BF2S Forums Permanent Solution for Lebanon

OpsChief wrote:

see you don't agree with this suggestion but that doesn't make it any less serious. If you go through risk management decision making processes you would cover all of the problems like personal risk. Planning something like this is deadly serious. I am serious. This is not the kind of thing that could be succesful if people don't analyze it well.

The 4-man outpost vs a vast UN HQ compound surrounded by UN forces is too different to use the one to dismiss the other. Israel couldn't not make a mistake if they needed to because the other side couldn't get close enough to launch.

How would this move be viewed by the local isrealis/lebanese and others? Surely the idea would be bantered about in the media so we could begin to get answers.

How would the sides position themselves? Depends on their goals I guess so seeing what they do will indicate who is serious about peace.

How would you secure the UN staff if you were the security officer?

Now that you've put forth some rational thought and backed up your position other than "discuss" I'll reply as to why I think it's a stupid idea.

While the economic boost it would provide Lebanon would be huge the fact of the matter is that Lebanon can't control it's own citizens, much less protect and provide a home for the UN.  The infrastructure needs alone would be more than Lebanon is going to be able to support for quite some time now.  If an organization like Hezbollah can act with impunity and the Lebanese government can't do anything about it there is no way that the diplomatic protection that the UN would need could ever be provided.  There are very few countries that could actually provide a home for the U.N.  Lebanon is not one of them.

OpsChief wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Vote for a close or a move to 'Not BF2/BF2s' because this isn't a serious suggestion.

Apart from anything it didn't make any difference when Israel blasted the U.N. outpost, so why would risking more UN workers lives help the sitation?  ... and anyway if the news is to be believed (hmmm, chinny beard wiggle, chinny beard wiggle) Hezbollah would just set up behind it and wait for Isreal to blow it up anyway.

To sum up, it's like dangling your child from a rope into the lion cage in the zoo just to prove that the lion isn't safe with children so that the zoo will be forced to have it put to sleep.

I see you don't agree with this suggestion but that doesn't make it any less serious. If you go through risk management decision making processes you would cover all of the problems like personal risk. Planning something like this is deadly serious. I am serious. This is not the kind of thing that could be succesful if people don't analyze it well.

The 4-man outpost vs a vast UN HQ compound surrounded by UN forces is too different to use the one to dismiss the other. Israel couldn't not make a mistake if they needed to because the other side couldn't get close enough to launch.

How would this move be viewed by the local isrealis/lebanese and others? Surely the idea would be bantered about in the media so we could begin to get answers.

How would the sides position themselves? Depends on their goals I guess so seeing what they do will indicate who is serious about peace.

How would you secure the UN staff if you were the security officer?

If you really did mean this as a serious suggestion....    Well, it's not a very good one is it.

Would never happen, could never happen, if it ever did happen it would be a disaster - the UN is supposed to provide stability, you don't do that with your HQ in the middle of a war zone, especially not in a guerilla war.

A large military UN presence there may be a good thing, but UN HQ, I think not.

Bertster7 wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Vote for a close or a move to 'Not BF2/BF2s' because this isn't a serious suggestion.

Apart from anything it didn't make any difference when Israel blasted the U.N. outpost, so why would risking more UN workers lives help the sitation?  ... and anyway if the news is to be believed (hmmm, chinny beard wiggle, chinny beard wiggle) Hezbollah would just set up behind it and wait for Isreal to blow it up anyway.

To sum up, it's like dangling your child from a rope into the lion cage in the zoo just to prove that the lion isn't safe with children so that the zoo will be forced to have it put to sleep.

I see you don't agree with this suggestion but that doesn't make it any less serious. If you go through risk management decision making processes you would cover all of the problems like personal risk. Planning something like this is deadly serious. I am serious. This is not the kind of thing that could be succesful if people don't analyze it well.

The 4-man outpost vs a vast UN HQ compound surrounded by UN forces is too different to use the one to dismiss the other. Israel couldn't not make a mistake if they needed to because the other side couldn't get close enough to launch.

How would this move be viewed by the local isrealis/lebanese and others? Surely the idea would be bantered about in the media so we could begin to get answers.

How would the sides position themselves? Depends on their goals I guess so seeing what they do will indicate who is serious about peace.

How would you secure the UN staff if you were the security officer?

If you really did mean this as a serious suggestion....    Well, it's not a very good one is it.

Would never happen, could never happen, if it ever did happen it would be a disaster - the UN is supposed to provide stability, you don't do that with your HQ in the middle of a war zone, especially not in a guerilla war.

A large military UN presence there may be a good thing, but UN HQ, I think not.

OK you said "it's not a very good one". But your reasons aren't in context. Who would move the UN HQ into a war zone? Who suggested it? Tha was your idea not mine. Your reply doesn't sound serious because it doesn't seem like you want to sincerely look at options to solve a long-term world-impacting problem. Do I think that this idea will be implemented from this forum to the world stage? No. If that were criteria for serious debate then the whole "Debate and Serious Talk" table needs to be closed not specific threads within. We don't solve problems here we think about them and then talk about them.

The UN would do analysis, planning, research, various surveys, information releases, intelligence, negotiation, aquisitions, advance party to secure and build....BUT starting this process will aid in slowing and at some point stopping the warlike activities currently underway.

The strange thing is the large UN security force might make things settle for awhile in which case Lebanon would be a good place for the UN. Near the center of need in the world. I understand Lebanon is a really nice place when the bullets aren't flying.

Chuckles, lol yes OK that was ambiguous of me. I meant focus over attention. My perception is that the current hostilities between Isreal and Hizbullah are getting alot of attention but not much focus, and certainly not long term focus and not like every nation has a vested interest in the outcome, of course we all do. We (the world) seem to like bandaids to heal sucking chest wounds.

I thought of this 3 weeks ago after listening to Kofi Annan evade some tough questions during an interview, I got the feeling that he is complacent with the violent status quo of the Middle East. I sent emails to a few news talk shows to see if it might show up but no luck this time. Something I read here at BF2s the other day reminded me of it so I threw it out there. Why didn't I think of it last year? idk I will try harder next time. Challenging assumptions and thinking exo-paradigm is my way so I am bound to find ideas that will never make mainstream acceptance.

Relocating the UN HQ into the area for 10 yrs (maybe less as needed) and all that would need to go with that would change the level of hostilities because the terrorists/insurgents/nations involved NEED UN favor to promote their cause. The UN could then be moved to Somalia next.  The planning and execution of a UN HQ movement could take not much more than deploying a heavy corps or two with supporting carrier battle group. Let's say six months.

Good point about straining UN staff activities...the UN would need to reorganize a little compensate for the period of move. If however the local terrorism started picking on the UN then we have no doubts about the UN taking more direct and immediate steps to dissuade violent politics.  Human motivations change when no threat is near, and when threat is imminent as well.

While need is relative and I think Oil is more important than diamonds, getting back to your Africa suggestion I say yes, I back that. Move the UN HQ to Africa. It will fulfill the same concept on a different essential front for a period of time.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-08-03 09:00:21)

Yes easing suffering is important, no, it's critical.  But my "center of need" for this UN idea was a sustained peace. The Oil over whatever else is a value I don't share but I do recognize it as the reason for any interest in the Middle East by external industrial+ nations. The "why" we are in M.E. is because of Oil and the related interests.

I think nations with say USA level of technology should result in immediate 80% reduction in Oil but thats for another thread

6 months to clear the area for UN HQ setup I think its enough if UN co-locates near Tyre (about 15 miles from border I think) they should have a good start on infrastructure. An International class runwaycan be setup in no time and expanded as well. The economic boon to Southern Lebanese and the region can be awesome.  As any largescale move temporary solutions are provided as the permanent infrastucture is established.

