LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI see no reason to stick our big noses in this either.
PARIS, France (AP) -- French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie on Friday defended France's decision to send just 200 additional troops to reinforce the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon and reiterated that the force needs a clear mandate to operate effectively.
"I can't let it be said or implied that France is not doing its duty in the Lebanese crisis," the minister told French radio RTL in an interview.
"Since the start of the crisis, France is on the frontline and it is the top contributor."
France announced on Thursday it was doubling its contingent to 400 troops. It currently leads the UNIFIL force in southern Lebanon, and its decision-making on its role in a strengthened force has been closely watched.
The announcement from Paris was a disappointment to some at the U.N. who expected more, though it did not dissuade countries from pledging a total of 3,500 troops for the expanded force in a meeting in New York on Thursday.
Alliot-Marie pointed out that France was willing to continue leading the force as it expands from the current 2,000 troops to as many as 15,000.
The strengthened force is expected to work with about 15,000 Lebanese troops to restore peace to southern Lebanon after more than a month of violence between Israeli troops and the Lebanese-based Hezbollah militia.
Alliot-Marie also said she would keep in place 1,700 troops mobilized in the region who in recent weeks evacuated French and other foreign nationals from Lebanon and sent in humanitarian aid from aircraft based on French warships off the Lebanese coast.
France and Italy -- another potential European contributor -- have said the peacekeeping mandate is not explicit enough, and demanded the U.N. set clear rules of engagement for troops bolstering the force.
"You have to tell the troops why they are there. To support the Lebanese army, certainly, but to what extent? In what fields? Secondly, we also need to know what are the material and judicial means at our disposal," said Alliot-Marie.
"You can't send in men and tell them: 'Look at what is going on, (but) you don't have the right to defend yourself or to shoot'," she said.
French officials are particularly concerned about how the expanded force is expected to interact with Hezbollah, the militant group whose fighters who shot nearly 4,000 rockets into Israel during more than a month of fighting with Israeli troops.
Alliot-Marie said troop contributions to the expanded UNIFIL force should come from a great number of countries, both in Europe and the Muslim world.
"What we must absolutely avoid is giving the image of a Western world imposing peace on the Muslim world," she said
Yes lets keep the U.S. forces out of this we have enough to do. IMO all the countries that both complained and those genuinely effected should contribute forces to keep the peace.
I see no reason to stick our big noses in this either.
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man
France has a woman as defense minister? I have so many jokes and remarks I don't know where to start...Originally Posted by Dreadnought
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
You do realize I left that out there for you for when PubDad returns
Zapped between the eyes!
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
And pray what part of the Himalayas you find an abode for solitude since people go into the Himalayas to seek themselves?Well I recently conducted a polling in my area, among ordinary people and some experts about " Who got the upper hand in the conflict".
I recieved over 500 votes. I'll distribute them into percentages.
1) 60% said Hezbollah won.
2) 25% went with Israel.
3) 10% said that it should be considered an "Iranian-Syrian" victory.
4) 5% either knew nothing or said victory for Lebanon.
I know many would not agree with them. I would like people to only give comments over the options given or give their other opinion.
What prompted you to poll? Are you a pollster by profession? Psephologist by hobby or strictly for cash and carry?
And what was the method you applied?
What is the education quotient of the people polled?
Before, trying to impress with a poll, it is essential to give the parameters so that a person can understand the veracity of the poll.
If they were rank illiterates, why do you want our opinion?
And if they were hermits from the Himalayas ( since you claim your "area" is "in the Himalayas"), it does appear odd that these hermits should waste their time over such polls when they are seeking solitude and to be away from all the muck of society and the world!
And if you yourself are a hermit in the Himalayas, what the Dickens are you doing here?
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Krauthammer, regal and magnificent:
A Moment to Be Seized in Lebanon
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 18, 2006; A21
The charm of any U.N. Security Council resolution lies in the preamble, which invariably begins by "recalling" all previous resolutions on the same subject that have been entirely ignored, therefore necessitating the current resolution. Hence newly minted Resolution 1701: Before mandating the return of south Lebanon to Lebanese government control, it lists the seven Security Council resolutions going back 28 years that have demanded the same thing.
We are to believe, however, that this time the United Nations means it. Yet, the fact that responsibility for implementation is given to Kofi Annan's office -- not known for integrity, competence or neutrality -- betrays a certain unseriousness about the enterprise from the very beginning.
Now, it is true that had Israel succeeded militarily in its strategic objectives, there would have been no need for any resolution. Israel would have unilaterally cleaned out south Lebanon and would be dictating terms.
But that did not happen. The first Israel-Hezbollah war ended in a tie, and in this kind of warfare, tie goes to the terrorist. Yet there is no doubt that had Israel been permitted to proceed with the expanded offensive it began two days before the cease-fire, Israel would eventually have destroyed Hezbollah in the south, albeit at great cost to itself, Lebanon and Israel's patron, the United States. Which is why the war was called off.
