NationStates Jolt Archive

Article (http://www.dehavilland.co.uk/webhost.asp?wci=default&wcp=NationalNewsStoryPage&ItemID=8364168&ServiceID=8&filterid=10&searchid=8)

So how long till civil war flares up again? Next week, next month, or do you think they will see the new year in first?

Also, who do you think is going to garrison them next time. I don't imagine Syria wants the job.

Israel?

Israel?I can just imagine how the whole damn world will react to that...

I can just imagine how the whole damn world will react to that...
Indignant massively lopsided UN general assemby resolutions accompanied by vetoed (by USA) security council resolutions?

I am hoping for Turkey myself.

I am hoping for Turkey myself.

If it's not Syria, it'll probably be Turkey or Egypt.

Indignant massively lopsided UN general assemby resolutions accompanied by vetoed (by USA) security council resolutions?
Isnt that how it pretty much works anyway at the un?

Indignant massively lopsided UN general assemby resolutions accompanied by vetoed (by USA) security council resolutions?Well, it only makes sense that the UN does everything it can to stop the only two organized, formal militaries from doing anything at all.

Twenty bucks that Japan/Great Britain get to join us in the doghouse once they have some fun?

Hezbollah will provoke other factions into a new civil war and Syria will say to the world "See what happens when we leave? Now we have to go back in to restore order." The UN will agree because they have no balls, and everything will be as it was before the Syrian withdrawal.

Well, it only makes sense that the UN does everything it can to stop the only two organized, formal militaries from doing anything at all.

Twenty bucks that Japan/Great Britain get to join us in the doghouse once they have some fun?
You are betting 20 bucks that GB and Japan will go into Lebanon? You are so on! Occupying Lebanon is like sticking you head in a wood chipper. The last time US tried to send in peacekeepers, the peacekeepers were exploded, Israel did not have such a fun time their either. There is no way the sissy Japs or Brits have the stomach for that kind of anti-jihad operation especially after Iraq.

According to the Japanese constitution, is it legal to deploy combat troops to another nation, even under a UN charter?

According to the Japanese constitution, is it legal to deploy combat troops to another nation, even under a UN charter?
The Japanese right is trying to change the Constution to allow them to use their military like any other country. They have troops in Iraq, although now under a UN mandate. They pretty much stay hunkered down in their super heavily fortified bases and try their best to doge mortar shells and leave all the fighting to the American troops.

I was specifically referring to combat troops, as peacekeepers would be. I know there are japanese troops in iraq, but they are support troops, medics, engeneers, and the like.

You are betting 20 bucks that GB and Japan will go into Lebanon?Sometimes, I look at replied to my my posts and wonder "how in the HELL did they misinterpret it that way?"

Note the first sentence in the post. Figure the similarities such that GB and Japan fit best next to US and Israel. Take another guess.

Sometimes, I look at replied to my my posts and wonder "how in the HELL did they misinterpret it that way?"

Note the first sentence in the post. Figure the similarities such that GB and Japan fit best next to US and Israel. Take another guess.
Its not my fault your writing style is indecipherable. The thread was about which countries will end up occupying lebanon. I assumed you were saying that you predict the GB and Japan will invade lebanon and piss off the UN in doing so. I don't see how else to interperet what you wrote unless you are saying that japan and GB will invade other unmentioned countries???

Its not my fault your writing style is indecipherable.You are correct. However, I cannot fathom your particular misinterpretation.

My post was a direct reply to your post, not to the OP. It's thesis was about organized, formal militaries, and how they're a threat to the balance of power. The first sentence stated that it referred to ones the UN unabashedly hates, without specifically referring to them, as I assumed it was entirely clear due to context. This, on its own, might have been clear.

The second sentence referred to the other organized militaries in the world, (not sure Japan's counts as a formal military or just a "defense force," and I consider Britain to already be Airstrip 1). Equating the two named here with the two mentioned above was the misinterpretation I expected.

The first also stated that the UN prevents US & Israel from "doing anything." The second also stated GB & Japan could join US & Israel on the UN's "most favorite sanction-targets" list by their military doing anything, especially in a way that might make them as much of a threat to the balance of power as the US and Israel. I assumed that listing them, combined with a mention of organized militaries less than a dozen words ago, would make most people realize I was talking about their militaries. I can see where not grasping this would be a possible misinterpretation.

However, since you seemed to understand every individual bit of what I was talking about, being unable to put them together confuddles me. Especially since neither would have any reason to be interested in Lebanon. ESPECIALLY since I was willing to put money on it.

unless you are saying that japan and GB will invade other unmentioned countries???Close enough. It's saying "when they decide they want to , they will [join US & Israel on the UN's 'most favorite sanction-targets' list]," since they have enough of a military, with enough mobility, that they can independantly make a major change in the world's balance of power.

This seems to be the UN's only coherent goal, since it makes everything a great deal easier to manage if they know exactly what to expect from a country or region into perpetuity. [I]Dealing with it, they seem to pick and choose as if they threw darts at a board, but they like to know that it is.