Author Topic: Who put the UN observers in Lebanon. (Read 464 times)

Thrawn · « **on:** July 31, 2006, 07:59:49 PM »

The following is a list of countries that vote on Security Council resolution 426, which estabilished the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.

R Y BOLIVIA
R Y CANADA
P A CHINA
R A CZECHOSLOVAKIA
P Y FRANCE
R Y GABON
R Y GERMANY, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
R Y INDIA
R Y KUWAIT
R Y MAURITIUS
R Y NIGERIA
P A USSR
P Y UNITED KINGDOM
P Y UNITED STATES
R Y VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF)

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=11A43939458A0.8&menu=search&aspect=power&npp=50&ipp=20&spp=20&profile=voting&ri=&index=.VM&term=&matchopt=0%7C0&oper=and&aspect=power&index=.VW&term=426+&matchopt=0%7C0&oper=and&index=BIB&term=&matchopt=0%7C0&oper=and&index=BIB&term=&matchopt=0%7C0&limitbox_1=VI01+%3D+vi_s&ultype=&uloper=%3D&ullimit=&ultype=&uloper=%3D&ullimit=&sort=&x=8&y=12#focus

So stop blaming the UN and start blaming the countries with "Y" beside them.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #1 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:06:05 PM »

Why not just blame Bush? Its the easy way out...

Thrawn · « **Reply #2 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:08:46 PM »

Once again Rip, thanks for that incredible contribution to the public dialog. Now get out of my thread.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #3 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:14:04 PM »

Thrawn,

If we both posted wouldn't it be "our" thread?

Thrawn · « **Reply #4 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:19:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Thrawn,

If we both posted wouldn't it be "our" thread?

...that sounds like communism.

john9001 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:22:38 PM »

not saying the UN should not have been there, saying the UN was sent in there to keep the peace, this they did not do.

all in favor of giving the UN troops loaded guns say "eye".

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #6 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:31:19 PM »

Freakin Gaboneze (Gabononians?) .... I knew it was their fault...

Thrawn · « **Reply #7 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:38:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
all in favor of giving the UN troops loaded guns say "eye".

Not just yes, but hell yes.

Toad · « **Reply #8 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:41:55 PM »

Thrawn, who set the ROE for UNIFL? If you want to look for the guilty, I think that's the place to start.

It's in the same vein as the warning Iran was given on its nuclear program.

Quote

Because of Russian and Chinese demands, the text was watered down from earlier drafts, which would have made the threat of sanctions immediate. It now essentially requires the council to hold more discussions before it considers sanctions.

Right there's the problem. It's most visible when UN troops deploy.

UNIFL wasn't allowed to do anything about the problem really. That's why any new UN force in Lebanon won't work either. Their ROE will make them useless.

Thrawn · « **Reply #9 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:47:07 PM »

If you want to say that the UN (or specifically the SC) is broken, you won't get any debate from me.

"Thrawn, who set the ROE for UNIFL? If you want to look for the guilty, I think that's the place to start."

It would be, no joy so far.

Grayeagle · « **Reply #10 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:48:49 PM »

yanno ..

..Israel should just fire up the tankers, infantry, and air cover and drive over to the opposite border.

Problem solved.

-GE (ya, I know, simple to say, and there would be some upset apple carts, but .. half measures *never* do the deed)

LePaul · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:53:21 PM »

What puzzles me is all out war is declared, Hezbolla's use UN posts and civilian posts to hide amongst. Being unarmed and *knowing* the Israeli's would strike back, they chose to stay.

Again...slower...

Unarmed...

Warzone...

Hezbollah using UN as sheilds...

They stay...

Hello! Run Luke, run!

Thrawn · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2006, 08:54:42 PM »

Toad, I think I found it...at least in princple.

"The Security Council reaffirms its commitment to the full
sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and national
unity of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries. In this
context, the Council asserts that all States shall refrain from the threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any State, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United
Nations."

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/270/49/PDF/N0027049.pdf?OpenElement

From resolution 425,

"1. Calls for strict respect of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognised boundaries;"

Can't really have sovereignty if you have armed military personal from foreign nations running around your country I would guess.

Toad · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2006, 09:02:00 PM »

When can UN peacekeepers use force?

Quote

Aware of the dangers of deploying peacekeepers in situations where there is no real peace to keep, the Security Council now provides, when it deems necessary, UN peacekeeping operations with more “robust” mandates based on Chapter VII (5) — the “enforcement” chapter of the United Nations Charter.

So, the SC provides the ROE.

And, as we've seen today in the Iran warning , it only takes one or two countries to water down any SC resolve to the point of uselessness.

I feel sorry for UNIFL; like Dallaire and his troops in Rwanda, their HQ betrayed their mission from the start.

We just have to face facts: the UN can't face open armed conflict anymore. That time passed after Korea I think.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2006, 11:00:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
...that sounds like communism.

I was actually having a "fast times" flash back.