Resolution 1701 passed ... will it last?

[Leatherneck]

First of all, UN tries to remain neutral in conflicts so that's why their flags might fly side-by-side even with claimed terrorist organization.

They inncorrect on so many levels ... if you are neutral why would you pass resolutions to condemn, that's not neutral. The UN forces are to keep a distants from other forces that are not working directly with, it's in the charter. I guess based on that we could say they were working with Hezbollah?

Second of all terrorists might use UN ambulances for tactical vehicles example with force.

But if this is known and they are targetted, then civilians are being killed, right?

Also I want to point out that it's likely that UN ambulances must pick up all the wounded from the area with or without the guns. Just like red cross helps all whether they are criminal fighters or not.

Then they must insure their equipment is not improperly used even if it requires force.

For the releasing the kidnapping films, I haven't really good explanation mainly because I haven't really put much effort to inspect it. I have my own doubts about that case, but won't go into details which those might be.

Will of course you haven't put much effort into it, it unminds your idealic vision of the UN.

If Israel and also US cannot handle the fact that UN must always work also the other party in mind as well and not work only as proxy, tool or power instrument then I guess all you can do is rebuke the UN, which seems that is happening currently.

I'm very sorry to say but US and Israel aren't always right or even in the side of the righteousness. UN must observate all the motivations behind every nation and then act. Unfortunately mostly because of extremists the UN is quite often crippled to act before it's too late.

The UN puts no teeth in their resolution they are to busy trying to make sure no ones feelings are hurt that they pass resolutions that are weak and powerless.

Usual line could be: We know what UN should do and that is the best interest of ours and if it doesn't do it, it's useless or then at least should be powerless so it cannot do the other way either.
Typical and we know who pay the price.

If the UN wasn't a powder puff and put some backbone into it's mission it might get respect.

 

[Leatherneck]

Thats ok, so long as you don't mind the US having equal powers as Andorra. Countries are not equal in power, so why should they be equal in contribution?

Because so many want it to be fair ... level the playing field and quit the whining that the US isn't a bully. Fair on my planet is a equal portion.

 

[Sidhe]

Leatherneck as far as I know the only countries whining about it being unfair are the US and Israel, and that is because neither treats the UN as anything more than a necessary evil. Their is an imbalance between Israel and Palestine, therefore the aportioned responsibility is on the more powerful country, the US is a powerhouse, therefore, the aportioned responsibility should be in this respect against the both of you. If a majority of the worlds governements wants one thing and you block it consistently then would you not expect action to be taken, consistantly, against the slight minority? If not is this fair? It seems to me as has been mentioned two kids are refusing to get in line behind the other children, and are whining that they're not getting what they want. The UN is trying to give all concerned what they need; just because you don't like impartiality, doesn't mean it is unfair.

MB, you do realise that a parent cannot take the side of one child, and then just expect the other child to somehow be ashamed of itself and become "good". Only failed parents act in such ways. Likewise in the case of the Israel-arab conflict there is absolutely zero chance of making the arab side change its ways by simply monotonously favouring Israel, moreso when itself has been enough murderous as of late.
No one should expect an entire race (arabs) to just be muscled to submission. It will not happen by violent means. To keep unrealistically identifying the other side (Israel) with "good", "freedom" and other such simple black and white concepts, will never bring peace or reconciliation.

Quoted for being the truth and being what I myself believe

 

[Leatherneck]

Leatherneck as far as I know the only countries whining about it being unfair are the US and Israel, and that is because neither treats the UN as anything more than a necessary evil. Their is an imbalance between Israel and Palestine, therefore the aportioned responsibility is on the more powerful country, the US is a powerhouse, therefore, the aportioned responsibility should be in this respect against the both of you. If a majority of the worlds governements wants one thing and you block it consistently then would you not expect action to be taken, consistantly, against the slight minority? If not is this fair? It seems to me as has been mentioned two kids are refusing to get in line behind the other children, and are whining that they're not getting what they want. The UN is trying to give all concerned what they need; just because you don't like impartiality, doesn't mean it is unfair.

