It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UN Arrives In Beirut and is Apalled

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
UN reresentatives have arrived in Beirut and said that they were appalled at the devastation that Isreal has inflicted on Beirut. They are asking both sides to stop attacking each other so the UN can start bringing in Humanitarian aid to Beirut.

UN Apalled by Beirut Devastation


Mr Egeland, the UN's emergency relief chief, described the destruction as "horrific" as he toured the city.

He said the "disproportionate response" by Israel was a "violation of international humanitarian law".

He appealed for both sides to halt attacks and said UN supplies of humanitarian aid would begin to arrive in the next few days.


UN Team in Lebanon Calls for Cease Fire


A UN team entrusted to negotiate a truce between Israel and Hizbullah called for an end to hostilities, the protection of civilians and the release of Israeli soldiers captured by the Lebanese Shiite terror group.


Maybe the UN can get them to cease fire for a little while, but it surely won't last as long as Hezbolla is near Isreal's border.




posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Good...im glad they are apalled. Now maybe they will do alittle more in trying to stop terrorism in the world and acting like its only a US problem until the US wants to do something about. About time they wake up.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Maybe that is why Rice has been putting off going there.

Could it be she was waiting for the UN to get there first to start the negotiations and stop the fighting so it wasn't all dumped in the U.S.'s lap again.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
The UN is appalled... heh, why does that phrase mean nothing to me.
Oh right, possibly because it won't affect wether the UN does anything at all.

It belongs right up there with such phrases as,
"We condemn them for..."
and
"We denounce these people..."

They are statements, only statements, will never be more than statements.
Just more political crap said by politicians who want to 'appear' as though they give a damn.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole
Maybe that is why Rice has been putting off going there.

Could it be she was waiting for the UN to get there first to start the negotiations and stop the fighting so it wasn't all dumped in the U.S.'s lap again.
Since when dont we want things on OUR lap? The world police? When did all this change? Was i sleeping?



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Fine, Everyone is appalled at the death and distcrustion on both sides-as they should be


What is the UN going to do to stop this appalling military conflict-I don't believe this is "legally" war-but correct me if I am wrong.(like it really matters anyway)

This may be a minor question, but has the UN gone in to see the damages in Israel?


Perhaps if the UN is appalled enough, something will be done.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Bro diplomacy is on its way!



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
More than likely it will be in the form of a NATO operation coupled with rapid diplomacy outside of the UN.

The mistrust and the ineffectiveness of the UN to deal with crisis as a body is apparent to many observers (UNIFIL never was able to fulfill its’ mandate, under-manned and under-gunned only to be left in the crossfire).


Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said his country could accept a NATO peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon to ensure Hizbollah is removed from the border
-[snip]-
[Bolton said] "We have been looking carefully at a multinational force perhaps authorized by the Security Council, but not a U.N.-helmeted force," he said.
Source


mg



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Im sick of people who yell, scream and chuck small girl hissy fits because the UN isnt as blood thirsty as them.

What would you expect the UN to do? send in a military force?

" Im appaled by the state of destrcution going on, we need to send in MORE guns, MORE tanks, MORE soilders and bring peace ''
AS IF.
The UN arent invincible, Iraq showed us that.
Terrorists see no difference between infedels and the UN.

The UN does more for this world than almost ANY other nation.

What about the AID they give stricken countries? where others fail.
What about the guidence, and the meaning off the idea ' UNITED NATIONS '

People should stop there bloody thirsty gun diplomacy ways and stop naggin on the UN.

They have been the world body for PEACE since the worst war in human existence, and now , simply because they cant stop this ' terrorist ' syndrome hitting the world they should be outlawed?
Hell, the US has done unspeakable acts of cruelty and haneous things, yet people still applaud and defend them.

the UN, how dare they speak there minds, how dare they offer words of guidence and criticism when a country murders people.
BE GONE WITH THEM!
GROW UP!

[edit on 23-7-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
The UN was borne of war and the failures to bring peace by its predecessor, the League of Nations.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
What would you expect the UN to do? send in a military force?

" Im appaled by the state of destrcution going on, we need to send in MORE guns, MORE tanks, MORE soilders and bring peace ''


In fact what you mention above would have brought peace to the region if the UN had requested more martial aid (even if just based upon their own reports), but can not now. UNIFIL had roughly 2000 men and a handful of officers to fulfill their UN given mandate:

1) Confirm the withdraw of Israeli troops.
2) Restore international peace and security to the region
3) Assist Lebanon in securing and projecting its’ authority in the area.

…yes a military force would be necessary to accomplish this, however the peacekeepers that were dispatched failed simply because they could not exert authority.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
the UN, how dare they speak there minds, how dare they offer words of guidence and criticism when a country murders people.


Like Rwanda and Srebrenica for example?



mg



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I believe that anyone who SPEAKS for Peace, anyone who CONDEMNS publically the slaughter of innocents deserves all the support nessecary.

With all the public backlash the UN has taken, with all the naysayers saying they are a toothless dog, they wernt created to become a major deciding fighting machine, they were created to uphold peace and stability in the world.

Anyone who believes a hand shake over negotiations is better than a bullet of terms deserves all the support they can get.
Anyone who believe they need to be disbanded and forgotten about simply because they dont have the means, ability or DESIRE to ADD to the death and destruction needs to be checked out.

I accept the UN has had its chances in previous conflicts to stop things before they eveantuated.
mistakes happened, things have been learned.

But that doesnt mean they should be thrown out the window.

I mean majority of the worlds citizens still dont understand exactly what is happening in Iraq, Israel, Chechnya, Sudan, Korea or any of the worlds trouble spots.
Be it through miscalculations, or devious smoke screens created by governments for there own desires.

Regardless,
any program that assists with AID, humanitarium relief or such to stricken areas should never have mud thrown at it.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Regardless,
any program that assists with AID, humanitarium relief or such to stricken areas should never have mud thrown at it.


If the UN’s functions are not solely in distributing humanitarian aid; perhaps if the UN was more effective as a body then there would be a need for less aid in general. Example….The US provides heavily in each of the areas you have listed (both on its’ own and directly to the UN…eg. 57% of the World Food Program is funded by the US), but the US administration is well deserving of criticism, such as the case of the UN.

The UN is simply in need of reformation (not completely dissolved); the UN does not have the political will to put in place the necessary measures to ensure peace.

Publicly speaking of peace is no substitute for leading the way to a lasting peace. If my function is to “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war….” I had better be doing more than taking about it. Also, verbally condemning human slaughter while standing-by cavalierly; ignoring warnings while hundreds of thousands are lead to their annihilation under the eye of UN is without excuse. Words with-out actions are worthless.

mg



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I do agree,
but there isnt much action to be taken right now, that will gaurantee a LOWERING of arms, and a disolving of violence.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join