Having obviated that possibility with the cease-fire, the United States is left with certain responsibilities. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave assurances that this resolution would not be a dead letter; that it had enough Chapter 7 (i.e., legally enforceable) language to give it teeth; that there would indeed be a buffer zone below the Litani River; that there would be a robust international force with robust rules of engagement.
Yet, within days, these assurances are already fraying. Hezbollah has declared that it will not disarm. The Siniora government in Beirut has acquiesced in a "don't ask, don't tell" deal in which Hezbollah retains its entire infrastructure south of the Litani -- bunkers, weapons, fighters -- with the cosmetic proviso that none will be displayed very openly. No strutting, but everything remains in place awaiting the order to restart the war when the time is right.
That arrangement is essentially a return to the status quo ante -- precisely what the United States had said it would not permit because that would represent a strategic disaster for the forces of democracy and moderation in the region.
We are headed for a complete repudiation of the bottom-line American position. The stakes are high. Not so much for Israel, which in the end will take care of itself. By the now-inevitable Round Two, Israel will have rejected the failed Olmert-led exercise in hesitancy and will have new leadership, new tactics and new equipment (for example, expensive new plating for its tanks, which were so vulnerable to advanced Iranian antitank weaponry).
What is most at stake, from the American perspective, is Lebanon. Lebanon was the most encouraging achievement of the democratization project launched with great risk with the invasion of Iraq. The Beirut Spring, the liberation from Syrian rule and the election of a pro-Western government marked the high point (together with the first Iraqi election, which inspired the events in Lebanon) of the Bush doctrine.
Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have been working assiduously to reverse that great advance. Hezbollah insinuated itself into the government. The investigation of Syria for the murder of Rafiq Hariri has stalled. And now, with the psychological success of the war with Israel, Hezbollah may soon become the dominant force in all of Lebanon. In the south, the Lebanese army will be taking orders from Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not just returning to being a "state within a state." It is becoming the state, with the Siniora government reduced to acting as its front.
That is why ensuring that Hezbollah is cut down to size by a robust international force with very strict enforcement of its disarmament is so critical. For all its boasts, Hezbollah has suffered grievously militarily, with enormous losses of fighters, materiel and infrastructure. Now is its moment of maximum weakness. That moment will not last long. Resupply and rebuilding have already begun.
This is no time for the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to be saying, when asked about the creation of an international force, that "this really is a responsibility of the Secretariat." Maybe officially, but if we are not working frantically behind the scenes to make sure that this preposterously inappropriate body gets real troops in quickly, armed with the right equipment and the right mandate, the moment will be lost. And with it Lebanon.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Ohh my God.... Indian Invasion!! Like i'll get scared and hide in the mountains.
Break the temple, Break the mosque, Break whatever besides!
But do not break a human heart, because that is where the GOD resides!
Wooo!...
Never forget 2 say thnx
Last edited by Khan Sahab; 21 Aug 06, at 11:08.
Break the temple, Break the mosque, Break whatever besides!
But do not break a human heart, because that is where the GOD resides!
Sir,
I absolutely agree with your analysis. The Israelis can only "win" by acheiving their objective, which is neutralizing the Hezbullah threat. It can be accomplished by either the complete destruction of Hezbullah forces, or a permanent political settlement that would pervent their operation in southern Lebanon. The Israelis had clearly failed to inflict permanent damage on the Hezbullah. The UN Peace Keeping Force is not at all likely to carry out its promises to disarm the Hezbullah.
Round two is not long in coming.
Just as everyone else has done, you seem to have forgotten completely about the two soldiers. That was a stated objective, and a motive, of the Israeli action, and was completely justified. But those men have been abandoned by their government.
As Napoleon once said, 'If you set out to take Vienna, TAKE VIENNA.' What are we to think of the Israelis NOW? That they are completely unable to do what they said they could. That is not healthy for them. Not in the neighborhood they live in.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Israel seems to be muddled in its stated objective and its military campaign results.
Israel has not gained a sausage and neither have they been able to subdue and destroy the mischief mongerers.
In fact, the Moscow Times carried an article (I have lost the reference) wherein a Russian General claimed that Israel had planned to invade Lebanon to crush the Hizb permanently and thus sanitise one of its fronts. The two soldiers were a mere excuse since Israel is quite capable of rescuing hostages and two soldiers were no big deal given the success of Entebbe and other such rescues.
It was a total intelligence failure that they failed to learn of the number of rockets and missiles the Iranians and the Syrians had pumped into the Hizb as also they failed to monitor the Hizb's new tactics. This is not expected of the Israeli Intelligence. They are said to have the finest Intelligence setup and this campaign has been one huge clusterfu ck (to use the phrase handed to me by Horrido).
Last edited by Ray; 21 Aug 06, at 22:50.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
One would have thought they would know from US operations since 1991, not to say their own extensive military experience the futility of hunting surface to surface missiles and terrorists with air power in absnese of substantial ground committment.
Nothing new there.Ohh my God.... Indian Invasion!! Like i'll get scared and hide in the mountains.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
[giggle][snort][GUFFAW]
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: