Should Israel just clear out of Lebanon...

[j2k4]

...so that Iran/Syria can move in?

In the interest of fast-tracking events, you see, since Lebanon cannot speak or act for itself anyway?

What say we just cut to the chase?

UNIFIL can stay, since all they do is "observe and report".

We can call it Syranbolleb, or something...

[lynx]

What makes you think that Lebanon can't speak or act for itself?

It was doing quite nicely until Israel sent in it's snatch squad, in direct contravention of UN resolutions.

BTW, was the comment that UNIFIL only "observe and report" supposed to be some sort of veiled criticism? If so, you should look to your own, since their purpose - "to carry out interim tasks in the humanitarian and administrative fields" - was mandated by the Security Council, influenced in no small part by the USA.

[GepperRankins]

maybe if isreal formerly apologised like

[j2k4]

What makes you think that Lebanon can't speak or act for itself?

Oh-you mean Lebanon chose to allow Hezbollah (popularly believed to act at the behest of Syria and Iran) it's proxy?

Funny, the Lebanese government disavowed them for a few days before it decided it would fight with them side-by-side...

It was doing quite nicely until Israel sent in it's snatch squad, in direct contravention of UN resolutions.

Israel snatched it's own soldiers?

Hmmm.

I hadn't heard that.

BTW, was the comment that UNIFIL only "observe and report" supposed to be some sort of veiled criticism? If so, you should look to your own, since their purpose - "to carry out interim tasks in the humanitarian and administrative fields" - was mandated by the Security Council, influenced in no small part by the USA.

"veiled criticism"?

No, not at all.

If you perceive a critical tone, it exists only in your own ears.

In any case, I said they could stay-what do you want?

BTW-

What do you mean, "look to your own"?

My own...what?

In any case, you have not answered my question.

[Busyman™]

...so that Iran/Syria can move in?

In the interest of fast-tracking events, you see, since Lebanon cannot speak or act for itself anyway?

What say we just cut to the chase?

UNIFIL can stay, since all they do is "observe and report".

We can call it Syranbolleb, or something...

Now why would Syria/Iran move in now?

Government destabilization?

[lynx]

What makes you think that Lebanon can't speak or act for itself?

Oh-you mean Lebanon chose to allow Hezbollah (popularly believed to act at the behest of Syria and Iran) it's proxy?
Popularly believed? Only by the uninformed.

Funny, the Lebanese government disavowed them for a few days before it decided it would fight with them side-by-side...
Or perhaps it was when it realised that Israel was going to bomb the fuck out of everyone whether they were involved or not.

It was doing quite nicely until Israel sent in it's snatch squad, in direct contravention of UN resolutions.

Israel snatched it's own soldiers?

Hmmm.

I hadn't heard that.
No, the soldiers captured by Hezbollah were on an a snatch mission into southern Lebanon. It was announced in a press release by the IDF which was quickly withdrawn when they realised it was actually illegal. Fox probably forgot to mention it.

BTW, was the comment that UNIFIL only "observe and report" supposed to be some sort of veiled criticism? If so, you should look to your own, since their purpose - "to carry out interim tasks in the humanitarian and administrative fields" - was mandated by the Security Council, influenced in no small part by the USA.

"veiled criticism"?

No, not at all.

If you perceive a critical tone, it exists only in your own ears.

In any case, I said they could stay-what do you want?

BTW-

What do you mean, "look to your own"?

My own...what?
Given the way you usually find obscure forms of the English language I doubt that I really need explain implied phraseology. It's use is not uncommon

In any case, you have not answered my question.

If you want an answer to the first part - "Should Israel just clear out of Lebanon" - then the answer is yes, there are several UN resolutions demanding it.

However, your rider about "Syria/Iran moving in" makes it a non-question since there is no evidence that either want to do so.

[Busyman™]

"veiled criticism"?

No, not at all.

If you perceive a critical tone, it exists only in your own ears.

In any case, I said they could stay-what do you want?

BTW-

What do you mean, "look to your own"?

