US Orders Syria to Do the Impossible

In a mystifying chain of events it appears that the US and the UN are calling on Syria to reoccupy Lebanon so that they can disarm the militia.

The same militia that sent the Israeli Army fleeing with its tail between its legs while America, the worlds sole superpower, has not been able to disarm the militia in Iraq.

Is there a person anywhere in the world who still thinks there is an ounce of sanity in the Bush administration? If so, let that person read John Bolton's orders to Syria in the Jan. 24 online edition of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz.

Bolton is Bush's unconfirmed ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton, a neoconservative warmonger, has managed to get the UN Security Council on Jan. 23 to instruct Syria to disband and disarm the Lebanese militias. Bolton says, "I hope in Damascus they read it very carefully and then comply."

How is Syria to meet this demand?

Last year, Syria complied with U.S. demands to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. As Syria has no military presence in Lebanon, it could not disarm a local police force, much less the Shia militias that defeated the Israeli army, drove it out of Lebanon, and have representatives in the Lebanese parliament.

Continued....

The above article references this article from Ha'aretz:

UN Security Council calls on Syria to comply with Lebanon

The UN Security Council on Monday urged Syria to comply with a 2004 resolution requiring the full withdrawal of its troops and intelligence operatives from Lebanon, noting the disarmament of militias is not being met.


A presidential statement unanimously passed by the Security Council regarding UN Resolution 1559 commended the efforts of Lebanon to meet the demands of Resolution 1559.

But the Security Council "also notes with regret that other provisions of
resolution 1559 have yet to be implemented, particularly the disbanding and disarming of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias," the statement read.

"This is a clear, unanimous signal from the Security Council of what Syria still has to do. I hope in Damascus they read it very carefully and then comply with Resolution 1559," said John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the UN.

Continued...

It seems to me that the relavant UN Resolution is not specifically calling for Syria to disband the militia.

UN Security Council Resolution 1559
.......
1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial
integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive
authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;
2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;
3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-
Lebanese militias;
4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over
all Lebanese territory;

So does this mean that under international law Syria must invade Lebanon and take away everyones personal weapons?

If Syria does not will another nation go in and do it, or will Syria be bombed for respecting Lebanons sovereignty?

[edit on 25-1-2006 by ArchAngel]

From what I am reading, its recommending Lebanon as well as Syria to disband the Lebanese militias, as well as any non-Lebanese militias supported by Syria. Thats what I see. Not to mention what has Syria been doing the whole entire time while in Lebanon?

Suppose to disarm the militias, before they left. Tsk Tsk.

I love the last part of the paragraph antiwar.com U.S. forces defeated in Iraq. If I remember correctly, we still are at war there. Hmm I guess the author got a little ahead of himself.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by deltaboy
From what I am reading, its recommending Lebanon as well as Syria to disband the Lebanese militias, as well as any non-Lebanese militias supported by Syria. Thats what I see.

Is Syria even named?

Have a closer look.

The words 'foreign forces' apply to Syria, but it only calls for their withdraw.

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-
Lebanese militias;

No where does it say who is supposed to disarm the militia.

Originally posted by ArchAngel

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-
Lebanese militias;

No where does it say who is supposed to disarm the militia.

Well since the text mentions the disarming of the militias by both the US and UN in resolution of 1559, it most likely mean Lebanon and Syria. After all as you mention in the first sentence of your post, which the UN wants Syria to disband the militias. Unless the resolution is now being too vague.

The UN Security Council on Monday urged Syria to comply with a 2004 resolution requiring the full withdrawal of its troops and intelligence operatives from Lebanon, noting the disarmament of militias is not being met.


A presidential statement unanimously passed by the Security Council regarding UN Resolution 1559 commended the efforts of Lebanon to meet the demands of Resolution 1559.

But the Security Council "also notes with regret that other provisions of
resolution 1559 have yet to be implemented, particularly the disbanding and disarming of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias," the statement read.

Well since the text mentions the disarming of the militias by both the US and UN in resolution of 1559, it most likely mean Lebanon and Syria. After all as you mention in the first sentence of your post, which the UN wants Syria to disband the militias. Unless the resolution is now being too vague.

That is the authors text, not the text of the UN resolution.

