[Spliffdaddy]

The wording of the ceasefire resolution is such that Israeli troops (30,000) will, in parallel (one-for-one) withdraw from Lebanon as Lebanese troops (15,000) and UNOFIL troops arrive.

Do the math. The ceasefire agreement is meritless if there aren't sufficient UNOFIL troops to replace the Israeli troops. The key component of the agreement is the withdrawl of Israeli troops. This cannot happen without 30,000 non-Israeli troops.

The reason the word "maximum" was used was because, at the time, Israel was herding more troops into Lebanon (approx 20,000 at the last minute). The UN capped their troop deployment at 15,000 based on Israel's current deployment and Lebanon's ability to provide the difference. Also, note that a deployment of more than 15,000 UNOFIL troops cannot take place (by UN design) without invoking a Chapter 7 resolution. This was only a Chapter 6 (no teeth) resolution.

If the UN cannot provide 15,000 troops, the resolution fails.

You can say that the current number (3200) of UNOFIL troops satisfies the definition of "a maximum of 15,000" - but, then, so does zero. But, that's if you only care about accuracy of one paragraph in the context of a resolution that is not defined by a single paragraph.

more to come....

[analogika]

what?

[Spliffdaddy]

So, if Israel's troop deployment in Lebanon was 26,000 - not 30,000 (like it is) - then the UN will have to provide 11,000 troops (15,000 Lebanese + 11,000 UNOFIL = 26,000).

By its own accord, this UN resolution consists of 3 key components.

1) and end to hostilities

2) withdrawl of Israeli troops from Lebanon

3) assurance that Hezbollah cannot re-arm nor engage in cross-border 'excursions'.

Without 15,000 UNOFIL troops, numbers 2 & 3 cannot happen - thus nullifyng the primary components of the resolution.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by analogika

what?

Pay attention, grasshopper.

I just showed you that the UN requires 15,000 troops - the "maximum" that's called for.

[Doofy]

/Watches Spliffy's masterful argument fly over everyone's heads.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

That's 15,000 Lebanese troops. Note the wording.

You don't dispute the 15,000 troops, right?

Now let's compare that wording to the UN troops....

you don't talk about lebanese troops in the OP.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The cease-fire agreement requires 15,000 multinational troops to be deployed in southern Lebanon. Everybody looks to France - to "take the lead". They grudgingly offer 200 troops. The world is now sure that France is a meaningless and insignificant country. Spliffdaddy laughs, and is proven right yet again.
...
A month later, the UN has amassed a mere 20% of the 15,000 troops they planned to deploy in Lebanon.

you seem all uppity about the UN's inability to field the mistakeningly "required" 15,000 UN troops, when in fact, and you were proved wrong on this fact, the UN is not required to field a specific number rather a maximum of.

and now you say you're talking about the lebanese troops? i guess you got to do what you have to do to prove yourself right. congrats. pat yourself on the back. you've earned it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Not that any of this really matters, because the UN did not require Israeli troops to withdraw from Lebanon, anyways.

According to the resolution, even if the UN & Lebanon actually deploy 30,000 combined troops in order to replace, "in parallel" (one for one), Israeli troops - Israel isn't required to withdraw troops. The UN has merely 'requested' that it happen. This 'request' wording is not used in reference to Lebanon's (Hezbollah's) obligations according to the resolution. Hezbollah is 'required' to complete the obligations set-forth in the resolution.

[Spliffdaddy]

In summary, the UN resolution is based on 3 "key" components - 2 of which will require the UN to provide (all of the maximum) 15,000 UNOFIL troops.

[voodoo]

John Bolton and Splifdaddy UN ambassadors

V

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

you don't talk about lebanese troops in the OP.

In order to provide a 'parallel' substitution of troops, a total equal to the number of deployed Israeli troops is required.

Here's the mathematical formula:

Israeli occupying troops (30,000) = Lebanese troops (15,000) + UNOFIL troops (15,000)

you seem all uppity about the UN's inability to field the mistakeningly "required" 15,000 UN troops, when in fact, and you were proved wrong on this fact, the UN is not required to field a specific number rather a maximum of.

