Freedom is un-leashed..a great hunger for Freedom,has been stirred up across the middle-east,Afghanistan,has gotten rid of the Taliban and elections held,with women voting..yup..the people have spoken..and they no longer wish to live under brutal dictatorships.

Why are you so opposed to folks being free ? Why do you wish to protect the status-quo ,of brutal dictatorships ? Maybe,you just hate Bush so much,you couldn't care less,if the whole world was suffering-as long as Bush doesn't git any credit for doing good..yup,that's probably it.

Have a good one....Torog

Nobody in their right minds should be opposed to people being free. We are opposed to war, war was not necessary, war is never necessary so long as the people can voice themselves.

You start a war, thousands die and then you go well hey look now they're free! We've killed their brothers, fathers, sisters, mothers, sons and daughters and our own sons and daughters and wounded even more but hey the rest are free!
Go America!

Diplomacy is hard.
War is easy.

none of what happening in the middle east would be happening if we hadn't gone into iraq and wiped the desert with their republican gaurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

none of what happening in the middle east would be happening if we hadn't gone into iraq and wiped the desert with their republican gaurd.

---

that's bull
nothing happened after Desert Storm in 90 or 91 or whatever
nothing happened after Americans helped keep Soviets out of Afghanistan in the 80s
nothing happened after the Iran-Iraq war

What makes you think the hopeful events in Lebanon are because of the US? In my mind, they're a backlash to the assassination of the former prime minister that happened not too long ago, and all this would happen whether the US was in Iraq or not.

that's ridiculous!Lebanon's young people were bolstered by watching the iraqi's vote.just like the people in Egypt,the people in Saudi Arabia,and the people in Iranwho plan to hold a freedom rally in a week and a half .give credit when it's due.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

that's ridiculous!Lebanon's young people were bolstered by watching the iraqi's vote.just like the people in Egypt,the people in Saudi Arabia,and the people in Iranwho plan to hold a freedom rally in a week and a half .give credit when it's due.

---

Howdy amsterdam,

" give credit when it's due." You see,that is part of the problem,liberals don't want to give anyone credit..unless it's for themselves..they cannot comprehend,that that those whom they deem 'redneck hicks',could ever do anything good..and they adore the muslim jihadists,because they are attacking that which they hate with a purple passion,America and American troops.

Toppeling saddam and sons,as well as the taliban..renewed fresh hope across the middle-east,that the brutal grip of dictators and fundy islamic states,could be shattered..and democracy and freedom..rise from the ashes.

Have a good one...Torog

it just blow's my mind to read some of the shit people write in these board's??my favorites are the nazi remark's and that bush was responsible for 9/11,that takes the cake!!true idiot's! :mad:

You cannot make assumptions about anything at this point, it will take years after this is all over and done with before we can look back and see the bigger picture of things. Perhaps the assasination and Iraq situation were influencing factors, but it is much too early to tell.

All I know is that I have watched Bush, I have heard and seen him speak and I know a bit about his life before he became president. The way he speaks in public and specifically the way he said that "there ought to be limits to freedom" in response to a question about a website criticizing him frighten me. The Patriot Act being passed with no debate 45 days after 9/11 and even after public retalliation Bush has vetoed several bills that would have helped reversed parts that could have been used to violate civil liberties is kinda wierd. The whole acting to be high in morality and family values thing and then going and putting American sons and daughters into war without fully trying other negotiating methods...im gonna have to think about it carefully. The fact that the chairwomen of his campaign Katherine Harris was Florida Secretary of State and his cousin Jeb Bush is governor of Florida and all those problems with afro-americans being turned away at the polls and 'chads' and voting chaos in Florida during the 2000 election, well I find that suspicious.
But lets not draw conclusions so soon, no, let us all sit back and take it up the ass.

he said that in a joke.i saw that interview.dont take things so seriously.life is good.at least mine is