Tony Blair and UN call for International force

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
apnews.excite.com...

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Monday for the deployment of international forces to stop the bombardment of Israel.


While some may see it as a sign of Armageddon, I don't realistically see there being any other solution other than a UN force or multinational force forming a buffer zone in south Lebanon till the government of Lebanon can exert control over that region. This of course would mean the disarming of Hezbollah, which will probably not happen until Israel defeats them on the battlefield.

Another interesting part of the article:

Their comments came a day after world leaders forged a unified response at their G-8 summit to the crisis in the Middle East, blaming Hezbollah and Hamas for the escalating violence and recognizing Israel's right to defend itself - although they called on the Jewish state to show restraint.


Things are definitely getting interesting.

What are your pros and cons of deploying an multinational force in Southern Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese government?




posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Dont get me wrong Im not one of these people who want to see the UN scraped.
However I have to question what value any UN peace keeping force would have in the likes of Lebanon. The UN should let Israel deal with the situation it makes no sense have countries outside of the region deal with the problems at hand.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Since Iran and Syria are Hezbollah a U.N. force jumping in the scene would only be to reasure Israel that Syria and Iran wont attack, after all it is a real possibility. The only thing to worry about now is that Iran and/or Syria don't attack before the U.N. can get there.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
Since Iran and Syria are Hezbollah a U.N. force jumping in the scene would only be to reasure Israel that Syria and Iran wont attack, after all it is a real possibility. The only thing to worry about now is that Iran and/or Syria don't attack before the U.N. can get there.


What would happen if Syria and Iran were to launch open warfare after the UN has sent in peace keepers ?
As soon as any heat was applyed I could see the UN making a quick exist.
Would any countries stay behind after the UN leaves ?
Making a quick exist wouldnt do the UN any favours it would send the wrong message to political undesireables and terrorists.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I think this could be a good sign... If the UN can actually pull this off and bring an end to the fighting then perhaps I might actually have a little faith in it. I'm curious to see how the aftermath will be handled; specifically the rebuilding of Lebanon's infrustructure.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Langolier you made some interesting comments.
Even if the UN was able to stop the fighting it would only be a temporary measure. The UN has its limits in effect the UN may be able to come up with a stop gap political solution but it cant solve any of the problems in the long term.

I cant say much else without going off topic.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 17-7-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Israel has rejected it.

They said its too early to send in an international force.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I agree. Until the status quo in southern Lebanon is changed, Israel will not welcome peacekeepers/monitors.





top topics
 
0

log in

join