Why I am against the UN mission in Lebanon

Eva7

The UN mission in Lebanon is, to me, a shame as it has been planned.

1- The UN resolution 1701 fails to condemn the violation of the Lebanon sovereignty, and therefore fails to impose to Israel to leave immediately the Lebanon territory.

2-The UN resolution 1701 and the dispatching of the UN troops is meant to finish the work of the Israeli attack and invasion, i.e. disarming Hezbollah, creating social and political conflicts (a possible second civil war) in Lebanon and keeping the country militarily weak and occupied by foreign countries who have interests in the rebuilding of the Lebanon and the "birth of a new middle east" useful to the western interests.

3- Dispatching UN troops in Lebanon will be funded taking money by social programs of the countries taking part in the mission.

4- Dispatching UN troops in Lebanon without starting clear politics based on the respect of the international sovereignty laws, while keeping on having a UN system unable to impose such sovereignty respect to any country, Israel and US included, won't ever bring peace in the middle east.

5- Dispatching UN troops in lebanon without having civil peace corps able to support the lebanon civil society to build real politics of peace in the middle east won't ever bring peace in the region.

6- Dispatching UN troops in Lebanon without dispatching also troops in Gaza is a joke.

7- Dispatching UN troops in Lebanon without any UN investigation about unexploded mines on the territory, and clear condemnation for the mass destruction weapons used by Israeli (cluster bombs, white phosphorous and devastating new mysterious weapons used that are being investigated, apparently laser or microwave weapons) means that the UN have become a real joke now, that international laws and human rights don't rule anymore, and that the whole world is f***ed up, so, basically, the mission is a joke again.

so, I basically think that this mission, as it is being planned, is not only useless, but dangerous, since it may start conflicts that may involve not only more middle east countries, but all the western world.

On the contrary, if I was wrong, I hope this mission could become a chance to bring the UN again to lead the world scene, assuring peace and sovereignty to all the countries, but only if the UN actions and words will follow the law, and especially if the UN will be ever reformed.

darkcrow

i believe it has been confirmed the UN force will not be trying to disarm the militants.

i guess also you have to see that this force is there more to stop israel than it is to protect lebenon... if that makes sense?

also on the cluster bombs thing.... a UN official said clearing of the bomblets could take years... also israel said they would contribute money to help the clearing of the weapons.

on rebuilding lebenon... many middle eastern and western countries have pledged millions. but what really needs to happen is a secure border where neither hezbullah or israel can attack.

Eva7

darkcrow wrote:

i believe it has been confirmed the UN force will not be trying to disarm the militants.

i guess also you have to see that this force is there more to stop israel than it is to protect lebenon... if that makes sense?

also on the cluster bombs thing.... a UN official said clearing of the bomblets could take years... also israel said they would contribute money to help the clearing of the weapons.

on rebuilding lebenon... many middle eastern and western countries have pledged millions. but what really needs to happen is a secure border where neither hezbullah or israel can attack.

Confirmed or not, the disarm of Hezbollah is written on the UN resolution, while it never mentions the disarm of the Israeli army!

...to stop Israel? How? The resolution doesn't mention it.

If Israel will really contribute for the clearing, that doesn't mean that Israel is acquitted of war crimes and of the killing of more 100.000 civilians by mainly using WMD.

MrBrian

Israel is in a great strategic position right now and they know it, they are just one dead UN soldier away from their goal.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Eva7 wrote:

On the contrary, if I was wrong, I hope this mission could become a chance to bring the UN again to lead the world scene, assuring peace and sovereignty to all the countries, but only if the UN actions and words will follow the law, and especially if the UN will be ever reformed.

I'm also in favor of UN leadership, but it'll never have any legitimacy in my mind as long as the permanent members have veto power. To get any one of those nations to give up that power is next to impossible.

darkcrow

Eva7 wrote:

Confirmed or not, the disarm of Hezbollah is written on the UN resolution, while it never mentions the disarm of the Israeli army!

...to stop Israel? How? The resolution doesn't mention it.

If Israel will really contribute for the clearing, that doesn't mean that Israel is acquitted of war crimes and of the killing of more 100.000 civilians by mainly using WMD.

the americans would never let the UN do anything against israel. stupid veto.... one of the reasons why the people of sudan were/are left to be massacared.

Eva7

darkcrow wrote:

the americans would never let the UN do anything against israel. stupid veto.... one of the reasons why the people of sudan were/are left to be massacared.

