13 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHezbollah should be disarmed, it's militairy power should be broken, not "integrated" into the Lebanese army. I'm not going to explain to you why "integrating" Hezbollah into the Lebanese army would be very advantageous to Hezbollah in reaching their stated goal of turning Lebanon into an Islamic state in Iran's image. Discussing this with you would be a mission impossible.
I stated a solution would be for Hezbollah's armed wing to be integrated into the Lebanese army and you claimed:
Ivanhoe: Then their Islamist coup d'état would be complete and you would be able to blame Israel for this.
So all that is missing in your view for Lebanon's "Islamist coup d'etat" is for Hezbollah to be a part of the Le If it's a "waste of time" discussing SC 1559, why do you keep bringing it up?
Ask somebody else or open a new thread. Maybe, I said maybe, I will post in it. I have limited time resources, you know.
marauder: "If it's a "waste of time" discussing SC 1559, why do you keep bringing it up?"
You're such a Smart Alec, aren't you ?
Discussing the (il)legality of 1559 is a "waste of time", not "bringing up" 1559 as such. This resolution calls, among other things, for the disarmament and the disbanding of Hezbollah.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
24 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI've been absent for a couple of weeks so didn't get back to you on this. all old news now anyway. nevertheless, i did say i would get back to you and considering you said i was wrong and clearly didn't know what i was talking about, i felt i owed it to you to respond. The contention was when i said that parties are well within their rights under international law to keep fighting until that process of agreement (already discussed) is complete. So plunder this:
You are wrong. Please cite to some wording in the resolution supporting such claims.
EDIT: Here's the relevant passages:
1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;
Article 51, Chapter VII, Charter of the UN provides States with the right to defend themselves until such time as the UNSC process comes into effect. It does not have to appear in the resolution it is subject to the Charter. Everything they do is subject to the Charter. If it is not in the Charter then it is not law.
I won't rehash the other 2 points, but ummm that is 3 strikes, your out.
24 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by chrissybRead it again, girly. Once the UNSC even acknowledges a problem, and decided to tackle it, the proponents lose all right to "defend themselves" (as Israel has done - by bombing women, children and UN compounds).
... until such time as the UNSC process comes into effect...
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
24 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1maraudercalling me a moron doesn't tell you anything about me, but a lot about you.
You're a moron if you think the UN Charter gives nations the right to fight wars up to and until UN peacekeeping forces are actually physically between them.
peacekeeping forces didn't even enter into our previous discussions so don't bring them in now, that is a different issue altogether.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
24 Aug 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzthis has been discussed previously. I have no intention of repeating myself, so heed your own advice.
Read it again, girly. Once the UNSC even acknowledges a problem, and decided to tackle it, the proponents lose all right to "defend themselves" (as Israel has done - by bombing women, children and UN compounds).
girly.
24 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by chrissybIt says I have little patience for someone as abysmally ignorant as you are of the UN Charter who still thinks they're "winning" an argument by saying rubbish over and over again. Our previous discussion ended with you insisting that "immediate cessation of hostilities" meant "whenever the parties feel like it". That is retarded.
calling me a moron doesn't tell you anything about me, but a lot about you.
peacekeeping forces didn't even enter into our previous discussions so don't bring them in now, that is a different issue altogether.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
24 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1maraudertell someone who gives a damn!
It says I have little patience for someone as abysmally ignorant as you are of the UN Charter who still thinks they're "winning" an argument by saying rubbish over and over again. Our previous discussion ended with you insisting that "immediate cessation of hostilities" meant "whatever the parties feel like it". That is retarded.