Originally posted by XanthosNZThat's hot.
No actually he made quite clear that he wouldn't speculate on such an issue. He stated that he personally believed that the resolution was illegal and outside of stating that didn't even use the word illegal. You however used it repeatedly asking questions such as "Where do they state the resolution is "illegal"?" despite No1 never having stated that they said that at all.
EDIT: I feel dirty defending No1.
3 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeI "speculated" in one post; then gave the actual statements made by three of the abstainers in a later one. All three referred to the resolution as being unacceptable because it concerned internal matters of Lebanon (Pakistan specifically mentioned the Lebanese government opposed it). The UN Charter forbids interference in the internal affairs of a country by the Security Council.
The marauder claimed many times in previous discussions that UNSC resolution 1559 is illegal. Moreover, the marauder now hints at (speculates) the possibility that the reason why six countries abstained from voting in favour of the resolution was indeed this "illegality"of the resolution. This is and remains unacceptable speculation.
Dots ....... connect.
EDIT: China: "such questions fell within Lebanon’s internal affairs and should be decided by the Lebanese people themselves."
Russia: "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.
Pakistan: 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.
Originally posted by no1marauderThey did not call the resolution illegal. Guess why ? Because it isn't.
I "speculated" in one post; then gave the actual statements made by three of the abstainers in a later one. All three referred to the resolution as being unacceptable because it concerned internal matters of Lebanon (Pakistan specifically mentioned the Lebanese government opposed it). The UN Charter forbids interference in the internal affairs of a count ...[text shortened]... within Lebanon’s internal affairs and should be decided by the Lebanese people themselves."
Originally posted by no1marauderHey, N1M, I miss seeing the star next to your name.
I "speculated" in one post; then gave the actual statements made by three of the abstainers in a later one. All three referred to the resolution as being unacceptable because it concerned internal matters of Lebanon (Pakistan specifically mentioned the Lebanese government opposed it). The UN Charter forbids interference in the internal affairs of a count ...[text shortened]... within Lebanon’s internal affairs and should be decided by the Lebanese people themselves."
Originally posted by no1marauderChina always has the stance that the UN should not interfere in any country. Hardly surprising this Chinese stance. Nothing new.
I "speculated" in one post; then gave the actual statements made by three of the abstainers in a later one. All three referred to the resolution as being unacceptable because it concerned internal matters of Lebanon (Pakistan specifically mentioned the Lebanese government opposed it). The UN Charter forbids interference in the internal affairs of a count ...[text shortened]... within Lebanon’s internal affairs and should be decided by the Lebanese people themselves."