Actually, I said the UN needed to have 15,000 troops. And, looky there, they need to have 15,000 troops. Looks like I was right.

and now you say you're talking about the lebanese troops? i guess you got to do what you have to do to prove yourself right. congrats. pat yourself on the back. you've earned it.

Ah, I see. You have poor reading comprehension skills.

And you get one of these -

*SMACKDOWN*

(can ya read that?)

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

In order to provide a 'parallel' substitution of troops, a total equal to the number of deployed Israeli troops is required.

Here's the mathematical formula:

so you're assuming parallel means "1 for 1"?

i've never heard of that before, so i tried looking for it's usage. and the best i can get is:

from parallel - Definitions from Dictionary.com

19. to form a parallel to; be equivalent to; equal.

equivalents aren't necessarily absolutes. and it seems like very vague language (especially for how much poring over diplomatic text gets) to use a geometrical term when a quantitative precise number could be used, and is used in other parts of the document.

though, if you are right, i think you've won by a technicallity. did you do all that math yrself?

[Spliffdaddy]

Actually, I had to search through previous UN resolutions in order to find out what "parallel" meant. They actually used the same terminology I used - "one-for-one" - right after the word "parallel".

And yeah, I won by technicality.

There's no way I'll ever get smacked down in this forum. I'm far too good.

I would have typed gibberish all night long in an effort to stall for time. Luckily, my supreme intellect saved me (and you folks) from that task.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Actually, I had to search through previous UN resolutions in order to find out what "parallel" meant. They actually used the same terminology I used - "one-for-one" - right after the word "parallel".

was their an "and" between them? which resolutions? links?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

And yeah, I won by technicality.

There's no way I'll ever get smacked down in this forum. I'm far too good.

I would have typed gibberish all night long in an effort to stall for time. Luckily, my supreme intellect saved me (and you folks) from that task.

[analogika]

"Parallel" also means "at the same time".

Unfortunately, Spliffdaddy's entire argument revolves around the use of "parallel" meaning "in identical numbers", which is not the case in the actual resolution:

The Security Council,

2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon and Unifil as authorised by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;

Sorry Spliffy, that means "at the same time" in ordinary English. It's not even Legalese.

Especially obvious since they spelled it out AGAIN for you in Paragraph 11:

The Security Council,

11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the force strength of Unifil to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426 (1978):


a. Monitor the cessation of hostilities;

b. [etc.]

[Spliffdaddy]

weak argument, dude.

Your definition of parallel is the same as mine.

besides, the UN defined 'parallel' already.

Read my posts, you obviously aren't understanding anything.

[analogika]

I did.

You're hinging it on "parallel" meaning "one-on-one", and apparently on the absurd idea that the UN troops are supposed to be performing the same function!?

Am I reading you right?

The duties and functions of the UN forces are explicitly laid out.

Overrunning Lebanese troops and blowing up entire neighborhoods obviously requires slightly larger numbers, no?

[Spliffdaddy]

weak

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

besides, the UN defined 'parallel' already.

Read my posts, you obviously aren't understanding anything.

so you've said.

but you won't say where?

[Spliffdaddy]

Damn. Let it go, already.

I spent a lot of time reading UN resolutions this evening. Trust me, "parallel" is defined.

Even if it wasn't - you'd have a hard time explaining how "parallel" would mean "we'll replace each Israeli soldier with 0.6 UNOFIL/Lebanese troops."

Logic and common sense (though admittedly rare in UN resolutions) dictates that "parallel" can't be defined in too many ways.

I'd like to hear how you'd define it - as it relates to this resolution.

This should be interesting.

[Spliffdaddy]

Just as the ink was drying on the UN Resolution, Israel hurriedly moved 20,000 of its ground forces across the border into Lebanon. This action shocked many of the members of the Security Council in New York. They should have seen it coming. Israel's decision seems to have been triggered by the "in parallel" language of OP2. With a total now of 30,000 soldiers in Lebanon, Israel is in a position of withdrawing them one-for-one only with each replacement soldier from the UN or from Lebanon. The UN peacekeeping force is capped at 15,000 (see below, OP 11), and Lebanon has amassed 15,000 troops for deployment in its southern area.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Damn. Let it go, already.

it's like ****ing pulling teeth trying to get you to win an argument against us. trust you? i'm calling b.s.

put up.

