Israel targets a UN outpost

[Canuck E Stan]

Gerry,

I'm flattered that you feel you must send me personal messages, but there is nothing of importance that couldn't be said here.

Like your last one:

"If I deem you unsuitable for public conversation I will respond to you in private. If you feel the need to take my PM's into the public forum and respond to them there so be it.

Looks a little foolish, don't you think?"

If you feel it looks a little foolish maybe you shouldn't send responses in private.

I get enough trash mail,I don't need more.

-CES

[geoffrey]

One thing is certain, the Irish are pissed.

News please?

[Army Guy]

To all you non believers:

Here is an E-mail from the Canadian Maj sent days before his death. He is an infantry officer whom has plenty of combat experiance, and UN experiance.

Another piont to note, there post is to observe violations to the orginal UN peace accords, to record history. In that regard Israel had made thier mission kind of a mout piont with thier current operations. What we did not know is why thier post was not evacuated or pulled back, perhaps the UN wanted eyes on the ground.

The UN chain of command knew everything that was going on and could have pulled these guys out at any time, but chose not to ,These are the guys that are responsable for thier safety.

My Webpage

[gerryhatrick]

The UN members were there as observers. It was part of a UN cease fire thingy, ya know?

The UN does a lot of that observer stuff, usually at great risk to themselves.

What's there to observe? There's a war?

There was certainly no "cease fire thingy" (and as an observor several thousand kilometers away, I observed that.) Excuse my sarcasm, Gerry. I am pointing out that the UN is irrelevant, and even dangerous because it is partisan.

There is a war now, as of a couple of weeks, yes. Previous to that there was a cease fire thingy. They were mandated to be there. You know very well what I'm speaking of so don't waste our time.

So you (and Harper) complain that they didn't high-tail it out of there when war broke out. I would have thought that a little cowardly. They are international observers and so of course should remain. Show me where it says in the resolution that if war breaks out they're supposed to pack up and leave.

Harpers question is framed for one purpose: to blame the UN for the deaths.

And you can sit back and throw out the Bush administration line that the UN is irrelavent all you like. I doesn't make it so. As for being partisan, that's another empty accusation.

If you read Harper's logic, it makes sense. He said that Israel was helpful for organizing Canadian evacuations from south Lebanon. So presumably Israel was also helpful to the UN about its "peacekeepers".

Maybe with a tall glass of koolaid that makes sense. Israel hates the UN, just as you do. The UN sits on theier border and reports on them every time the cease fire resolution is violated. Ergo, they hate them. They're outraged every time the UN critisizes them for anything, because of course nobody can critisize Israel.

[Charles Anthony]

I am pointing out that the UN is irrelevant, and even dangerous because it is partisan.

And you can sit back and throw out the Bush administration line that the UN is irrelavent all you like. I doesn't make it so. As for being partisan, that's another empty accusation.

The partisan issue aside, what would we say if more and more countries disregarded the UN and its resolutions? Just looking at a balance of numbers, imagine if only a minority of UN member countries upheld their resolutions.

It would then be fair to say that the UN was irrelevant.

Now, does the relevance depend only on the number of complying members?

Alternatively, we can forget about the numbers and just look at enforceability or authority.

Why should the UN be accepted as an authority?

If the UN makes a resolution but select member states do not comply or the UN does not enforce it, what makes the UN relevant?

Together we can organize the MapleLeafWeb Nations and stick our noses in other people's business and extole human rights. That does not give us supreme authority over anything.

Together we can organize the MapleLeafWeb Nations and stick our noses in other people's business and coerce other nations to comply with our resolutions. Does that give us authority?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Excellent post !

[Michael Hardner]

The partisan issue aside, what would we say if more and more countries disregarded the UN and its resolutions? Just looking at a balance of numbers, imagine if only a minority of UN member countries upheld their resolutions.

It would then be fair to say that the UN was irrelevant.

How so ? You're saying if 49 % of the resolutions passed are adhered to, then the UN is irrelevant ? The bar is too high there. If the number were that high ( I have no idea what it is ) then that would at least suggest something is working. Too often I hear rash calls to 'abolish' the UN, but what this is based on, I'm not sure.