My own...what?
Given the way you usually find obscure forms of the English language I doubt that I really need explain implied phraseology. It's use is not uncommon

In any case, you have not answered my question.

If you want an answer to the first part - "Should Israel just clear out of Lebanon" - then the answer is yes, there are several UN resolutions demanding it.

However, your rider about "Syria/Iran moving in" makes it a non-question since there is no evidence that either want to do so.

Should the US move out of Iraq? No 'cause Al Qaeda will move in.

I wonder why?

[j2k4]

If you want an answer to the first part - "Should Israel just clear out of Lebanon" - then the answer is yes, there are several UN resolutions demanding it.

However, your rider about "Syria/Iran moving in" makes it a non-question since there is no evidence that either want to do so.

Several U.N. resolutions?

You mean the ones that came after 1559?

As to the question of "Syria/Iran moving in", I suppose it is not (strictly-speaking) necessary, given that they have control anyway...I guess I meant in the figurative sense, but rather more overtly than covertly...do you pretend Iran has only a 'rooting interest' in the situation?

Have you heard any of Ahmadinajad's running commentary at all, at all?

I assume if I see him on CNN or MSNBC or CBS or NBC or ABC or Auntie Beeb or read any print media translations they cannot be believed?

Have you exclusive access to things the rest of us do not?

[lynx]

If you want an answer to the first part - "Should Israel just clear out of Lebanon" - then the answer is yes, there are several UN resolutions demanding it.

However, your rider about "Syria/Iran moving in" makes it a non-question since there is no evidence that either want to do so.

Several U.N. resolutions?

You mean the ones that came after 1559?
Have you actually read resolution 1559? It is very interesting, particularly how it starts.

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),

Resolutions 425 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops, 520 condemns Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of ceasefire agreements (426 and 1553 are technical documents relating to UNIFIL). In other words, it reiterates what's been said to Israel before.

Sure, there are other things in there too, but I was always taught that the most improtant things in documents come at the beginnning, so that more people will see them before they get bogged down with the minutiae.

As to the question of "Syria/Iran moving in", I suppose it is not (strictly-speaking) necessary, given that they have control anyway absolute nonsense...I guess I meant in the figurative sense, but rather more overtly than covertly...do you pretend Iran has only a 'rooting interest' in the situation?

Have you heard any of Ahmadinajad's running commentary at all, at all?

I assume if I see him on CNN or MSNBC or CBS or NBC or ABC or Auntie Beeb or read any print media translations they cannot be believed?

Have you exclusive access to things the rest of us do not?

I've heard plenty of Ahmadinajad statements, I don't think he's referred to occupying Lebanon at all. You seem to be suggesting he has, so the question is do you have a personal link to some private media releases that are denied to the rest of us?

[j2k4]

Several U.N. resolutions?

You mean the ones that came after 1559?
Have you actually read resolution 1559? It is very interesting, particularly how it starts.

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),

Resolutions 425 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops, 520 condemns Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of ceasefire agreements (426 and 1553 are technical documents relating to UNIFIL). In other words, it reiterates what's been said to Israel before.

Sure, there are other things in there too, but I was always taught that the most improtant things in documents come at the beginnning, so that more people will see them before they get bogged down with the minutiae.

As to the question of "Syria/Iran moving in", I suppose it is not (strictly-speaking) necessary, given that they have control anyway absolute nonsense...I guess I meant in the figurative sense, but rather more overtly than covertly...do you pretend Iran has only a 'rooting interest' in the situation?

Have you heard any of Ahmadinajad's running commentary at all, at all?

I assume if I see him on CNN or MSNBC or CBS or NBC or ABC or Auntie Beeb or read any print media translations they cannot be believed?

Have you exclusive access to things the rest of us do not?

I've heard plenty of Ahmadinajad statements, I don't think he's referred to occupying Lebanon at all. You seem to be suggesting he has, so the question is do you have a personal link to some private media releases that are denied to the rest of us?

Whatever you were taught, the U.N. seems not to have paid attention.

As I said, with informal (but practical) annexation by Iran all but complete, there is no need to have more than the double-triple-quadruple handful of 'advisors' currently on hand...