| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Isn't it interesting that no matter how many Israeli civilians are killed by Hamas or Hezbollah, the U.N. never even considered sending any "peacekeepers" to the Mid-East? Now that Israel is destroying Hezbollah, all of a sudden the dictator-driven U.N. is talking about sending in some "peacekeepers." Without question, such a U.N. force would be nothing more than a defensive shield for Hezbollah.
#1
#2It's a good link, Ruth, but reading it shows that the U.N. wanted to protect the terrorists from Israel, and not vice-versa. From your link:
In a report to the 189-nation U.N. General Assembly, Dugard said he ''finds it difficult to understand why no serious attempt has been made by the international community to persuade Israel to accept such a presence.''
''It is incumbent on the international community to ensure that such an agreement is forthcoming,'' he said.
Dugard, appointed to his post by the Geneva-based U.N. Commission on Human Rights in July, said the main factor behind the fighting which has raged since September 2000 was Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian territories. Peace would not come until Israel gave clear signs of its intent to end the occupation, he said.
AN AGGRAVATING SIGN
Moreover, Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza were ''an ever visible and aggravating sign of occupation and of Israel's illegal conduct as an occupying power,'' he said, saying Israel should start dismantling the settlements now.
And Ruth, if you can't even try to make a point without issuing insults, that should be a clue to you that you may not have the facts on your side.
#3It’s a good link, Ruth, but reading it shows that the U.N. wanted to protect the terrorists from Israel, and not vice-versa.
It shows that the UN wanted to send peacekeepers to Israel, something you [insult deleted] claimed the UN "had never even considered."
And Ruth, if you can’t even try to make a point without issuing insults, that should be a clue to you that you may not have the facts on your side.
Have you decided yet whether this argument applies when Ann Coulter hurls insults? Or does it only apply to people who disagree with you?
#4It shows that the UN wanted to send peacekeepers to Israel, something you [insult deleted] claimed the UN “had never even considered.”
I said, Isn't it interesting that no matter how many Israeli civilians are killed by Hamas or Hezbollah, the U.N. never even considered sending any "peacekeepers" to the Mid-East? The U.N. action you site was not for the benefit of Israeli civilians.
#5You said, "Isn’t it interesting that no matter how many Israeli civilians are killed by Hamas or Hezbollah, the U.N. never even considered sending any 'peacekeepers' to the Mid-East?" The article proves your assertion was false.
Your silence on the Ann Coulter question is telling.
#6Ruth, UN peace-keepers are ALREADY in Lebanon? They're called UNIFIL. Have you even bothered to look at their history over the past 6 years? Peace-keeping is the last thing they've done. They have failed in every aspect of the word. They have stood by as Hezbollah has continuously planned and carried out attacks against Israel. They have allowed Hezbollah to arm themselves with over 13,000 missiles and rockets. They never attempted to stop Hezbollah from firing these rockets into Israel, but they did do a good job of taping the events. They were spotted having tea with Hezbollah operative in their posts on several occasions. They taped, and the UN lied for months on end about this, the kidnapping of 3 Israeli soldiers and did NOTHING to stop it. Those are only a few examples of the laundry list of the disgusting lack of "peace-keeping" the UN has done in southern Lebanon. They did everything but keep the peace. Oh yeah, they did do a good job of protecting Hezbollah from the IDF.
Yet, you are seemingly in favor of the UN doing this again, though "modified" in the words of Mr Anan. Israel will not fall for the same mistake twice. They, rightly so, want a competely independent international force in southern Lebanon, not one from the UN.
Vik's assertion is very true even if a little mis-worded. While UN forces have been sent to the Middle East, they have NEVER been sent to the Middle-East for the purpose of protecting Israelis. And, you know what? With their track record, WE DON'T WANT THEM HERE. The UN "peace-keeping" forces has done a pathetically poor job of keeping any sort of semblence of peace where-ever it's been deploied, any-where in the world. Rwanda and Somalia are two very good examples that come to mind. They are pathetically pointless and useless. Worse, they protect the bad guys.
The UN has not even offered their help to Israel even-though there are over 2 million refugees as a result of the rocketing on the north of Israel. No, instead, the entire and south of Israel has opened its doors to these people. No refugee or DP camps for them. Regardless, not one peep from the UN Human Rights Commission about the Israeli refugee problem. Nope, it's all happening in Lebanon. It's a picnic in Israel right now. The only peep heard from the Human Rights Commission is that Israel might be brought up on war crimes for its actions in Lebanon. Not one peep about charging Hezbollah with the same charges.
Yes, the UN is a very usefull and just organization...
-OC
#7Olah, your post is addressed to me, but most of what you say has no connection to anything I said. I didn't say anything about UN involvement in Lebanon, nor did I express support for any UN action.
The only part that addresses anything I actually said is your acknowledgement that Vik was incorrect about UN involvement in the Middle East. [Insult deleted], you are agreeing with what I said.
#8I've just quoted from Olah's post in a new article.
#9No, Ruth, I did not say that Vik was incorrect. I said he had misworded his statement, but he is completely correct with his assertion. Read my statement again very carefully. Vik’s assertion is very true even if a little mis-worded. While UN forces have been sent to the Middle East, they have NEVER been sent to the Middle-East for the purpose of protecting Israelis.
-OC
#10No, Ruth, I did not say that Vik was incorrect. I said he had misworded his statement
Sure, it's true that most incorrect statements can be made correct by altering a few words. But as you have already acknowledged, what Vik actually said was incorrect.
Isn't it interesting that no matter how many Israeli civilians are killed by Hamas or Hezbollah, the U.N. never even considered sending any "peacekeepers" to the Mid-East?
Isn't it interesting that no matter how often you are wrong, you never even consider doing research before making another false assertion?
UN Report Presses Israel to Accept Peacekeepers