[Charles Anthony]

You're saying if 49 % of the resolutions passed are adhered to, then the UN is irrelevant ?

Not exactly. What I am saying is that objectively it makes no sense to suggest that the UN is relevant.

The bar is too high there. If the number were that high ( I have no idea what it is ) then that would at least suggest something is working.

Regardless of where the "bar" is set, I would also point out the other side of the coin: it suggests that something is NOT working too. This is going in the direction of arguing for or against democracy as a principle.

Too often I hear rash calls to 'abolish' the UN, but what this is based on, I'm not sure.

I would not say that the UN should be abolished. I am more cynical. I say that eveybody should ignore the UN and stop funding it -- kind of like the hoola-hoop. Much like the hoola-hoop, I believe that the UN will eventually become out of fashion or in other words, irrelevant.

The unfortunate problem with the UN is that it makes dictates as if it were a world government but it does not concretely represent real people. A government that big can not possibly represent anybody.

[Argus]

More like Hezbollah is using the UN people as shields - typical tactics.

Even if true, it's irrelevant. Israel has a responsibility to ensure that non-combatants are kept safe.

This is utter nonsense. They have no such responsibility. The UN should have withdrawn them. They were there to observe the peace. They did a miserable job even at that. And the peace is no longer there to observe. They serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

[Argus]

The UN members appeared enmasse tonight to say the bombing was deliberate, that the UN Peacekeepers on the ground were in contact with Israel. had given them their coordinates and asked them to stop shelling in their area, and told them there were no Hezballuh in the area and the immediate response was to send a rocket their way, probably using the coordinates they had been given ......

None of this is true. You live in an odd little world.

[Michael Hardner]

Not exactly. What I am saying is that objectively it makes no sense to suggest that the UN is relevant.

That's not what you said above. You set some criteria for relevance, which you're now dropping. Why is the UN not relevant, then ?

Regardless of where the "bar" is set, I would also point out the other side of the coin: it suggests that something is NOT working too.

I agree with you.

I would not say that the UN should be abolished. I am more cynical. I say that eveybody should ignore the UN and stop funding it.

Effectively disbanding the UN then...

What would you suggest to replace it ?

The unfortunate problem with the UN is that it makes dictates as if it were a world government but it does not concretely represent real people. A government that big can not possibly represent anybody.

It does do a lot of good, though.

[Argus]

One poster thinks they entered a "war zone". The reply is "what were they doing there?"

This is like a punch and judy comedy.

The UN members were there as observers. It was part of a UN cease fire thingy, ya know?

The UN does a lot of that observer stuff, usually at great risk to themselves.

Theyr'e F$%KING heros.

Just because things start flying they're not going to cut and run, nor should they.

Harper is an idiot for suggesting that, btw.

No, Harper has it right. UNIFIL was a failed mission. They even admit it on their web site. And that was before the present hostilities. They should have been pulled out six months ago. They served no useful purpose. But with bombs and missiles and tank and rocket fire all around them, the UN decides to keep them there anyway. WTF?! Why? Why weren't they pulled out? Why keep people in a dangerous, exposed post in order to support a long dead mission? This is the result of the brain-dead bureacrats at the UN never wanting to admit to failure.

[Argus]

Maybe with a tall glass of koolaid that makes sense. Israel hates the UN, just as you do.

Realistically, the UN hated Israel first.

The UN sits on theier border and reports on them every time the cease fire resolution is violated. Ergo, they hate them.

More realistically, they report whenever Israel violates the cease fire, and then in many instances ignore violations from other sides.

They're outraged every time the UN critisizes them for anything, because of course nobody can critisize Israel.

You can criticize Jews, it's just that if you hate Jews you're going to criticize them a lot more, and most of that wil be unfair. Thus it is with the United Nations, which, pretty much officially, hates Jews.

[jdobbin]

News please?

It was pretty much on every news broadcast. The Irish soldier is the one that called Israel directly to warn them.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/sto...sp?story=700220

It should me mentioned that the Chinese and Finns were pissed too. Only Canada responded mildly.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?ed...rticle_id=74285

[watching&waiting]

I really do not care what the reaction of the countries where these UN observers were from. I still agin ask the question why were they still there after war broke out? It is not as if this was a secret or something. They could not observe any peace and so they should have been pulled by the UN long before it came to this. The fault as far as I am concerned is with the UN. If they would have done their jobs properly there would not have been anyone there to get killed. Yes Israel should try not to target the facility, but this is a war where precision bombing only happens when it is convenient, not something that should be expected. Which is another reason why the UN should have pulled out all observers completely.

I give Harper credit for seeing just where the true responcibility lies and for having the balls to say so. The UN should make sure that there are no other members within the borders of Israel and Lebanon. Anan is just trying to deflect the blame that rightfully belongs to the UN. As far as any more people from Canada being there goes I have to think that most did not want out, as yesterday only about 50 Canadians were there to board the ship Canada chartered, so many others from other nations were allowed to board instead. It is time to see the writing on the wall, and it seems that for now its is all in hebrew. That will only change when the Hezbola start to see that they have to recognize Israel for what it is. Otherwise there just will not be a Lebanon as we all knew it from the past.

[jdobbin]

I really do not care what the reaction of the countries where these UN observers were from. I still agin ask the question why were they still there after war broke out? It is not as if this was a secret or something. They could not observe any peace and so they should have been pulled by the UN long before it came to this. The fault as far as I am concerned is with the UN. If they would have done their jobs properly there would not have been anyone there to get killed. Yes Israel should try not to target the facility, but this is a war where precision bombing only happens when it is convenient, not something that should be expected. Which is another reason why the UN should have pulled out all observers completely.

I give Harper credit for seeing just where the true responcibility lies and for having the balls to say so. The UN should make sure that there are no other members within the borders of Israel and Lebanon. Anan is just trying to deflect the blame that rightfully belongs to the UN. As far as any more people from Canada being there goes I have to think that most did not want out, as yesterday only about 50 Canadians were there to board the ship Canada chartered, so many others from other nations were allowed to board instead. It is time to see the writing on the wall, and it seems that for now its is all in hebrew. That will only change when the Hezbola start to see that they have to recognize Israel for what it is. Otherwise there just will not be a Lebanon as we all knew it from the past.

It seems Israel cares what other nations think. Their offensive has stalled and they are now more accepting of an international force. But who wants to go when they cannot guarantee that Israel will target them?

[Kindred]

IMO Its time Harper learned some new phrases, and comments, he is beginning to sound like a puppet - "Collateral damage" is one phrase he has spouted a tad too often - He is coming across as a totally inffective incompetent PM who is at a loss as to how to deal with an International crisis

[Charles Anthony]

Not exactly. What I am saying is that objectively it makes no sense to suggest that the UN is relevant.

That's not what you said above. You set some criteria for relevance, which you're now dropping. Why is the UN not relevant, then ?

The UN is not relevant because it is not respected.

I did not mean to set criteria for relevance. I indicated how it was not respected and thus, irrelevant.

Effectively disbanding the UN then...

What would you suggest to replace it ?

Nothing.

I see no legitimacy for its existence in the first place.

The unfortunate problem with the UN is that it makes dictates as if it were a world government but it does not concretely represent real people. A government that big can not possibly represent anybody.

It does do a lot of good, though.

What good (that would not otherwise be done without the existence of the UN) might that be?

It is not as if this was a secret or something. They could not observe any peace and so they should have been pulled by the UN long before it came to this. The fault as far as I am concerned is with the UN.

I agree.

If I walk in the middle of ongoing traffic, I am to blame for my misfortune. Can I claim a moral high-ground that traffic must stop?

But who wants to go when they cannot guarantee that Israel will target them?

That may have been the desired effect of the accidental attack.

[Michael Hardner]

Charles,

What good (that would not otherwise be done without the existence of the UN) might that be?

Peacekeeping, conflict mediation, assistance for the poorest of the world, and a medium for global cooperation to start. It seems like you just want all of this to disappear.

