1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderFormal blah blah. You know perfectly well that both Syria and Iran are interested in gaining as much influence in Lebanon as they can. This makes the issue an international issue, the business of the UN.
I already gave it. Here's an expanded version:
Who runs the Lebanese military, or any part of the Lebanese military, is not the business of the UN.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe UN has never made a resolution stating that the command structure of the Lebanese military is an international matter. It has no power to do so.
Formal blah blah. You know perfectly well that both Syria and Iran are interested in gaining as much influence in Lebanon as they can. This makes the issue an international issue, the business of the UN.
Every country is interested in gaining influence in other countries, that does not make every single issue in every country the business of the UN.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeActually it calls for the disbanding and disarming of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. Apart from the fact that this provision is illegal for reasons I have given many times (this might be why 6 nations, including two permanent members, abstained), it says that it is interested in the Lebanese government having control over its territory. If militias are integrated into the national military they are under the command of the military leaders. Many countries have Home Guard units of this sort; why not Lebanon?
Why do you think SC resolution calls for Hezbollah's disarmament ?
Originally posted by no1marauderJust to refute your claim that "only the US, Israel and Canada consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization", the following Wikipage:
It works for the Israeli army; see the thread concerning the AI report.
Besides, only the US, Israel and Canada consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization and the first two only think they run the world. And Hezbollah's military wing would be a small part of the Lebanese army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
Designation as a terrorist organization.
List of entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist Entity Type of Designation Reference.
United States The organization Hezbollah in full [173]
Canada The organization Hezbollah in full [174]
Israel The organization Hezbollah in full [175]
United Kingdom The Hezbollah External Security Organization [176]
Netherlands The organization Hezbollah in full [177]
Australia The Hezbollah External Security Organization [178]
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: " Apart from the fact that this provision is illegal for reasons I have given many times (this might be why 6 nations, including two permanent members, abstained),.."
Actually it calls for the disbanding and disarming of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. Apart from the fact that this provision is illegal for reasons I have given many times (this might be why 6 nations, including two permanent members, abstained), it says that it is interested in the Lebanese government having control over its territory. If militias ...[text shortened]... and of the military leaders. Many countries have Home Guard units of this sort; why not Lebanon?
Unacceptable speculation on your part.
I'll repeat my question: "WHY does the resolution 1559 call for the disarmament of Hezbollah ?
Originally posted by no1marauderOh brother ......
The UN has never made a resolution stating that the command structure of the Lebanese military is an international matter. It has no power to do so.
Every country is interested in gaining influence in other countries, that does not make every single issue in every country the business of the UN.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI answered your question. Please learn how to read ENTIRE posts.
Marauder: " Apart from the fact that this provision is illegal for reasons I have given many times (this might be why 6 nations, including two permanent members, abstained),.."
Unacceptable speculation on your part.
I'll repeat my question: "WHY does the resolution 1559 call for the disarmament of Hezbollah ?
BTW, who are you to label anything anybody else says as "unacceptable speculation"? Why do you think 6 nations abstained including Russia and China?
Originally posted by no1marauderI think it is because they are secretly jealous of Hezbollah's girlfriend and viewed abstaining as a first step in winning her affections.
Why do you think 6 nations abstained including Russia and China?
Hey, it makes about as much sense as any answer ivanhoe will come up with.
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou haven't been paying attention if you expect Ivanhoe to answer the question at all.
I think it is because they are secretly jealous of Hezbollah's girlfriend and viewed abstaining as a first step in winning her affections.
Hey, it makes about as much sense as any answer ivanhoe will come up with.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderActually we don't have to guess:
I answered your question. Please learn how to read ENTIRE posts.
BTW, who are you to label anything anybody else says as "unacceptable speculation"? Why do you think 6 nations abstained including Russia and China?
Having abstained in the voting, China’s representative said that respect for the principles of sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-interference in
internal affairs constituted a centrepiece of China’s foreign policy and were principles of the United Nations. In adherence to those principles, he supported
safeguarding the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon. But, the draft resolution touched on the question of the presidential elections in
Lebanon, and such questions fell within Lebanon’s internal affairs and should be decided by the Lebanese people themselves.
The representative of the Russian Federation said that, with tensions high in the region, any wrong step might exacerbate the situation and lead to a new focal point of
instability. He had tabled amendments to the text, aimed at moving it towards the context of a Middle East settlement as a whole and preventing the document from
being one-sided and from concentrating solely on domestic Lebanese affairs. His proposals would have improved the draft by making it more acceptable to Council
members. Their lack of acceptance, however, had made it impossible for him to support the resolution.
Pakistan’s speaker said he had also abstained, as the resolution was not consistent with the Council’s functions and responsibilities. Moreover, there was no evidence
of any urgent threat to peace. There had been no complaint from the country whose sovereignty and integrity the draft purported to uphold. On the contrary, the
Lebanese representatives had communicated to the Council their opposition to consideration of the resolution. Besides, the text addressed the wrong threat. If there
were a threat to Lebanon, that was well known and did not arise from Syria.
http://www.alcc-research.com/archives/UN-Res-1559.html
Russia, China and other countries believed that the level of interference in Lebanese internal affairs implicit in the resolution made it unacceptable. Notice the last sentence from Pakistan's representative; prophetic!
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder, the question why Hezbollah should be disarmed is an important one. You keep avoiding the issue, claiming it is somehow an internal affair of Libanon. It shows your out of touch with reality view on things related to the Mid East problems.
You haven't been paying attention if you expect Ivanhoe to answer the question at all.
Originally posted by no1marauderThen why didn't China and Russia use their veto ?
Actually we don't have to guess:
Having abstained in the voting, China’s representative said that respect for the principles of sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-interference in
internal affairs constituted a centrepiece of China’s foreign policy and were principles of the United Nations. In adherence to those principles, he s ...[text shortened]... tion made it unacceptable. Notice the last sentence from Pakistan's representative; prophetic!