do you think the new resolution allowing the un force in Lebanon to fire in protection of themselves and civilians, could potentially see them shooting israeli soldiers on their incursions into Lebanon. which i think is against the un resolution.
2006-08-22 19:40:49 · 14 answers · asked by gordon-21up 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
why not they are not special case are they? if they break the violation then shoot.
2006-08-22 19:43:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
a UN resolution is like a little kid deciding something too serious for his young age.
the UN is an organization that never matured.
why is probebly a long story and I've not gone deep into it, but that fact is written all over it.
a resolution about Israel is a joke since the UN has made more resolution involving Israel THREE times more then involving any other ONE country in the whole world. that is a made up stat... if id i would look into it i prob be put to shame ...it would probebly be much more.
how did I come up with that fact?
because with Darfur the UN only passed ONE resolution. and killed there in ONE MONTH where more people then killed in the middle east over the past FIFTY YEARS!!
go figure!
2006-08-22 20:40:42 · answer #2 · answered by Piffle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the UN resolution allowing UN forces in Lebanon to fire is based on fear from actual threats by Hezbollah who consider a strong UN force as an hindrance to their "state within a state" policy.
however, I believe that most UN forces in Lebanon will be found to be "a paper tiger" that would retreat immediately at any sign of violence.
Exceptions to these rule could be Turkish soldiers, maybe Germans, who'll take no nonsense from Hezbollah
2006-08-22 20:04:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you were in that force would you shoot at the Israelis ? They have air cover & artillery support - you probably have a couple of water pistols.
But let's not use this as an excuse to put the boot into Israel & pretend all its neighbours are faultless; the Middle East is a big grey area.
2006-08-22 20:05:15 · answer #4 · answered by Well, said Alberto 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course the UN should defend themselves and civilians. If Israeli soldiers instigate the issue then they should be shot. Are you suggesting one interpretation for Israel and another for everybody else. Get a life.
2006-08-22 20:52:03 · answer #5 · answered by paul1953uk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am sorry but your question makes me laugh!!
First, because the UN have no mandate to shoot at any one, especially when it comes to Israel, the ONLY country in the world that can NOT comply with UN resolutions and get away with it.
Second, Israel Shot & killed 4 UN soldiers and what shy Annan had to say? nothing! UN is total waste of time
2006-08-22 20:06:15 · answer #6 · answered by Kanan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is that Israel will be in Uniform and Hezbollah will look like civilians (with guns). I just wish Israel had wiped out the terrorists prior to the cease fire.
2006-08-22 20:04:33 · answer #7 · answered by D G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only good UN resolution is when the American people get this spynest out of this countrey and ship it to France where it belongs!
2006-08-22 20:38:03 · answer #8 · answered by captainjack 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
these peacekeeper soldiers will not serve their purpose bcz news said israel-allied countries will take lead.
it will works if peace lover countries, as Iran, malaysia, bangladesh, indonesia, syria, etc leads the contingent. they will really prevent israeli future terrorist action
2006-08-22 19:54:27 · answer #9 · answered by arifin ceper 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say that the soldiers on the front line would be able to make that choice better than anyone on here. how would you like to be able to not defend yourself on the front line?
2006-08-22 20:11:14 · answer #10 · answered by Mickenoss 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
thats purely political decision, not to the soldiers decision at the battle line
2006-08-26 01:37:07 · answer #11 · answered by srracvuee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