UN wishy washy on its role in disarming groups

Status
Not open for further replies.

p35bhp09

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
83
Location
Pendleton, Or
U.N. commander: Won't disarm Hezbollah By HENRY MEYER, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 29 minutes ago



The French general commanding U.N. peacekeeping forces in Lebanon said Monday his troops would not intervene to disarm Hezbollah, even as French President Jacques Chirac said the militant group should not keep a military wing.

Maj. Gen. Alain Pelligrini told reporters the main task of his U.N. force is to ensure southern Lebanon cannot be used as a base for attacks on Israel.

"The disarmament of Hezbollah is not the business of UNIFIL. This is a strictly Lebanese affair, which should be resolved at a national level," he said.

Pelligrini's assessment underscored the constraints facing the beefed-up U.N. mission despite a tougher mandate and far greater manpower.

It came as French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie visited hundreds of her country's soldiers about to deploy to southern Lebanon, where they will join the U.N. force that is to maintain the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah.

In Paris, Chirac said it was important for the Lebanese government to assert control over its entire territory.

"It is totally normal there be a wing that expresses politically what the Hezbollah think .... What is questionable, is to express this by force, by armed militias," the French leader said in an interview on Europe-1 radio.

U.N. peacekeepers for the first time began checking security measures Monday on Lebanon's border with Syria, part of efforts to help the Lebanese army in monitoring sea and land borders to prevent arms shipments to Hezbollah.

The bulk of the 15,000-strong U.N. force is deploying in the south, and France — contributing the second-largest contingent of 2,000 soldiers — will command it until early next year, when Italy is to take over.

The U.N. cease-fire resolution that ended the 34-day war Aug. 14 stipulated Hezbollah eventually be disarmed, and Chirac said he wanted to see the resolution implemented "without reservations."

But in practice, neither the Lebanese army nor U.N. soldiers want to provoke a confrontation with the well-trained guerrillas in their southern heartland.

Along with the U.N. troops, who currently number 5,000, Lebanon's army is deploying 15,000 soldiers in the southern area that borders Israel.

"Our mission is to have a zone between the Blue Line and the Litani (River) where there is no illegal army and from which you cannot launch hostile acts," Pelligrini said, referring to the area between the U.N.-demarcated border with Israel and the river.

Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, said in an interview last week that Israel's monthlong offensive had failed to dismantle Hezbollah and boasted that his armed guerrillas were still in the towns and villages near the Israeli border.

Hezbollah fighters, who have controlled parts of southern Lebanon for years, are believed to be lying low and blending in with the local population — as they did before the war.

The weak central government in Lebanon has vowed to re-establish its authority over the Hezbollah stronghold in the south. But Western-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora has also made clear the Lebanese troops would not actively hunt for hidden Hezbollah arsenals.

Alliot-Marie told the French soldiers at a temporary base housing them in Beirut that they would be carrying out a mission "whose difficulties and risks I am aware of."

But she said their robust mandate and heavy armor, which includes Leclerc tanks, sophisticated Cobra radar systems and 155 mm howitzers, would deter aggression.

"To avoid clashes sometimes you have to dissuade (the other side) by demonstrating you are stronger," the minister said.

Some 900 French soldiers who have been staying in Beirut are to begin moving Tuesday to a base in Deir Kifa, east of the port of Tyre. The French deployment to southern Lebanon will take about a week; the first convoy will consist of 150 soldiers and four tanks.

China, meanwhile, said it will increase its peacekeeping force in Lebanon to 1,000.

More than 1,000 people died in the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel, most of them Lebanese civilians.
 
***, so they want to disarm US citizens but not hezbollah?

Expel the UN already. New Orleans could be rebuild and a good chunk of the deficit paid off if they defunded that mess and told them to get lost.
 
Disarming Hizbolla would require the blue helmets to, you know, actually point their guns at someone likely to shoot back.

Not gonna happen.

Oh, and Kofi, just for the record: We are SO likely to shoot back. You might wanna note that down somewhere, for future reference.
 
Since the Hezbollah fighters generally don't wear uniforms, attempting to disarm them would require the UN/French troops to attempt disarm everyone in Lebanon. Surely the members of this board are not in favor of that, are they?
 
I understood that Israel didn't object to a chance to recuperate, as well. I think that after what Hezbollah has done, people must be wondering whether they were wrong about A)Israel's abilities, or B)the myth that Arab armies can't fight and win. Either way if Israel got a bloody nose, no one would expect France to stire up trouble. Besides they normally side against Israel anyway, don't they?
 
The U.N. only disarms already semi-pacified western civilians using diplomatic means. They don't like to get hurt by taking on groups that actually defend themselves.


Hezbollah, regardless of their politics or beliefs, stands up for what they believe in and are willing to fight and die. They don't lay down to others will. Hezbollah effectively fought off the IDF, that should send chills down the spine of any blue-helmet JBT...


Which is (again) proof that if you stand up against these dirtbags, they will back down like the slimy evil leftist god-hating cowards that they are. It is that simple. Violence = rewards. Look at the Islamic radicals. The West criticizes them, they go nutz and get violent. So then, the West backs down. Lesson learned? Violence gets results. Christians are stupid, why? Media portrays the Virgin Mary, the Crucifix, Jesus etc...being urinated on and dumped on with feces ...Christians respond with nothing. A cheesy cartoon of Allah results in mass chaos and violence resulting in FEAR to ever insult Allah again in the media. Every single news/media company thinks twice before being critical. They spend extra time being careful as to not offend when they criticize. That's the end result. It isn't censorship because there's no blocking of ideas. They've convinced the media through violence to take caution and respect their beliefs.