[Spliffdaddy]

Israel believed "parallel" to mean the same as "one-for-one".

And since they agreed to the ceasefire resolution - I'm gonna suggest they knew what they were agreeing to.

I assure you that the UN has defined "parallel" in at least one previous resolution. I'm sorry that I cannot find it at this time. If you feel strongly enough about wanting me to be smacked down - there are a finite number of UN resolutions for you to read. Knock yourself out. Perhaps the UN defined "parallel" in many different ways over various resolutions.

Israel doesn't think so. And I don't either.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

it's like ****ing pulling teeth trying to get you to win an argument against us. trust you? i'm calling b.s.

put up.

No. You prove it's BS.

When you do, be sure to inform Israel.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If you feel strongly enough about wanting me to be smacked down - there are a finite number of UN resolutions for you to read.

which you claim you read last night right? did you erase your browser's history since then? give us a resolution number at least!

effing teeth...

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm on dial-up.

No way am I wasting more of my time because you've got an affection for me.

Now get busy. You either get to look (edit: even more) like a fool - or you get to prove me and Israel wrong.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'm on dial-up.

No way am I wasting more of my time because you've got an affection for me.

Now get busy. You either get to look (edit: even more) like a fool - or you get to prove me and Israel wrong.

this smackdown is turning out to be a real letdown.

peace, bbt

[Spliffdaddy]

are you still here?

geez.

out! out!

get outta my thread.

You can come back when you prove me ands Israel are wrong.

[Spliffdaddy]

I can't believe how *good* I am at this stuff.

It's awe-inspiring, really.

Yeah, sometimes it gets kinda boring when you're always right. Not that any of you guys would know. heh. Reckon you'll just have to take my word for it.

no, no...don't feel bad because some redneck hillbilly on dial-up handed everyone their collective asses. A mere highschool graduate. Who spent 15 years stoned off killer hydroponically-grown marijuana. And uses a peecee running WinXP.

Nah, don't feel bad.

oh yeah...I've still got a few unclaimed asses. Ain't easy trying to hand them all back out. There were literally dozens of them.

[analogika]

That's really sad, Spliffdaddy.

[Troll]

Spliff, you should have just kept quiet! Go back to your first "Here comes my smackdown post" where you quoted this: "... and to request the assistance of additional forces from Unifil as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its duties." The reference to "in paralell" is clearly a temporal reference and what's more, that paragraph is a "call" not a "decision". Paragraph 11 is a decision and that says no more than 15,000 UNIFIL troops. I doubt Israel had exactly 30,000 troops in the area. If it had 30,001 troops, then by your reasoning, the resolution was unenforceable.

Obviously, you need more people to invade a country than you do to enforce a ceasefire. Keeping the peace is about maintaining the status quo, invasion is about changing it. If, as you say, Israel had exactly 30,000 men and women in Southern Lebanon then clearly nowhere near that amount would be required to enforce the ceasefire.

In any event, all of this is moot, because there is no debate around the wording. Everyone knew that the resolution meant a maximum of 15,000 UNIFIL troops as needed.

[Spliffdaddy]

pfft. Everybody except Israel, you mean?

Give it a rest. You got pwned.

Like I said before, it doesn't matter anyway. Israel isn't required to leave Lebanon *at all* - and they'll still be in compliance with the resolution.

[analogika]

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

pfft. Everybody except Israel, you mean?

No, I mean Israel too. What you need to understand is that Israel is playing politics here. Obviously they want as many foreign troops in Southern Lebanon as possible. They don't want as many as are needed to maintain the ceasefire. They want as many as they can get in there. So Israel is arguing for 30,000 troops knowing that they aren't going to get that many.

[Spliffdaddy]

Sure they will.

The UN is going to replace all 30,000 Israeli troops "in parallel".

That means "one-for-one", in case anybody forgot.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Sure they will.

The UN is going to replace all 30,000 Israeli troops "in parallel".

