Posted on 08/17/2006 1:58:36 PM PDT by John Carey
Lebanese soldiers began taking control of the war-torn south for the first time in four decades as world powers stalled on giving firm troop pledges for a UN peacekeeping force.
Waving national flags from jeeps, tanks and armoured troop carriers, the soldiers moved across the Litani river after dawn to replace withdrawing Israeli troops who had seized swathes of the border area during the Jewish state's devastating 34-day offensive on Lebanon.
UN members prepared for a key meeting in New York later Thursday to try to thrash out the make-up of an expanded peacekeeping force to be deployed in southern Lebanon, amid concerns about safety and the rules of engagement.
France, which has strong historical links to Lebanon and has offered to command the expanded force, hesitated on whether to provide the backbone of the 15,000-man force, offering just 200 troops, far less than the UN was expecting.
The White House said that the Lebanese government had committed to disarming the Shiite militia Hezbollah, but that US President George W. Bush did not expect "overnight results."
(Excerpt) Read more at sg.news.yahoo.com ...
Truly pathetic
why is that pathetic? for much of the 4 decades it was occupied by the israelis and before that there was no need for the army to be there because there was no conflict between lebanon and israel, and there was no hezbollah.
Gee, I wonder why nations in the UN would stall. I mean, just because Islamofascists blew up the UN HQ in Baghdad doesn't mean they will harm UN forces in Lebanon does it?
Terrorists have have the run of the place for most of that time; Israel for part of that time; the Lebonese military, never. That's what's pathetic.
The UN did an end around on Israel. They promised troops and as soon as Israel moved out they reneged.
Proving, once again, the fecklessness of the UN.
im sorry but the syrian occupation in lebanon was backed by the usa so syria would support the first gulf war. Is this supposed to be the lebanese armys problem?
What is it about "Lebanese control of Lebanon" that don't you get? Now you're blaming the US for Syrian occupation of Lebanon?
what dont you understand that the country was occupied. The army was not capable of facing a foreign army 5 times bigger and better equipped than itself. Especially with no backing from foreign countries. Why i mentioned the USA backing of syria was because when the lebanese army fought the syrian occupiers in 1990 they had to get weapons from saddam hussein as he was pretty much the only supporter of the lebanese army and christian groups.
I suspect you don't get the part about Hezbolleze control of Lebanon.
The lebanese army is weak and ineffective. That's pathetic. Period. They'll become human shields during the next round of fighting.
My bet is NEVER!
What a worthless bunch. Their goal is worldwide destruction and they're making progress!
"...because there was no conflict between lebanon and israel..."
Huh?
When HASN'T there been a conflict between Lebanese and Israel during the last, say... 1300 years.
Lebanese = Muslims.
well after the 1949 armistice agreement lebanon has not engaged in war with israel.
Israel only invaded lebanon in 70's and 80's to root out the PLO who the lebanese christians and some muslims were fighting with aswell.
Oh, come on.
Way to go, Condi. Isn't compromise wonderful, especially when it's with the French?
But, hey, your boss doesn't "expect results overnight." That way, the useless UN can continue to have meetings to discuss meetings to discuss meetings. . .until they forget what the original meeting was about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.