30 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "FACT #1: Hezbollah is composed of Lebanese nationals "
From my prior post:
FACT #1: Hezbollah is composed of Lebanese nationals
FACT #2: Hezbollah is recognized as a national resistance movement by almost all of the governments of the Arab world.
Apparently Lebanon has not regarded SC 1559 as binding. Note also that contrary to your claims, the resolution does not call for the "d h for the reasons I have stated this is beyond the legitimate powers of the Security Council).
... and the Mob is composed of US nationals, ..... meaning this "fact" is not relevant regarding SC resolution 1559.
Marauder: "FACT #2: Hezbollah is recognized as a national resistance movement by almost all of the governments of the Arab world."
It's not relevant either. These "facts", including Fact 1, do not change the obligations of disarming Hezbollah and the demands of restoring the Lebanese government's authority over all of Lebanon's territory as laid down in SC resolution 1559 in any way.
marauder: "Apparently Lebanon has not regarded SC 1559 as binding"
Non-sense. The Libanese government has never issued such a statement. It would be ridiculous indeed if they had done so, because SC resolutions are binding. There are no exceptions for the State of Libanon and believe me they know the basics.
marauder: "Note also that contrary to your claims, the resolution does not call for the "disbanding" of Hezbollah but merely of its militia ..."
Mr. Lawyer, this ridiculous nitpicking is as usual your last resort.
I could easily start nitpicking too and advise you to read more carefully because what you claim isn't there either. ( ... and I would be right, Mr Nitpicking Lawyer.)
marauder: "(though for the reasons I have stated this is beyond the legitimate powers of the Security Council)."
Who of the relevant players in the Middle East theater share the same ridiculous and out of touch with political reality stance of yours ?
30 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou really want the Israelis to suffer and to lose this war, right marauder ?
They retreated today from Jint Balil after taking heavy losses. Now they are trying to convince other foreigners to occupy Southern Lebanon and fight Hezbollah for them (that is Condi's "plan"😉. Unless they agree to Siniora's terms which are the only way to get a peaceful solution, however, I seriously doubt if anyone is going to bleed for Israel in Lebanon.
marauder: "..... however, I seriously doubt if anyone is going to bleed for Israel in Lebanon."
Nobody will have to bleed for Israel because they will take care of business themselves. I doubt very much whether an international militairy force under the UN umbrella will be situated on the Israeli-Lebanese border shortly.
What's your assessment, genius ?
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeRather than state that someone's position is "ridiculous", you have to offer some reason why this is so. The powers of the Security Council are outlined in the UN Charter; it has no inherent powers. No Article in the UN Charter gives the Security Council jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Who has guns in Lebanon is an internal matter of Lebanon. Thus, provision 3 in SC 1559 is beyond the powers of the Security Council and void.
[b]Marauder: "FACT #1: Hezbollah is composed of Lebanese nationals "
... and the Mob is composed of US nationals, ..... meaning this "fact" is not relevant regarding SC resolution 1559.
Marauder: "FACT #2: Hezbollah is recognized as a national resistance movement by almost all of the governments of the Arab world."
It's not relevant eithe ...[text shortened]... he same ridiculous and out of touch with political reality stance of yours ?[/b]
If you disagree, give some evidence addressing these points.
Has Lebanon "disarmed and disbanded" Hezbollah? Or has it welcomed Hezbollah into the government and opened a dialogue on these matters? Lebanon's actions show clearly that it did not regard provision 3 as binding on it though the present government (as most governments do) agrees that the disarming of militias would be advisable (Marx said something about the State not wanting to eliminate violence but to monopolize it). However as shown by Finiora's plan they also insist on Israel making concessions (unlike SC 1559).
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeIsrael is suffering because they launched the war. Israel's people would be better served by a government that stopped using war and violence as the first choice of foreign policy. And they would also be better served by a government that was willing to good faith negotiate with their "foes" to acheive peace.
You really want the Israelis to suffer and to lose this war, right marauder ?
marauder: "..... however, I seriously doubt if anyone is going to bleed for Israel in Lebanon."