That means "one-for-one", in case anybody forgot.

forgot!?

you have to be shown something first before you can forget it. forget it.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Sure they will.

The UN is going to replace all 30,000 Israeli troops "in parallel".

That means "one-for-one", in case anybody forgot.

No, that still means "at the same time, up to a *maximum* of 15,000, as needed".

It's been spelled out to you completely unambiguously by the UN text, then again explained by Troll, then explained again by me, and then again explained by Troll, and now again by me.

Drop it, Spliffdaddy. Your butt-crack is showing.

[Spliffdaddy]

"at the same time"

I kinda doubt Israel is going to swap their 30,000 troops for 3,200 UN troops - at the same time.

But you can make your own reality in your fantasy world.

[analogika]

"In parallel".

Your language, not mine.

Learn it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Well, my question is...who, then, was a proper and/or better UN secretary-general than Annan? And, since you're pointing this person out, why are they so much better than Annan?

Please, I'm all ears.

greg

Well, all this semantic-debating seems to be well and fun, but the original issue of Annan and his supposed incompetence/idiocy has been left by the wayside.

Of course, I asked for a reason why Annan was such a bad Secretary-General compared to previous office-holders, but got no response. I wonder is this just because of a general ignorance about the position and its history? Something tells me so (considering the right-sided bashing based on ignorance of the food-oil scandal).

Anyways, I'm still waiting.

greg

[Busemann]

So, how's this thread working out for you Spliffdaddy?

[Spliffdaddy]

So how many Israeli soldiers have left Lebanon so far?

They should be moving out "in parallel", right?

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm sure you folks are smarter than Israel.

hahahahaha.

not.

[analogika]

I'm sure Israel has had their reasons for every one of their political and military moves that have violated all manner of agreements, contracts, and resolutions they had bound themselves to.

I'm also quite certain that simple inability to read and understand the terms of the documents in question had nothing to do with that.

[Spliffdaddy]

Remember, Israel is not required to leave Lebanon. Read the UN resolution.

[analogika]

It says that Israel is "called upon to withdraw ALL of its forces from southern Lebanon" at the same time ("in parallel") as the UN and Lebanese forces are deployed.

Just knock it off, Spliffy.

There is no argument here, no interpretation, and no grounds for discussion.

The end.

[Spliffdaddy]

So your position is that Israel didn't understand the resolution they agreed to abide by.

Also note that "Israel is called upon.."

"called upon"?

That certainly differs from "required".

In another paragraph Israel is "requested".

Pay attention to the wording. When a task is directed at Hezbollah, you don't see such terminology.

You claim there's no "interpretation"?

In fact, interpretation is a key element of all UN resolutions. They spend most of their time changing words around.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So your position is that Israel didn't understand the resolution they agreed to abide by.

We explained this to you. Israel understood perfectly well. There is no misunderstanding the words "a maximum of 30,000 troops as needed". It's clear as daylight to anyone except someone obtusely trying to weasel out of an embarrassing situation. You will recall that we requested the smackdown for your saying that there was no reference to "maximum" which even you agree there is, so you embarrassment is intact despite your protestations.

As for interpretation, the central rule of interpretation is that if there are two seemingly conflictual statements in a legal document, you interpret the text to the extent that the two statements can be reconciled. In this case, even if there was a conflict (which I don't think there is), you would read "parallel" and "maximum of 30,000 troops as needed" in a way that they both make sense and the only way to do that is to read parallel as a temporal reference. If you didn't do that, as we said, the actual decision in the resolution would be meaningless. Israel certainly didn't forget to read the most important part of the resolution!

[baw]

The U.N. is good at one thing and that is flying flags.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So your position is that Israel didn't understand the resolution they agreed to abide by.

If you can't even read *my* posts, it's no surprise that UN resolutions are confusing to you.

In fact, my position is the exact opposite: They knew FULL WELL that they weren't abiding by the numerous contracts, resolutions, and agreements they themselves were bound to.

**** the "Smackdown", Spliffy - you almost qualify for the MacNN Zimphire Achievement Award.

It's a little golden model of the Sistine Chapel on a stick.