NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6140228
The liberation of Lebannon has begun. The Security Concil voted to demand Syrian troops to withdraw. It probably says nothing about if they fail to comply, but at least we've gotten the first step to the problem done: recognizing that a problem exists. Even though it was in plain sight, few seemed to notice it. Now the world is forced to notice.

bump

This article also shows that it enjoyed international support from key stumbling blocks for the US in the past.
http://www.iht.com/articles/536985.html

bump

Who Cares?

Who Cares?
I do. For one, I'm of Lebanese decent. For another, I find Lebannon to be extremely strategic in the GWOT.

Good, I can't wait to see Lebanon liberated.

Vive la libertie!!!

bump

Good, I can't wait to see Lebanon liberated.

Vive la libertie!!!

Indeed, I second that

Vive le Liban libre et indépendant (Not entirely sure if this is correct, but you get the idea)

I have been following that occupation for a while, but the problem is, the UN doesn't have enough authority to do anything to get them out. So they will either have to withdraw voluntarily, or someone will have to make them do it. But either way, the resolution only means that people will care a little bit more.

The council voted 9-0 with six abstentions, the minimum vote possible, to approve the U.S-drafted resolution after the United States and co-sponsor France agreed under pressure not to mention Syria by name, although it is the only country with foreign forces in Lebanon.
That's exactly the kind of BS I've come to expect from the UN. They know they have no real authority and they tip-toe around solutions that require a strong will. It ought to stick to feeding poor children and curing AIDs, let the real players on the world stage do their thing.

Wow, it's been so long since I've heard incontrovertibly good news, I'd almost forgotten what it sounded like.

I have been following that occupation for a while, but the problem is, the UN doesn't have enough authority to do anything to get them out. So they will either have to withdraw voluntarily, or someone will have to make them do it. But either way, the resolution only means that people will care a little bit more.
My thoughts exactly. But at least this makes more people care.
It is a legitamite issue of regional security as well. If Syrian troops stay, they protect Islamic fundementalists from arrest or attack, and while they're at it, pull the strings in Beirut. This threatens Israel, and is a source of the aylotollahs in Iran. If the Syrians withdraw, Israel will be safe, Syria's government will begin to loose power internally, and Iran will have far less options for attacking Israel, thus becoming less popular at home, and combined with other factors, a revolt.

That's exactly the kind of BS I've come to expect from the UN. They know they have no real authority and they tip-toe around solutions that require a strong will. It ought to stick to feeding poor children and curing AIDs, let the real players on the world stage do their thing.
Well, if a nation decides to force an army out of Lebannon, at least they can say that the UN authorized a strike. I believe Israel should, as it is largely their security at stake. However, the Lebanese won't be happy with them, and the thing risks a return to Beirut ala 1984. Besides, there's the other question on how to dislodge the Syrians from Lebannon without toppling the regime. I mean, it's the ultimate goal, but is anyone ready for a liberated Syria? In time, yes, but not today. The US is overstreached, and has very little respect in the area outside of Iraq. Israel has plenty to spare, but the relationship is more of mutual hatred rather than simply fear.

I do. For one, I'm of Lebanese decent. For another, I find Lebannon to be extremely strategic in the GWOT. As soon as Syria withdraws, the militias and Israel will take over.

Do you really want more massacres at refugee camps?

My thoughts exactly. But at least this makes more people care. It is a legitamite issue of regional security as well. If Syrian troops stay, they protect Islamic fundementalists from arrest or attack, and while they're at it, pull the strings in Beirut. This threatens Israel, and is a source of the aylotollahs in Iran. If the Syrians withdraw, Israel will be safe, Syria's government will begin to loose power internally, and Iran will have far less options for attacking Israel, thus becoming less popular at home, and combined with other factors, a revolt.

Does it make more people care? Really? Do you actually think that some UN resolution that is so "politically correct" that it does not even mention Syria actually means anything? No, it doesn't. So watch this thing and see where it goes. like the resolutions on Iraq and Iran it means nothing unless the US puts some teeth into it. Afterall, the UN is a toothless tiger with no actual power.

As soon as Syria withdraws, the militias and Israel will take over.