As I type I have 2 kids setting in the couch, that have been fighing ... I now have to sort it out and whoever started it will be punished. I will not be impartial becuase I have a real good idea already who started it based on history of their actions, here and at school. I will be fair and the quilty party will be punished. Does this make me a bad parent because I know in advance who started something and who is going to end it?
The same as radical Islam started this violence and we are going to end it, one way or another with or without the UN. (We'll call them Mom)

I must go play bulling superpower now.

 

[eyrei]

While I would love it to work, I don't think it will because a number of the major players in that region are only vaguely involved.

 

[C~G]

I am saying this is what I have seen just on the surface linked here at CFC. Do you think thats all there is? I dont. That kind of stuff tends to be iceberg like.....the vast majority of whats going on is still unseen.

I agree, there might be various reasons for those things happening though and we can only guess.
It's very much same as those soldiers in Haditha. We don't know what happened before the trial and even after that we won't probably ever know what actually happened.

I have no idea if its a conspiracy or not. But it sure bugged the living hell out of me to see guys in ski masks and AKs riding around in a UN marked ambulance. It also bugged me to see a hezbolla flag flying right next to a UN flag on a bunker.

Hehheh, that didn't actually surprise me that much. It's pretty naiive from anyone thinking that UN staff and stuff wouldn't be used for any other purposes than it's meant for.

Doesnt that bug YOU?

Yes, it does. But there are various levels of bugging. In my opinion those show just something minor things which shouldn't put us away from the major course. No system is perfect, not any army and especially never such international organization as UN. Humans do mistake and there are always issues involved which we can only guess or use our imagination to fill the gaps.

So I have no idea why you think its acceptable in this circumstance. I certainly dont think it is.

They inncorrect on so many levels ... if you are neutral why would you pass resolutions to condemn, that's not neutral. The UN forces are to keep a distants from other forces that are not working directly with, it's in the charter. I guess based on that we could say they were working with Hezbollah?

I didn't say it was acceptable. I said it is just so. Sometimes rules can and must be broken. We can only guess about the reason. I can hardly imagine though it to be that UN is working in secret with forces of Nasrallah in purpose to fight against Israel.
Resolutions are passed because of the voting system in UN. Still forces on ground aren't supposed to help the other side in military operations, humanitarian needs are entirely different case.

But if this is known and they are targetted, then civilians are being killed, right?

Sure. But UN doesn't have a choice. Of course, needless to say members of Hezbollah use it for their advantage. I might do that in the heat of the battle as well.

Then they must insure their equipment is not improperly used even if it requires force.

It isn't possible in the circumstances, you should probably know that. If they use force, they will be targeted themselves even more.

Will of course you haven't put much effort into it, it unminds your idealic vision of the UN.

Oh, please. You don't know about my "ideliastic vision" of UN. I do know how it stands and works. Or how it crawls and breaks down. It's machinery of humans and humans aren't perfect. I take the victories where they can be taken and losses where they must be tolerated in order to save at least something.
But putting down UN isn't good for anyone. Unless you drive certain kind of agenda where everything revolves around your own nation.

EDIT: I don't want talk about that particular video filming case because I believe it was mainly power struggle between UN and Israelis. I would probably say that UN officials didn't like the way Israelis would have used the tape or what kind of methods they use in their operations.

The UN puts no teeth in their resolution they are to busy trying to make sure no ones feelings are hurt that they pass resolutions that are weak and powerless.

If the UN wasn't a powder puff and put some backbone into it's mission it might get respect.

Israelis feelings are hurt all the time from what I have seen. Again I see a bit of "if it doesn't work for the US, it's against everyone of us"-attitude right there.

But again there's time when international community along with US can show their teeth trying to solve the current crisis. Let's just see what happens.
It ain't over till it's over.

 

[Leatherneck]

Sure. But UN doesn't have a choice. Of course, needless to say members of Hezbollah use it for their advantage. I might do that in the heat of the battle as well.