OpsChief, how in the world would that put an end to the hostilities? The economic "boom" you say would happen would probably help the Hisbollah. The presence of the UN HQ would not keep them from firing their Katyushas at Haifa, and Israel would still respond with artillery to that.

And also, do you have any idea how many ambassadores and staff the UN HQ has? Do you realize that they would be great targets for any of the terrorist groups there? And the risks of putting those people IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR ZONE?

Its really hard to beleive you're actually serious about this...

Last edited by EVieira (2006-08-03 09:37:13)

EVieira wrote:

OpsChief, how in the world would that put an end to the hostilities? The economic "boom" you say would happen would probably help the Hisbollah. The presence of the UN HQ would not keep them from firing their Katyushas at Haifa, and Israel would still respond with artillery to that.

And also, do you have any idea how many ambassadores and staff the UN HQ has? Do you realize that they would be great targets for any of the terrorist groups there? And the risks of putting those people IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR ZONE?

Its really hard to beleive you're actually serious about this...

There would be so many UN peacekeeping soldiers around for awhile they would have to share the same pair of pants with a Hezbollah peacemaker, there will be peace. The various "advocates of the Arab downtrodden" claim economic woes are why young Arabs join terrorist organizations. Are they not telling the truth? 

Getting to the facts to move the world to action requires more than another 10-20-30 UN impotent resolutions as we have seen, it requires someone to back them up. Both sides are touchy so I don't think moving the UN HQ alone would solve anything without some thought on the accompanying diplomacy and expose' required. I can't get how a peace loving "political" party like Hezbollah needs a private army when Lebanon has a fine defense force already (well actually I do get it - that's part of why I came up with a unique solution). 

Why do you need to believe it? Just figure out another plan that would confuse the hell outa the antagonists and implement it! While they are figuring out what to do the change will be made and then its too late. So now I ask you: Do you really believe the terrorists would attack innocent UN staff who were sent to protect Lebanon from Isreal and vice versa?  What happens if they do hit a UN staff member? We are not talking about 4 UN soldiers in a watchtower bud. Just one UN person gets their head lopped off and there will be a multinational combined field army of 250,000 troops there to arrest the dude who did it. It is one thing for a couple of hostile semitic tribes to argure over a few acres of desert. Messing with the rest of the world adds up differently. Is a peaceful Middle East a solution to all the worlds ailments? nope. Should we all (world) walk away and leave it to them to fight it out? nope. So we are stuck with thinking up serious action. This is the equivalent of a peaceful full court press, all the other plays have tried and failed.

Again the non-combatant staff would not go in while the shooting is going on. Who would suggest that? First the 25,000 UN peacekeepers would show up, then..... I covered this in detail back there somewhere in the replies.    lol

A ceasefire will not last. Placing the UN HQ on the border would last much longer. Or getting Isreal to buy Madagascar or someplace as an alternative might work.

A solution where the tribal chieftains will not lose face has the best and most lasting chance. Everything else adds up to war at some point in the future.

Another thing. How on earth are you going to get everyone TO Lebanon? The ports are blockaded. The airport is whacked, there isn't any power, water is (literally) going down the drain, and the road system is in a mess and getting worse.

Lebanon is well on its way to becoming a failed state.

Israel's been trying that for a while now.  I'll get back to you when they have some results other than "Hey, they haven't stopped yet"

Bubbalo wrote:

Israel's been trying that for a while now.  I'll get back to you when they have some results other than "Hey, they haven't stopped yet"

Guess they havent  been using enough guns

Bubbalo wrote:

Tell that to those they've been killing.

Look, a UN peacekeeping force appears to be the best option, but in the meantime what wlse can Israel do but fight?

choongy wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Tell that to those they've been killing.

Look, a UN peacekeeping force appears to be the best option, but in the meantime what wlse can Israel do but fight?

-Agree on a ceasefire?
-Obey the ceasefire?
-Make steps towards peace in the area?
-Stop unnecessary killing?