Originally posted by ivanhoeYou can keeping saying the same crap over and over and over again (and you will). I've answered your questions directly, using the text of the resolution you are relying on.
Marauder, 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.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWho's using "formal" reasoning now? The absence of a specific word is not dispositive considering that all three of these nations refused to support the resolution based on its interference in Lebanese internal affairs.
Its the usual rhetoric, certainly on the part of China.
Where do they state the resolution is "illegal" ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not in favor of gun control, Ivanhoe. My solution complies with SC 1559, even though I believe that provision is illegal.
Anyway marauder, you did not point out a way for Hezbollah to be disarmed, instead of this you pointed out a way for Hezbollah to keep their arms.
Your turn: how should Hezbollah be disarmed?
Originally posted by no1marauderNo marauder, the following is unacceptable speculation:
Ask them; anything I say would be "unacceptable speculation".
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)"
Your reasoning remains unacceptable speculation because of two reasons 1. You state that the resolution is illegal and 2. that "might be" the reason 6 nations abstained).
It remains to be seen that the resolution is illegal. (It is ridiculous that I adress this hallucinating point) ... and .... if they considered the resolution illegal they should have voted against it. Certainly the veto-powers China and Russia should have used their veto power or at least should have voted against it, but they didn't.
Originally posted by no1marauderAI along with the UN, the ACLU and the Democrat Party can be dismissed out-of-hand on the grounds of Progressive Liberal/PC bias.
I'd like to hear your comments on the AI report concerning Israeli war crimes in that thread.
Like you .. they are totally lacking of any credibilty
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis is unacceptable speculation. China and Russia specifically stated they didn't support the resolution (you did read that?). Countries have various reasons for using or not using the veto that can be unrelated to the specific issues. I've given my reasons for believing the Resolution was illegal many times; an evaluation shared by the Lebanese government. You've never made a response to my substantive points and you don't seem to have any. Your constant failure to actually address other people's points makes it clear that you have no interest in debate; you are just a propaganda shill in favor of more hatred and holy war.
No marauder, the following is unacceptable speculation:
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)"
Your reasoning remains unacceptable speculation because of two reasons 1. You state that the resolution is illegal and 2. th ...[text shortened]... hould have used their veto power or at least should have voted against it, but they didn't.
Now answer your own question: how would you disarm Hezbollah? I bet it involves mass bloodshed.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThey stated many times they did not intend to disarm. This leaves a diplomatic "solution" in the same spirit as yours (not solving the problem but simply change a few labels here and there), which will undoubtedly lead to another war ...
I'm not in favor of gun control, Ivanhoe. My solution complies with SC 1559, even though I believe that provision is illegal.
Your turn: how should Hezbollah be disarmed?
... or my solution.
... my solution would be that countries like Russia China and France put huge pressure on Syria and Iran to stop financing, training and supplying Hezbollah.
Originally posted by ivanhoeSince Iran and Syria don't allow other countries to dictate what their foreign policies will be, that won't work. And even if the Syrian and Iranian governments cut off every bit of official funding to Hezbollah, it would still be able to raise money for arms and training. So your "solution" doesn't work.
They stated many times they did not intend to disarm. This leaves a diplomatic "solution" in the same spirit as yours (not solving the problem but simply change a few labels here and there), which will undoubtedly lead to another war ...
... or my solution.
... my solution would be that countries like Russia China and France put huge pressure on Syria and Iran to stop financing, training and supplying Hezbollah.
1 edit
Originally posted by jammerReally? Actually I think people that dismiss people and groups out of hand are the ones that lack credibility.
AI along with the UN, the ACLU and the Democrat Party can be dismissed out-of-hand on the grounds of Progressive Liberal/PC bias.
Like you .. they are totally lacking of any credibilty
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course it will not work. Do you think yours will ?
Since Iran and Syria don't allow other countries to dictate what their foreign policies will be, that won't work. And even if the Syrian and Iranian governments cut off every bit of official funding to Hezbollah, it would still be able to raise money for arms and training. So your "solution" doesn't work.