If Hezbollah or any other for that matter, use UN, Red Cross or Medic symbols to gain a military advantage then the WORLD should condemn before crying civilian deaths. It is against the Geneva Convention to use those ... Hezbollah is not a member. It's no secert they don't "play by the rules" so why should anyone else?

It isn't possible in the circumstances, you should probably know that. If they use force, they will be targeted themselves even more.

Under Chapter 6 of the UN mandate, no it is not, under Chapter 7 it is, I need to refresh my knowledge but I'm pretty sure that is correct.

Oh, please. You don't know about my "ideliastic vision" of UN. I do know how it stands and works. Or how it crawls and breaks down. It's machinery of humans and humans aren't perfect. I take the victories where they can be taken and losses where they must be tolerated in order to save at least something.
But putting down UN isn't good for anyone. Unless you drive certain kind of agenda where everything revolves around your own nation.

EDIT: I don't want talk about that particular video filming case because I believe it was mainly power struggle between UN and Israelis. I would probably say that UN officials didn't like the way Israelis would have used the tape or what kind of methods they use in their operations.

The UN should have at least brought it to the attention of the world stage, without hiding and denying it until it was drug out of them.

Israelis feelings are hurt all the time from what I have seen. Again I see a bit of "if it doesn't work for the US, it's against everyone of us"-attitude right there.

Perhaps, but they have been smacked around by the arab world from the day it was founded. I can understand their attitude.

But again there's time when international community along with US can show their teeth trying to solve the current crisis. Let's just see what happens.
It ain't over till it's over.

True but rarely under the UN flag.

 

[C~G]

If Hezbollah or any other for that matter, use UN, Red Cross or Medic symbols to gain a military advantage then the WORLD should condemn before crying civilian deaths. It is against the Geneva Convention to use those ... Hezbollah is not a member. It's no secert they don't "play by the rules" so why should anyone else?

Crying for civilian deaths always comes first and it also must be so. That's what I'm worried about too. I don't give flying poo about political parties, militant groups and nation's goals. I care only about those that have to live in the area when there's conflict going on. These people quite often don't have another choice. That UN is for, to protect the weak, of those that cannot do themselves so.

Situation with organization like Hezbollah is difficult like you probably know. Some see it as political party and others see it as terrorist organization. And UN has to balance with all these things not forgetting that those that are actually working for the UN might be in conditions that hardly allow any consideration for to who to work with or not. I personally believe that is something we don't necessarily always understand.

Under Chapter 6 of the UN mandate, no it is not, under Chapter 7 it is, I need to refresh my knowledge but I'm pretty sure that is correct.

Just like morals, resolutions fly pretty much out of the window when the shooting starts. So it might impossible for UN staff to hold that position.

The UN should have at least brought it to the attention of the world stage, without hiding and denying it until it was drug out of them.

So you could then mock it openly and show the evidence that it's useless after all?

Perhaps, but they have been smacked around by the arab world from the day it was founded. I can understand their attitude.

That attitude might be one (but not only) of the problems why there haven't been reasonable solutions to be found this far.

True but rarely under the UN flag.

Well, there's always the first time for everything, right?

But it seems some people predict, wait and I believe actually want UN resolution not to work.
It would show again how useless it really is and extremists could get more grip on the wheel. (EDIT: how that is spelled, anyway?)

 

[Leatherneck]

Crying for civilian deaths always comes first and it also must be so. That's what I'm worried about too. I don't give flying poo about political parties, militant groups and nation's goals. I care only about those that have to live in the area when there's conflict going on. These people quite often don't have another choice. That UN is for, to protect the weak, of those that cannot do themselves so.

I was referring to Hezbollah using UN or media type transport and when they are targetted and Hezbollah wearing civilian cloths are killed everyone cry civilian death when in fact it was Hezbollah the entire time. I was getting at verify the victim before making the claim.

Situation with organization like Hezbollah is difficult like you probably know. Some see it as political party and others see it as terrorist organization. And UN has to balance with all these things not forgetting that those that are actually working for the UN might be in conditions that hardly allow any consideration for to who to work with or not. I personally believe that is something we don't necessarily always understand.