Our entire system is based on the illusion of their power and omnipotence. They are not undefeatable or so powerful. A ragtag civilian militia can defeat the UN or any JBT gun confiscators.


Today, life > liberty; therefore, tyranny rules. They are holding your life hostage against your liberty. Things will only change when people realize that life and liberty are not separate, or when even life isn't worth living due to the total absence of liberty.


Bottom line, if you are willing to spill their blood when they slight you - you will preserve your liberty, life and culture. Sometimes, violence IS the answer.
 
The UN is not there to disarm anyone. It is not there to keep any "peace". The UN is there to allow the terrorists to resupply and rearm.

Bingo. The UN has been providing cover to the Hezzies through complicity or complacency for years. Why do we expect them to go after "fellow travelers" now?
 
Psssst!

The UN is not neutral. The UN is no friend of Israel. Why would anyone put them in a position of being a disinterested third party. Reality is the UN is letting both sides refit, resupply, and reinforce. Next time around Israel will not make the same mistakes as last time around.
 
They only want to disarm villagers who then get steamrolled under genocides.

If the UN had been around in the 1770's, they'd likely have been trying to prevent illegally smuggled Brown Besses from getting to the revolutionaries in the colonies, and would also be helping the British interdict trade of colony-made Kentucky rifles and such. :rolleyes:
 
That's the typical anti-UN stuff I hear all the time, 'the UN just makes genocide easier'.

What BS.

The UN also seeks to turn free peoples into subservient serfs, who then work and provide for the new upper political classes. Kill a man, you take his ownings. Enslave a man and you can take everything he makes for the rest of his life:)

Lol I know it sounds a little crazy, but if you look at the people who are allowed in the UN, who are voting members, there are tyrants and despots and murderers and thiefs, and they not only run their own countries but with their votes can influence the world.
 
On one hand the UN-haters say "They don't do anything. They won't shoot anyone. What kind of pansy-assed excuses for troops are the?" On the other hand they say "The UN soldiers in their blue helmets are going to come here, trample our sovereignty and take us over." Which is it supposed to be? :rolleyes:
 
Tellner, no one seriously believes it will be UN troops who destroy our rights. It will be our own troops, carrying out orders from their civilian leadership who have drunk the UN kool-aid, who do it. I continue to have faith in the American soldier, so I'm not too worried. However, that doesn't mean I don't try and defeat the UN at every opportunity. The UN is a collossal failure. It has done nothing good in its entire existence. It has not prevented one war, averted one instance of genocide, brought no tyrant to justice, averted no famine, plague or pestilence. In the dictionary, next to the definition of useless, they should have a picture of the UN.
 
On one hand the UN-haters say "They don't do anything. They won't shoot anyone. What kind of pansy-assed excuses for troops are the?" On the other hand they say "The UN soldiers in their blue helmets are going to come here, trample our sovereignty and take us over." Which is it supposed to be?

Think of being invaded by insidious, officious bureacrats who bury you under paperwork, then turn their backs when someone comes along as you're trapped under that paperwork and steps on your face.
 
Think of being invaded by insidious, officious bureacrats who bury you under paperwork, then turn their backs when someone comes along as you're trapped under that paperwork and steps on your face.
so how's that different to what we have now?
 
Tx1911, that really was the propaganda not that long ago. My father had a couple close friends who were hardcore Birchers. It was a constant refrain. More recently, about seven or eight years ago, the rumors were flying thickly about some "emergency" that would force the UN to come Real Soon Now(tm). There were even maps drawn up as to which countries would be occupying which parts of the US. One could only hope that they would carpet bomb East St. Louis. It would probably do a few hundred million in improvements :scrutiny:

In any case, when someone or something is accused of two diametrically opposed things it's a sign that the frontal lobes are not fully engaged or the real issue is being avoided.

The problem with UN troops is that

1) No donor country wants to put its troops in harm's way in some out of the place dump they don't have a stake in.

2) No government wants the UN to send troops that will actually do anything to its country.

3) Everyone wants the UN to "be seen doing something". Lord preserve me from people who want to be seen doing something.

4) Everyone wan' go heaven. Nobody wanna die.

On the other hand, they do remarkably well in areas where there is no other organized authority or where two sides in a conflict want to stop fighting but neither trusts the other. That's why UNIFIL troops are usually called "peacekeepers", not "peacemakers".
 
I suppose if American gun owners went around killing Jews all over the place, they wouldn't be trying to disarm us either :scrutiny:
 
Can you imagine trying to pacify the US by force rather than by media? The Protestant Work Ethic applied to sabotage, non-cooperation and bushwhacking would be a terrible thing.
 
Can you imagine trying to pacify the US by force rather than by media? The Protestant Work Ethic applied to sabotage, non-cooperation and bushwhacking would be a terrible thing.

Yup. It's worked well in stopping the encroachment of tyranny and the abrogation of rights throughout the US so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top