I agree. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

MrBrian

to add to what I said, if one UN soldier get's killed by a hezbollah fighter, it'll turn the world against hezbollah and towards israels side, israel knows that, weather of not they try to incite hezbollah into doing something crazy or even frame them is something that I worry about.

Isreal is in a very good position right now.

rebornFixer

Hi, Eva ... While I too have some issues with the UN deployment, I do not agree with many of your specific criticisms. You seem to think that disarming and/or destroying Hezbollah is a problem, whereas I do not. How would disarming Hezbollah lead to a civil war? If anything, their presence increases the likelihood not just of strife between Lebanese, but also of another Israeli attack. Hezbollah do not deserve your sympathy. Their stupid actions got Lebanon destroyed. As usual, no good comes of terrorism, even when it masquerades as resistence.

Human Tide

reborncareerist wrote:

Hi, Eva ... While I too have some issues with the UN deployment, I do not agree with many of your specific criticisms. You seem to think that disarming and/or destroying Hezbollah is a problem, whereas I do not. How would disarming Hezbollah lead to a civil war? If anything, their presence increases the likelihood not just of strife between Lebanese, but also of another Israeli attack. Hezbollah do not deserve your sympathy. Their stupid actions got Lebanon destroyed. As usual, no good comes of terrorism, even when it masquerades as resistence.

Was it an act of terrorism that "started" the recent violence?

rebornFixer

Human Tide wrote:

Was it an act of terrorism that "started" the recent violence?

What do you mean? The last Israeli attack on Lebanon? If so, absolutely.

Human Tide

reborncareerist wrote:

What do you mean? The last Israeli attack on Lebanon? If so, absolutely.

Kidnapping soldiers is an act of terrorism? That's interesting. How do you define terrorism?

rebornFixer

Human Tide wrote:

Kidnapping soldiers is an act of terrorism? That's interesting. How do you define terrorism?

Hmmm ... Debatable. Kidnapping was the catalyst, but I think the rocket attacks were what caused such a huge Israeli response. Which fit the definition to a tee.

Human Tide

reborncareerist wrote:

Hmmm ... Debatable. Kidnapping was the catalyst, but I think the rocket attacks were what caused such a huge Israeli response. Which fit the definition to a tee.

Go back and look at the timeline of events again.

Human Tide

Human Tide wrote:

Go back and look at the timeline of events again.

To clarify, I'm implying that the few rockets/mortars fired at the time of the abduction were clearly not the major event. As for the many rockets fired subsequently, they came after Israel began the major attacks.

Israel's actions must be seen in the larger context of the conflict. This war was not about a few soldiers or a few rockets.

Eva7

reborncareerist wrote:

Hi, Eva ... While I too have some issues with the UN deployment, I do not agree with many of your specific criticisms. You seem to think that disarming and/or destroying Hezbollah is a problem, whereas I do not. How would disarming Hezbollah lead to a civil war? If anything, their presence increases the likelihood not just of strife between Lebanese, but also of another Israeli attack. Hezbollah do not deserve your sympathy. Their stupid actions got Lebanon destroyed. As usual, no good comes of terrorism, even when it masquerades as resistence.

Hi dearest, sorry for being so late!

I totally agree that Hezbollah didn't do good and are accountable for the israeli attacks which destroyed the country. That said, Hezbollah was and is still the only force in Lebanon able to defend the country, and they have the highest support in Lebanon. I am for the disarming of all the world, not only Hezbollah and Israel. But the UN resolution is only for the Hezbollah disarming, this is what I don't support. Israel attacked, destroyed and occupied a sovereign country, Lebanon, and you can't find one only mention to this very fact in the UN resolution. And you can't find one only mention in the resolution about the fact that the UN mission should be aimed at disarming BOTH Israel and Hezbollah, and that Israel MUST leave southern Lebanon. I read this as a clear international political action mainly supporting the Israel goals in the area. I also think that this whole UN mission is a big trap that will be used by Israel and the US for their own purposes, included a possible war against Iran. Thanks to this UN mission, a massive US military force is being dispatched in locations useful for a possible attack to Iran, including two aircrafts, 5 warships, 75 fighters and thousands Marines.

jsand

Eva7 wrote:

Hi dearest, sorry for being so late!