Legit Government or not, if your military uses terrorist tactics then it should be condemned and treated accordingly. Not the action of the soldier alone but the mandate of the group/government/military.

Just like morals, resolutions fly pretty much out of the window when the shooting starts. So it might impossible for UN staff to hold that position.

The UN has the right to protect itself or get out of the line of fire, if they don't I can't feel sorry them. If you stand on the beach and watch a tidalwave coming at you and you do nothing to get out of the way, don't cry for help and think someone is going to save you.

So you could then mock it openly and show the evidence that it's useless after all?

So coverups are ok within the UN, kinda like the Oil for Food Program?

That attitude might be one (but not only) of the problems why there haven't been reasonable solutions to be found this far.

And until the surrounding countries admit Israel is there to stay it will never end.

Well, there's always the first time for everything, right?

True, kinda like I'm still waiting on the winning lotto ticket ... it could happen but I'm not holding my breath.

But it seems some people predict, wait and I believe actually want UN resolution not to work. It would show again how useless it really is and extremists could get more grip on the wheel.

I think that most people at least here in the States think it's a waste of time, rarely do they succeed on the big issues and frankly in America not many if any like Kofi Annan. The guy was Director of Tourism in Ghana how to you get to be UN president from that?

 

[Sims2789]

I put "It's another UN joke" because it won't cause them to stop. When they do, it will be because they want to, and Hezbollah is likely to break the peace.

 

[nc-1701]

Well, as I claim I am the first to recognize this resolution carries the same number as the Federation Starship Enterprise I forwith proclaim it will endure FOREVER!!!

Long live resolution 1701!!!!

Long live NCC-1701!!!!

Danit!!! I saw the title and had just thought of that so I clicked and...........YYou beat me to it AUGH!!!

 

[Alpine Trooper]

I am going to reiterate my belief that the United Nations is only an extension of the United States itself. And any failure that the U.N. experiences, is a failure of the U.S. because they are the global hegemon and the only country capable of bringing about success in most U.N. resolutions.

 

[Leatherneck]

I am going to reiterate my belief that the United Nations is only an extension of the United States itself. And any failure that the U.N. experiences, is a failure of the U.S. because they are the global hegemon and the only country capable of bringing about success in most U.N. resolutions.

It's America fault ... what are the odd?

 

[_Philospher_]

I'm just going to take the honest and hummble aproach and simply say I don't know. The middleeast is much to hard to predict and guess anymore.

 

[Tulkas12]

I hope it will work. I pray that it will work. If it does not work it only means we go further down the all out war path, we have been on for 5 years now. I'm trying to be optimistic.

As for the UN being an extension of the US. While that was the case during the cold war (sort of), thats hardly the case now. If it was it wouldn't be bashing us for Iraq and our policies in geneal as it is doing.

Believe it or not, the American people want peace. We would like everyone to enjoy peace. You call this hegemony, I call it stopping the monkeys (this isn't intended as racist, americans are a bunch of monkeys as well) from killing each other before they destroy everything. There are no puppet governments as far as I'm aware of anymore. If I'm wrong, cite a government and cite our string pulling.

 

[_Philospher_]

Actually I take my previous comments back. I think this resolution is *exactly* what the docotor ordered. Good Job U.N.!.

1) It call for the end of all agression on all sides. So far this appears to be working...Israel (while getting out its last attacks along with hezbollah) has agreed and is withdrawing. Nasrallah agreed to stop attacks if Israel does and I will take his word...he may be a radical, but he has shown that he is also pragmatic.

2) U.N. Forces will be established and they will do more than simply observe...hopefully...I trust they will they have no other choice.

3) The lebanese military will be there. This is a double-edged sword. On one hand Lebanese soldiers might not be willing to fight nor trully disarm Hezbollah. On the other hand, Hezbollah will be less likely to cause trouble if they know "their" own nations forces are keeping peace.