Do you really want more massacres at refugee camps?
If it means eliminating Hizb'Allah, and stopping intervention on anyone's part, then yes. But how can it happen? Lebannon is otherwise an extremely stable country. It's press is comparable in freedom only to that of Qatar and Iraq. Elements of transpearancy are everywhere.
Besides, to be honest, I don't care for the "refuggees". Most of the reffuggees in Lebannon are actually Saudi and Syrian migrants, backed by their home governments to influence Lebannon. If they make it home safely, great, but I won't shed a tear for those caught in the crossfire. Many are probably part of Hizb'Allah, HAMAS, or maybe even al-Qaeda.
Oh, I almost forgot. We've always had the Palestinian refuggees, turning Lebannon into a PA puppet state in the eighties. Lebannon was far more peaceful without any of these kooks overwhelming them.

Does it make more people care? Really? Do you actually think that some UN resolution that is so "politically correct" that it does not even mention Syria actually means anything? No, it doesn't. So watch this thing and see where it goes. like the resolutions on Iraq and Iran it means nothing unless the US puts some teeth into it. Afterall, the UN is a toothless tiger with no actual power.
The UN itself is toothless, but not its members. It may mean that Israel fullfills the UN's "security obligation". It is so incredibally easy to take action under that cover.
Of course, there are problems that run through my head. Any Israeli liberation of Lebannon will be taken as an insult. The US doesn't have the resources to do it. Perhaps France will finally remember its long forgotten security obligation to greater Syria.

Does it make more people care? Really? Do you actually think that some UN resolution that is so "politically correct" that it does not even mention Syria actually means anything? No, it doesn't. So watch this thing and see where it goes. like the resolutions on Iraq and Iran it means nothing unless the US puts some teeth into it. Afterall, the UN is a toothless tiger with no actual power.
As much as I hate to say this...I agree.
Given the fiasco in Iraq, the American people wold never support another potential conflict in Mideast in the cause of "Liberation".
The UN doesnt have any other 'dogs' to throw in the fight so Lebannon is forced to wait.
Isreal needs to offer unconditional support to Lebanon, this would help their reputation in the region, might add in reducing bad blood between the Lebonese and Isrealis and would force the US (through Isreal) to aid Lebanon.
That is just one take on it.
If they are truly liberated I would love to visit, the photos I have seen are beautiful, and Beruit used to be the "Jewel of the Med".

I have a few good freinds from the lebonese and beruit war, two fought for the christians the other a muslim (now they are all good friends).

One of them was the first person I had ever seen in real life (tv makes it look easy) that could take a taurus pt92/99 (also the baretta model) and could chamber a round with one hand by one swoop of the wrist. He said he had to learn to do it when he got shot through the left shoulder (has a nice indented chunk of muscle missing now).

As much as I hate to say this...I agree.
Given the fiasco in Iraq, the American people wold never support another potential conflict in Mideast in the cause of "Liberation".
The UN doesnt have any other 'dogs' to throw in the fight so Lebannon is forced to wait.
Isreal needs to offer unconditional support to Lebanon, this would help their reputation in the region, might add in reducing bad blood between the Lebonese and Isrealis and would force the US (through Isreal) to aid Lebanon.
That is just one take on it.
If they are truly liberated I would love to visit, the photos I have seen are beautiful, and Beruit used to be the "Jewel of the Med".
However, I was thinking that should the US intervene in Lebannon, it'd be extremely easy to do so. It is a nation of only about 2 million people, and less than 10,000 sq. miles. For that amount, we get a tremendous plethora of awards: protection of Israel, the extreme weakening of the Syrian government, and the provokation of the Iranian government. They could go stupid enough as to show the world that they indeed do have a nuclear program worthy of the Security Concil. While the body itself is useless, it manages to highlight a few points here and there. After all, the Korean and Gulf Wars would've never happened without support of other nations via the UN.

I have a few good freinds from the lebonese and beruit war, two fought for the christians the other a muslim (now they are all good friends).

One of them was the first person I had ever seen in real life (tv makes it look easy) that could take a taurus pt92/99 (also the baretta model) and could chamber a round with one hand by one swoop of the wrist. He said he had to learn to do it when he got shot through the left shoulder (has a nice indented chunk of muscle missing now).
Beirut itself is far improved from its days as a warzone. It's not the Paris of the Middle East, but it is isn't your ordinary third world city, either.

