US is willing to sell Lebanon to buy Iraq, and Syria is willing to sell Iraq to buy Lebanon: Foolishness of Lebanese ultra-nationalists (and of the opposition as a whole): they never learn, and they never grasp their own history, although they claim that they worship the bogus "glory" of the past, of their little Tabbulah homeland. They never learn that outside powers interfere for their own purposes, and they leave for their own purposes, no matter what harm they cause to Lebanon and its people. That Lebanon is utterly (strategically) useless and insignificant, except as a little peg in a larger regional scheme, or as a stepping stone for a larger plan, is clear from reading Lebanon's old and contemporary history. That is how and why Israel, France, Syria, US, Iraq, and Libya intervened in Lebanon, and how the pathetic Lebanese right-wing ultra-nationalists dragged outside forces into Lebanon (including most famously US, Israel, Iraq, and Syria). Just today, I read that Syria suddenly produced the half-brother of Saddam, Sib`awi Ibrahim Al-Hasan at-Tikriti, and surrendered him to the Americans. The American, just watch, will now blame the entire insurgency on this one man. They will now tell you that in his pockets were found documentation of the entire course of the Iraqi insurgency, and the name, addresses, and phone numbers of every Iraqi insurgent. The Syrians undoubtedly and belatedly realized the obvious: that American intervention in Lebanon is about Iraq, and not about Lebanon. Syria and US will then sell and buy, using Lebanon as currency. So this is obvious: Syria will sell Iraq to buy Lebanon, and US will sell Lebanon to buy Iraq. Lebanese opposition will then again be bitterly disappointed, but they never learn. They will, once again, pin their hopes on another outside power. Do some of you remember how the Lebanese right-wing groups pinned their hopes in the 1980s on Saddam Husayn as their savior? They were chanting about "freedom" and "democracy" while regarding the tyrant Saddam as their savior. And Saddam sent Lebanese Forces and `Awn's forces tons of arms, and some torture techniques, no doubt. And today, my ears were offended when I heard Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, David Satterfield, say in Lebanon that his country's policies were based on American support for "freedom of speech". Really? Really? Does his country also support freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, or Libya? Do you see why Arabs are very cynical about hollow American political rhetoric? Was his country concerned about Lebanon when it gave Lebanon to the Syrian regime in 1991 in return for Syrian support for American war in Iraq (the first time)? I never revealed this publicly, but I--Angry Arab himself--could not go to Lebanon for 7 years in the 1990s because the Lebanese intelligence service (and its patrons in Syria) did not like a chapter I wrote for a book (Deirdre Collings (ed.), Peace for Lebanon?) (my piece was titled "Determinants and Characteristics of Syrian Foreign Policy in Lebanon). The security service in Lebanon issued a press release in which it said that the book was banned due to my article which "insulted" Hafidh Al-Asad (according to the press release). (I feel morally obligated to insult every Arab regime and Zionism for what they have done to the Arab people). How come nobody complained about the restrictions on freedoms back then when Hariri and Jumblat were the government? Former prime minister Salim Huss kindly told my sister that it would be better for my safety to stay away from Lebanon for a while. I did, until 1998 when I was told that it was safe for me to return. Oh, I forgot to mention that columnist Husam `Itani reminded readers in Lebanon that Walid Jumblat keeps a portrait of Feliks Dzerzhinsky (founder of the horrific Cheka in the Soviet Union) in his Mukhatarah Palace. Did he remove it when he had lunch there today with Satterfield?