I totally agree that Hezbollah didn't do good and are accountable for the israeli attacks which destroyed the country. That said, Hezbollah was and is still the only force in Lebanon able to defend the country, and they have the highest support in Lebanon. I am for the disarming of all the world, not only Hezbollah and Israel. But the UN resolution is only for the Hezbollah disarming, this is what I don't support. Israel attacked, destroyed and occupied a sovereign country, Lebanon, and you can't find one only mention to this very fact in the UN resolution. And you can't find one only mention in the resolution about the fact that the UN mission should be aimed at disarming BOTH Israel and Hezbollah, and that Israel MUST leave southern Lebanon. I read this as a clear international political action mainly supporting the Israel goals in the area. I also think that this whole UN mission is a big trap that will be used by Israel and the US for their own purposes, included a possible war against Iran. Thanks to this UN mission, a massive US military force is being dispatched in locations useful for a possible attack to Iran, including two aircrafts, 5 warships, 75 fighters and thousands Marines.

Why shouldn't it support Israel? You fail to mention that Israel's sovereignty was violated as its soldiers were captured and killed, and it was bombarded with rockets. Of course it attacked Lebanon - Lebanon, whether tacit or complicit, permitted Hezbollah to operate in the south and obtain thousands of Iranian rockets. Hezbollah has the stated intent of destroying Israel. And you wonder why the UN resolution supports Israel?

Eva7

jsand wrote:

Why shouldn't it support Israel? You fail to mention that Israel's sovereignty was violated as its soldiers were captured and killed, and it was bombarded with rockets. Of course it attacked Lebanon - Lebanon, whether tacit or complicit, permitted Hezbollah to operate in the south and obtain thousands of Iranian rockets. Hezbollah has the stated intent of destroying Israel. And you wonder why the UN resolution supports Israel?

The kidnapping of soldiers does not make a sovereignity violation, but a different crime. Israel has illegaly occupied southern Lebanon for many years, and there are UN resolutions against that, which Israel has always violated. Hezbollah were born to defend Lebanon during the former occupation by Israel, and their purpose is to defend Lebanon. No, I don't wonder why the UN resolution supports Israel, I just blame it. A UN resolution is supposed to support a country's sovereignity, not the violator of one country's sovereignity. Rockets from Hezbollah? 100.000 lebanese civilians have been killed, all the lebanese highways, bridges, civilian infrastructures and towns have been utterly destoyed, rescue and aid groups have been targeted and killed, and you're still talking of Hezbollah rockets? pretty funny to me.

RockinInCanada

So will the UN fire back on Israel if they go against the rules of this engagement....

jsand

Eva7 wrote:

The kidnapping of soldiers does not make a sovereignity violation, but a different crime. Israel has illegaly occupied southern Lebanon for many years, and there are UN resolutions against that, which Israel has always violated. Hezbollah were born to defend Lebanon during the former occupation by Israel, and their purpose is to defend Lebanon. No, I don't wonder why the UN resolution supports Israel, I just blame it. A UN resolution is supposed to support a country's sovereignity, not the violator of one country's sovereignity. Rockets from Hezbollah? 100.000 lebanese civilians have been killed, all the lebanese highways, bridges, civilian infrastructures and towns have been utterly destoyed, rescue and aid groups have been targeted and killed, and you're still talking of Hezbollah rockets? pretty funny to me.

Pretty funny to me is how you have no grasp of the facts.

1. Israel wasn't occupying any part of Lebanon prior to the start of the recent hostilities. If you're referring to Shebaa farms, that is purportedly Syria's

2. How, exactly, is the kidnapping of soldiers on Israel's own side of the border not a violation of Israel's sovereignty? Or do you just believe that Israel doesn't have any sovereinty, which is belied by this nonsense:

3. "100.000 lebanese civilians have been killed, all the lebanese highways, bridges, civilian infrastructures and towns have been utterly destoyed, rescue and aid groups have been targeted and killed." Really? All the Lebanese highways, bridges, etc. have been destroyed? How did you gather that information? From watching the same clips of one area of Lebanon displayed over and over again on CNN? And where are you getting the 100,000 casualty figure? And please show me the proof of rescue and aid workers being targeted. Please refute this detailed report debunking one of the most recent blood libels against the Jews:

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

Keep trying.

jlew24asu

Human Tide wrote:

Was it an act of terrorism that "started" the recent violence?

when they kidnapped 2 soliders for no reason.