Thats so tpical to blame Israel for a syrian attrocity, and makes little to no sense. The only massacre which Israel was even indirectly involved in was in '82, and then it was lebanese christians. As for refugee camps, they were all built by Jordan and Syria in the 6 day war- the idea being that palestinians would clear the war path and afterwards return home. Its high time for the arab world to realise that its problems are all self made. Feigning their victimisation by intricate and unrealistic conspiracies will no longer do. Open your eyes.

My sincere apologies for being ignorant, but would anyone care to give me a brief rundown/history of the Lebonese situation?

Beirut itself is far improved from its days as a warzone. It's not the Paris of the Middle East, but it is isn't your ordinary third world city, either.


I am glad to hear it has improved, I know he goes back to visit family and give them money whenever he can. I respect every foreigner that goes to a country to better themselves while contributing to thier new society and old one by never forgetting the life thier family is living back home. I know people from just about every culture that does this here in America. Many Americans might not see what I am really trying to say because we take alot more in life for granted. Not bashing, I just feel blessed to be where I am.

Thats so tpical to blame Israel for a syrian attrocity, and makes little to no sense. The only massacre which Israel was even indirectly involved in was in '82, and then it was lebanese christians. As for refugee camps, they were all built by Jordan and Syria in the 6 day war- the idea being that palestinians would clear the war path and afterwards return home. Its high time for the arab world to realise that its problems are all self made. Feigning their victimisation by intricate and unrealistic conspiracies will no longer do. Open your eyes.

Well, several UN resolution went to vote on Israel's atrocities towards Lebanon during Israel's occupation.

To be specific..

Res 262 (Dec 31, 68 ) : Condemned Israel's attack on Beirut airport destroying the entire fleet of Middle East Airlines.

Res 270 (Aug. 26, 69) : Condemned Israel for air attack on villages in southern Lebanon .

Res 279 (May 12, 70) : Demanded withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.

Res 280 (May 19, 70) : Condemned Israeli attacks against Lebanon.

Res 285 (Sep 5, 70) : Demanded immediate Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon

Res 313 (Aug 8, 72) : Demanded Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.

Res 316 (June 26, 72) : Condemned Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.

Res 317 (July 21, 72) : Deplored Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted from Lebanon.

Res 332 (Apr 21, 73) : Condemned Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.

Res 337 (Aug 15, 73) : Condemned Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.

Res 347 (Apr 24, 74) : Condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

Res 425 (Mar 19, 78 ) : Called on Israel to withdraw its forces unconditionally from Lebanon.

Res 427 (May 3, 78 ) : Called on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

Res 450 (June 14, 79) : Called on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.

Res 467 (Apr 24, 80) : Condemned Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.

Res 471 (June 5, 80) : Expressed deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Well just to name a few. Israel doesn't exactly have clean hands when it comes to Lebanon!

Given the strength organisations like Hizbullah have in Lebanon among the shiite population (40%) I don´t see how this would in any way really solve the problems of the country or the region. It would be a tiny step in the right direction but wouldn´t really change much.

My sincere apologies for being ignorant, but would anyone care to give me a brief rundown/history of the Lebonese situation?
Sure. Here's a brief history.
In ancient times, the Phoenicians were there. Remember that, as they became the Maronite Christians during the Crusades. Anyhow, after the Arab invasions, Lebannon was bounced from empire to empire until it finally became a part of Syria in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans fought in WWI, and lost. Britain and France divided the Middle East, and France got Syria. Britain maintained security relations with all its former colonies to make sure they could stand alone. France did not.
Ethnic tensions built in Lebannon, and only intervention in 1957 prevented a civil war. It went to hell again in the early eighties. US Marines were stationed there to protect Israel from attack, but Reagan withdrew them after a terrorist bombing at our main barracks in Beirut, killing 300 Marines. Israel susbsequently invaded. So did the Syrians. It turned into a war within a war, then settled down in the early 1990s. Lebannon is now stable, and Israel has withdrawn its forces. Only Syria remains, and are pulling the strings of the Lebanese government.

Given the strength organisations like Hizbullah have in Lebanon among the shiite population (40%) I don´t see how this would in any way really solve the problems of the country or the region. It would be a tiny step in the right direction but wouldn´t really change much.
It'd deprive Syria a source of power. The Syrian government draws strenght from their garrisons in Lebannon, as it's an easy way to attack Israel. Loosing Lebannon, I believe, will set in motion a chain of events ultimatly leading to revolt, or a major change int the Syrian government. This should help the region in general if Syria is either democratic, constitutional, or in a best case scenario, both.