4) Hezbolllah will be pressured to disarm by most of the world community. Will it disarm? That is the only sticking point, but atleast we'll have peacekeeping forces there if things get ou of hand.

5) Most importantly, Isreal and Palestine can get back to resolving the issues they were having without loss of focus.

This is actually almost too good to be true. I think Hezbollah shot itself in the foot for this one...thank goodness!

 

[Leatherneck]

Actually I take my previous comments back. I think this resolution is *exactly* what the docotor ordered. Good Job U.N.!.

1) It call for the end of all agression on all sides. So far this appears to be working...Israel (while getting out its last attacks along with hezbollah) has agreed and is withdrawing. Nasrallah agreed to stop attacks if Israel does and I will take his word...he may be a radical, but he has shown that he is also pragmatic.

2) U.N. Forces will be established and they will do more than simply observe...hopefully...I trust they will they have no other choice.

3) The lebanese military will be there. This is a double-edged sword. On one hand Lebanese soldiers might not be willing to fight nor trully disarm Hezbollah. On the other hand, Hezbollah will be less likely to cause trouble if they know "their" own nations forces are keeping peace.

4) Hezbolllah will be pressured to disarm by most of the world community. Will it disarm? That is the only sticking point, but atleast we'll have peacekeeping forces there if things get ou of hand.

5) Most importantly, Isreal and Palestine can get back to resolving the issues they were having without loss of focus.

This is actually almost too good to be true. I think Hezbollah shot itself in the foot for this one...thank goodness!

OK so what you are saying if it works, it's GOOD JOB UN ... and if it fails well it's those damn bully Americans fault .... GOT IT ... just trying to be clear here. I believe the Americans the French wrote, of course the French started get wishy washy as the deadline neared.

 

[_Philospher_]

OK so what you are saying if it works, it's GOOD JOB UN ... and if it fails well it's those damn bully Americans fault .... GOT IT ... just trying to be clear here. I believe the Americans the French wrote, of course the French started get wishy washy as the deadline neared.

What the hell are you talking about? I said nothing about the U.S. being wrong or to blame. Lower your guns. I'm not attacking your position. The U.S. is also part of the UN right? France is also part of the UN. Yes? Everyone who is in the UN and helped this decision go through should get a Good job. That's all I was saying. I was more so commenting on the sucess of ending the conflict (so far anyway) rather then whether the U.S. wa right or wrong.

 

[boarder]

It should work, and hope it does, but I'm in the minority here and think it will be violated by Israel first, im guessing a incursion into Lebanese airspace by a Israeli plane, but it probably won't make the news like all there other violations of the blue line, before this current outbreak.
You will only hear about it if Hezbollah do it.
e.g. from a UN report between 2000-2006

Stated the Secretary-General, were Israeli air violations of the Blue Line, which continued on an almost daily basis, penetrating deep into Lebanese airspace. These incursions were not justified and caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas. The air violations were ongoing, although démarches to the Israeli authorities, calling on them to cease the overflights and to fully respect the Blue Line, had been made repeatedly by the United Nations, including by the Secretary-General, and a number of interested governments.
The Secretary-General also voiced deep concern that “ Israel persists in its provocative and unjustified air violations of sovereign Lebanese territory. Hezbollah's retaliatory firing of anti-aircraft rounds across the Blue Line "is a violation that poses a direct threat to human life", he added.

Not saying that Hezbollah is innocent at all, but with a ratio of 10:1 violations of the blue line, the chances are Israel will be the first to violate it imo.

 

[Leatherneck]

What the hell are you talking about? I said nothing about the U.S. being wrong or to blame. Lower your guns. I'm not attacking your position. The U.S. is also part of the UN right? France is also part of the UN. Yes? Everyone who is in the UN and helped this decision go through should get a Good job. That's all I was saying. I was more so commenting on the sucess of ending the conflict (so far anyway) rather then whether the U.S. wa right or wrong.

MY BAD you are right it was another poster ... does oops cover that? Sorry.