French troops 'came close to shooting down Israeli jets'

[KrazyHorse]

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
no one believes the usa bombed by accident the chinese embassy in 1998

I do

[KrazyHorse]

Strange, so do I.

[Drake Tungsten]

You two are so naive...

[chequita guevara]

Only a fool would believe the U.S. bombed the embassy accidentally. The old maps excuse was a total lie, since even on the old maps, the buildings weren't what the CIA claimed they were. The embassy, however, was rebroadcasting Serbian military channels, and so might be considered a legitimate military target, since they were engaged in an act of war.

[Colon™]

Al Qaeda bombed the Chinese embassy to make the US look bad. In return, the US bombed the WTC to make Al Qaeda look bad.

[KrazyHorse]

Win-win

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Chirac was a personal friend of Hariri's.
Since Hariri's murder, he has a strong anti-Syrian stance. This partly explains why Syria is even more diplomatically isolated these days than it used to be.
To say that Chirac is friends with Syria, in 2006, is simply false.

Chirac HAD a strong antisyrian stance in the wake of the Hariri murder, which made the first res on Leb (1551?) possible. But since then Leb politics has gotten very complex, as shown in the negotiations related to the war this summer. Esp its now tied up again more closely with the Israel-Hezb conflict. Its NOT clear to me that France is still pushing hard for effective disarmament of Hezbollah.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Shhhh. We're supposed to let them think that their ragtag band of conscripts are the biggest badasses on the planet.

No that would be the Canadians, who won the battle of Bladensburg without even a documented presence.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark Its NOT clear to me that France is still pushing hard for effective disarmament of Hezbollah.

Hm, the question is if that's still on the table. I mean I would certainly prefer it, but when Israel couldn't do it in open war, then there's IMO not much hope for the near future that it can be done by other means (since the UN isn't there to make their own war against Hzb) as long Hzb has still support from outside like from Iran (which I don't expect to change soon).

[Pekka]

"The old maps excuse was a total lie, since even on the old maps, the buildings weren't what the CIA claimed they were. "

This is a double edged sword. I somehow got an old map of a region where we had to do this nagivation route. You had to run through this region, using your map and it tested your nagigation skills. I was lost few times because I DID have an old map. Like some of the forrest was cut when I arrived and I was dumbfounded as in 'where the hell am I?'.

So I got frustrated and I just thought screw this, walked back slowly, and told I have an old map.

They said so what, and I had to run the whole thing all over again, with that old map.

So yeah, it's an excuse

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


Hm, the question is if that's still on the table. I mean I would certainly prefer it, but when Israel couldn't do it in open war, then there's IMO not much hope for the near future that it can be done by other means (since the UN isn't there to make their own war against Hzb) as long Hzb has still support from outside like from Iran (which I don't expect to change soon).

well I thought the idea is that the Leb Army would disarm Hezb, over time, and the UN forces would provide backup to the Leb Army. And that they would at LEAST stop new weapons from flowing to Hezb. If not, then what are the UN forces there for?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor


UNIFIL Is located only in southern Lebanon. Yes it's bureaucratic, that they can't go after Hezbollah in places where they're not mandated. But this bureaucracy prevents them from going where they're not supposed to be. Such as, for example, northern Israel.

Far be it from me to speak for Siro, but I dont think he was asking that UNIFIL march north to Beirut, so much as complaining about the overall results of the "postwar" settlement in Lebanon.

[Kuciwalker]

If not, then what are the UN forces there for?

Show.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
well I thought the idea is that the Leb Army would disarm Hezb, over time, and the UN forces would provide backup to the Leb Army. And that they would at LEAST stop new weapons from flowing to Hezb. If not, then what are the UN forces there for?

Practically it seems to be limited at the moment to ensure that the cease fire holds, and that from the area they control Hzb can't fire rockets into Israel. If we really see a strong move towards disarming Hzb I don't know.

Of course, the UN resolution asks for more, incl. such a disarmament of Hzb, but it wouldn't be the first time such a resolution fails due to practical difficulties. As you said the main responsibility for disarming Hzb is still in the hands of the Lebanese gov/army and it can be doubted if they are able and/or willing to disarm Hzb completely. Also, while UN troops should stop more weapons coming in I also read that most of these are coming via Syria, and most UN forces are concentrated in southern Lebanon, so unable to guard the entire border, and then we are again at the point if the Lebanese gov/army can/will do that effectively......