Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Interesting articles

1676869707173»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,500 ✭✭✭sparky42


    well it would drive home the stupidity of allowing anyone a say in our defence choices, not that any of our PANA loonies will let reality intrude on their insanity, however if UNFIL ends I can see Israel pushing into Lebanon and further destabilising it as they are doing elsewhere, with the impact on the populations.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    That didn’t sound right, so I had a look at the UN resolutions. The primary purpose seems to be to ensure the authority of the Lebanese government in the area of operations “so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon”.
    In 2006 there was an addition to speak to humanitarian access for civilians, but it seems to be a secondary function. I don’t think there is any doubt over the success, or lack thereof, of UNIFIL in ensuring that the government of Lebanon is the authority in the area or that there are no weapons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,950 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    It could be argued that their doing their best in a difficult situation, which would likely be more difficult with out them being there ..

    Wasn't their initial role to be a buffer between the PLO and the Israeli backed SLA , in South ern Lebanon, In the absence of any cohesive Lebanese army ?

    But if that's what the resolutions said - that's what they said..

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,394 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    it would be so ironic for the left if the removal of the triple lock gets delayed and irish troops have to leave Unifil because of the Trump veto.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/07/21/sinn-fein-wants-111-changes-to-bill-reforming-triple-lock-irish-troop-deployment/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,944 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    How impudent of them.

    Even to suggest that a referendum would be held to "definitively enshrine neutrality in the constitution", rather than saying they wanted to offer the people a wording to CHOOSE OR NOT to enshrine neutrality in the constitution.

    Their arrogance is breathtaking for a party with no power, and I hope the government concludes the business around this Bill as soon as possible in the Autumn, without amendment.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,500 ✭✭✭sparky42


    But the Army Council must be heard! But yes, they are beyond taking the piss, and I hope the Government uses its majority to shut down every one of their amendments.



Advertisement