Are you unaware of the work that they have done, or do you find it unimportant ?

[Black Dog]

I really do not care what the reaction of the countries where these UN observers were from. I still agin ask the question why were they still there after war broke out? It is not as if this was a secret or something. They could not observe any peace and so they should have been pulled by the UN long before it came to this. The fault as far as I am concerned is with the UN. If they would have done their jobs properly there would not have been anyone there to get killed. Yes Israel should try not to target the facility, but this is a war where precision bombing only happens when it is convenient, not something that should be expected. Which is another reason why the UN should have pulled out all observers completely.

You can quibble about whether or not the UN observers should have been there in the first place, but the question of whether Israeli forces were dilligent in attempting to avoid killing unaligned non-combatants remains. By simply blaming the UN for leaving them there in the first place (despite the fact that the region, up until a week ago, was more or less quiet since 1990) you're shifting the blame to the victims.

Jane Lute, the assistant secretary general for peacekeeping, told the UN security council that the base came under close Israeli fire 21 times - including 12 hits within 100 metres and four direct hits - from 1.20pm until contact was lost with the four peacekeepers inside at 7.17pm.

Ms Lute said the peacekeeping force had protested to the Israeli army after each firing incident. The UN's deputy secretary general, Mark Malloch Brown, and Ms Lute herself also made several calls to Israel's mission to the UN "reiterating these protests and calling for an abatement of the shelling", she said.

After contact with the base was lost, Unifil then won safe passage for two armoured personnel carriers to evacuate the position, she said. They arrived at 9.30pm "and found the shelter collapsed and major damage to the rest of the position". Despite negotiating safe passage, the APCs also came under Israeli attack, Ms Lute said.

Link.

[Charles Anthony]

Peacekeeping, conflict mediation, assistance for the poorest of the world, and a medium for global cooperation to start. It seems like you just want all of this to disappear.

No, I am not saying it should all disappear.

I believe it can exist on a smaller scale without the charade of a UN bureaucracy.

Every example you mention can exist effectively by individual member states without world government.

Remember, the UN is not a person. It is a label for a group of select people. The UN can only do what that select group does.

You mentioned the UN does a lot of good. I have a second question for you: what "good" can the UN (a great big government) do collectively if the individual member states (small governments) do not each want to do?

In other words, if each member state of the UN wanted to do "good" why do they need the UN at all? What is it in the bureaucracy that makes the "good" active?

We can all do good without being forced to do so. Charitable organization manage to do so as collectives without the need of an outside "government" to help them.

Taking the "good" of the UN a little further. Some people claim that the UN has managed to hide and perpetuate a lot of "bad" as well. Everytime the UN (or any other group) imposes an arms embargo, they do so under the deceptive pretense of maintaining neutrality while hypocritically disapproving violence. The precise effect is inherently the opposite: the victims become crushed by the agressor. An arms embargo is horrifyingly evil and deliberately taking sides in a conflict. I can not say that the UN has done "good" and ignore everything else it has done. I believe that arms embargoes are the quickest, easiest and dirtiest method of sweeping trouble spots under the rug.

[Michael Hardner]

You have some good points, which is why I would say reform, not abolition, is needed.

What is it in the bureaucracy that makes the "good" active?

Bureaucracy has a bad reputation, but it is required sometimes. It eliminates redundancy, it allows for central planning, for coordination, and for prioritization.

[Charles Anthony]

You have some good points, which is why I would say reform, not abolition, is needed.

What is it in the bureaucracy that makes the "good" active?

Bureaucracy has a bad reputation, but it is required sometimes.

I disagree. I believe that its bad reputation is often deserved.

Where is the redundancy eliminated????

[Topaz]

I just read on a website, that Israel is using "phosphorus" bombs, which are hitting the people and not the enemy. Poor children are getting their bodies burned to the bones by this! So. I wonder if the US gave them these as well of the "busters" bombs.

[Michael Hardner]

Where is the redundancy eliminated????

Instead of having parallel services doing the same thing, overlapping, you can create an organization above them to organize it all.