In it, as quoted above, Syria is not mentioned.

...while America, the worlds sole superpower, has not been able to disarm the militia in Iraq.

This is off topic but I just must know...

What does this have to do with above topic?


[edit on 25-1-2006 by WestPoint23]

lol im going to give this an attempt west point

maybe that isreal was more powerful then those in iraq, but were pushed out by lebanon militia and forces... so i guess that means that the lebanon forces were stronger then the ones in iraq? and if we cant take out the ones in iraq then syria has no chance against the ones in lebanon....IDK I WANNA KNOW WHAT THIS HAD TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AS WELL!!!!??

Originally posted by WestPoint23

...while America, the worlds sole superpower, has not been able to disarm the militia in Iraq.

This is off topic but I just must know...

What does this have to do with above topic?

You must not have read all of the linked article.

We are asking Syria to do something that we ourselves cannot do when they are not occupying, and we are.

Remember the big push to get Syrian forces out?

Why didn't anyone demand that they disarm the locals before leaving back then?

Do you see the hypocracy in all of this?

How could Syria now disarm the Lebanese militia without invading Lebanon and going door to door like Nazis?

How can it be interpreted that Syria is responsible for this when they are not named in UNSCR 1559?

[edit on 25-1-2006 by ArchAngel]

either way, ive been reading your articles arch angel and your do for WATS, i just dont have any now, but keep up the good articles and research and come feb. youll have one from me.

this article does not really make any sense............poorly written article

The UN Security Council on Monday urged Syria to comply with a 2004 resolution requiring the full withdrawal of its troops and intelligence operatives from Lebanon, noting the disarmament of militias is not being met.

implys that syria still has troops/'spies' in lebanon...

"This is a clear, unanimous signal from the Security Council of what Syria still has to do. I hope in Damascus they read it very carefully and then comply with Resolution 1559," said John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the UN.

2 paragraphs later...is he saying that syria needs to realy leave lebanon or that they need to invade?? then the next sentence says..

Syria pulled its troops from Lebanon after mass protests there and U.S.-led international pressure followed the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri last February.

and

A UN investigation implicated Syrian officials in the Beirut truck bombing that killed Hariri and 20 others.

i don't think bolton is saying that syria should invade.....it is more of a threat to syria...really get out of lebanon because you never fully left and are causing 'problems'.....its just another AMERIKAN threat....
you are all safe..go back to your homes.....

First, I don't ever recall Israel ever being "sent fleeing" from Lebanon by a militia or any one else. Link from a reputabable news source, please, to show otherwise.

Last, syria wouldn't have to re-invade Lebanon to accomplish the UN's task. All they have to do is cut off support and funding of the terrorist militias, and they will dry up and blow away.

I think it means anyone who is not in the army or police running around shooting folks is a terrorist/invader.

Originally posted by clearmind
i don't think bolton is saying that syria should invade.....it is more of a threat to syria...really get out of lebanon because you never fully left and are causing 'problems'.....its just another AMERIKAN threat....
you are all safe..go back to your homes.....

You ignored that part that clarified it all:

But the Security Council "also notes with regret that other provisions of
resolution 1559 have yet to be implemented, particularly the disbanding and disarming of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias," the statement read.

They are saying that line 3 of UNSCR 1559 is Syrias responsibility, yet Syria is not even named in the resolution.

How can Syria disarm the militia without re-occupying?

Cutting off all funds does not take away the weapons they already have.

Any fighting force needs a continuous source of food and supplies to remain in the field. Cut it off and your friends (i.e. the "people" you defend in almost every one of your posts) the terrorists are done. I repeat, no need to re-occupy Lebanon to do that.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Any fighting force needs a continuous source of food and supplies to remain in the field. Cut it off and your friends (i.e. the "people" you defend in almost every one of your posts) the terrorists are done. I repeat, no need to re-occupy Lebanon to do that.

You miss the reality.

They are not in the field.

They are home.

The aide that Syria provides is little to none of what the local families, and communities provide.

What is a militia man other than a person with a weapon, and the will to fight to defend his land.

I would be considered a militia man by those terms.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
What is a militia man other than a person with a weapon, and the will to fight to defend his land.

That appears not to be the definition that the UN has of the militia men now does it?