Nobody will have to bleed for Israel because they will take care of business themselves. I doubt very much whether an international militairy force under the UN umbrella will be situated on the Israeli-Lebanese border shortly.
What's your assessment, genius ?
Israel will miserably fail in Lebanon as they did before. Eventually they will withdraw due to their own military losses and to the international outcry over the mass murdering of civilians they are doing. If they are smart, they'd accept Siniora's terms. But since that would look too much like a defeat, I doubt they will. Probably the situation will return to something resembling the status quo.
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSure they want a cease-fire. If you are being beaten up severely after irritating the bear for a long while, wouldn't you be asking for a cease-fire, genius ?
For some reason, the address of articles is not showing on the page opened on my computer. Anyway, the article makes clear that Hezbollah has signed on to Siniora's proposal regarding a ceasefire though they have reservations about certain details.
It wasn't so long ago, just a few days, that Nasrallah was threatening Israel with an all out war. It seems Israel made him change his mind very quickly indeed.
30 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: " No Article in the UN Charter gives the Security Council jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Who has guns in Lebanon is an internal matter of Lebanon. "
Rather than state that someone's position is "ridiculous", you have to offer some reason why this is so. The powers of the Security Council are outlined in the UN Charter; it has no inherent powers. No Article in the UN Charter gives the Security Council jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Who has guns in Lebanon is an internal m s shown by Finiora's plan they also insist on Israel making concessions (unlike SC 1559).
As I told you, you are out of touch with political reality. There is no anti-venom to cure this, marauder ..... or maybe there is .....
Again, who of the relevant actors in the Middle east theater share your "analyses" ? Nobody, marauder .... nobody !
Your stance is completely and utterly and in every way irrelevant.
marauder: "If you disagree, give some evidence addressing these points.
Genius, answer my above question about who in the Middle East theater holds the same position on this issue as you do. The answer will get you in touch with political reality, I hope.
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe government of Lebanon, obviously. As usual, you utterly refuse to address the substantive points. Do you have any arguments at all regarding the validity of SC 1559?
[b]marauder: " No Article in the UN Charter gives the Security Council jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Who has guns in Lebanon is an internal matter of Lebanon. "
As I told you, you are out of touch with political reality. There is no anti-venom to cure this, marauder ..... or maybe there is .....
Again, who of the rele ...[text shortened]... n on this issue as you do. The answer will get you in touch with political reality, I hope.[/b]
30 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're clearly losing it, genius.
Rather than state that someone's position is "ridiculous", you have to offer some reason why this is so. The powers of the Security Council are outlined in the UN Charter; it has no inherent powers. No Article in the UN Charter gives the Security Council jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Who has guns in Lebanon is an internal m ...[text shortened]... s shown by Finiora's plan they also insist on Israel making concessions (unlike SC 1559).
marauder: " ..... they also insist on Israel making concessions (unlike SC 1559)."
Israel withdrew its militairy forces from Libanon as was demanded in SC resolution 1559. Israel kept its part of the deal. They (Libanon, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran) did not. That's the crux of the matter. All your lawyer nitpicking cannot change that.
30 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, Israel withdrew from Lebanon (except Shebba Farms) due to receiving heavy losses long before SC 1559. Your "analysis" is a fairy tale.
You're clearly losing it, genius.
marauder: " ..... they also insist on Israel making concessions (unlike SC 1559)."
Israel withdrew its militairy forces from Libanon as was demanded in SC resolution 1559. Israel kept its part of the deal. They (Libanon, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran) did not. That's the crux of the matter. All your lawyer nitpicking cannot change that.
30 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderRead the resolution, marauder.
Ivanhoe, Israel withdrew from Lebanon (except Shebba Farms) due to receiving heavy losses long before SC 1559. Your "analysis" is a fairy tale.
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html
EDIT: Well at least you admit that Israel withdrew.
30 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo what? They decided to. In your post above, you denied that Syria complied with SC 1559. So did they or didn't they?
Marauder, can you remember our discussion about Syria having to withdraw from Lebanon according SC resolution 1559 ?
According to you Syria needed not to comply with the Security Council's demands, remember ?