Well, several UN resolution went to vote on Israel's atrocities towards Lebanon during Israel's occupation.

To be specific..

Res 262 (Dec 31, 68 ) : Condemned Israel's attack on Beirut airport destroying the entire fleet of Middle East Airlines.

Res 270 (Aug. 26, 69) : Condemned Israel for air attack on villages in southern Lebanon .

Res 279 (May 12, 70) : Demanded withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.

Res 280 (May 19, 70) : Condemned Israeli attacks against Lebanon.

Res 285 (Sep 5, 70) : Demanded immediate Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon

Res 313 (Aug 8, 72) : Demanded Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.

Res 316 (June 26, 72) : Condemned Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.

Res 317 (July 21, 72) : Deplored Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted from Lebanon.

Res 332 (Apr 21, 73) : Condemned Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.

Res 337 (Aug 15, 73) : Condemned Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.

Res 347 (Apr 24, 74) : Condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

Res 425 (Mar 19, 78 ) : Called on Israel to withdraw its forces unconditionally from Lebanon.

Res 427 (May 3, 78 ) : Called on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

Res 450 (June 14, 79) : Called on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.

Res 467 (Apr 24, 80) : Condemned Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.

Res 471 (June 5, 80) : Expressed deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Well just to name a few. Israel doesn't exactly have clean hands when it comes to Lebanon!
It was all, however, legal even under the UN Charter, as it was simply a self-defense initiative. The reason Israel has been critizised by the UN is a system bias that still thinks Israel is a bureaocratic plaything. They aren't even allowed to even run for the UN Security Concil.

We've always had the Palestinian refuggees, turning Lebannon into a PA puppet state in the eighties. Lebannon was far more peaceful without any of these kooks overwhelming them. So you're one of the "Palestinian = terrorist" crowd. That's like equating every American with corporate greed and imperialism.

I guess you're going to defend the Sabra and Shatila massacres aswell?


For those who are unaware of what I'm talking about, check out:

http://www.indictsharon.net/

reason Israel has been critizised by the UN is a system bias that still thinks Israel is a bureaocratic plaything. They aren't even allowed to even run for the UN Security Concil. Maybe because Israel isn't much better than apartheid South Africa.

So you're one of the "Palestinian = terrorist" crowd. That's like equating every American with corporate greed and imperialism.

I guess you're going to defend the Sabra and Shatila massacres aswell?


For those who are unaware of what I'm talking about, check out:

http://www.indictsharon.net/
Yes I am. For one, most Palestinians support HAMAS or Hizb'Allah. As Kybernetia pointed out, even 40% of the Lebanese are members of Hizb'Allah's political wing of the same name. For another, the Palestinians elected Yasser Arafat as president. He can't even, or probably doesn't want to, purge terrorists from his Fatah movement. By default, he's a terrorist, and because he was democratically elected, I'm sure many Palestinians do support terrorism (though certainly not all).

It was all, however, legal even under the UN Charter, as it was simply a self-defense initiative. The reason Israel has been critizised by the UN is a system bias that still thinks Israel is a bureaocratic plaything. They aren't even allowed to even run for the UN Security Concil.

Oh yes, the UN is biased, the media is biased, whoever may disagree with what some people's opinion it MUST be bias. The only bias I've seen since the 70's in the American bias towards Israel.

Oh yes, the UN is biased, the media is biased, whoever may disagree with what some people's opinion it MUST be bias. The only bias I've seen since the 70's in the American bias towards Israel.
I didn't mention any other bias, as I'm specifically focusing on the UN. I believe it stems from that plan that the UN proposed back after WWII: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an international zone around Jerusalem. Since neither party was happy about that, it made UN bureaocrats angry. They still seem to regard Israel as a UN-controlled state gone out of control. The main reason the US supports Israel in the UN is because of a Wilsonian reason: every state is entitled to control of their own sovereign borders, and is not subject to domestic tampering. Even Israel follows this with the PA, allowing for elections there. But not the UN. The UN seems to want to return Israel to the status of a bureaocratic project, and not a sovereign state, or even individual sovereignty for the Israeli residents.

http://www.iht.com/articles/537208.htm
The Syrians went as far as to push for a constitutional amendment extend the president's term. Even parliment tried to rebel.