[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Jesus Christ man. Why was the resolution never enforcable?

Resolutions are legal documents. Some say 'if this does not happen, this will happen', this being military intervention. The resolution you're mis-quoting does not allow for military intervention. Some of them do. Some of them don't. Because of the words in the document, military intervention is not permitted under this resolution. To call for it is wrong, and shows a lack of education as to the content of it.

And you're ignoring the point made by both me and calculoso of how the UN failed to enforce a resolution it drafted.

If you're referring to the one you mis-quoted, it wasn't an enforceable resolution, by law. If you're referring to UNIFIL, check the link I provided, it dictates step by step the UN's situation in Lebanon. Maybe take a moment to read in between all your writing.

Seriously, if not to enforce the resolution, why would the UN make it?

To draw international attention to the situation? Because the member-states, including the P5, decided to? Ask them why they chose not to support the resolution. It certainly isn't Koffi Anan restraining these states from supporting missions and resolutions.

Or are you saying the randomly make up resolutions, despite the fact that they won't demand that half of them be enforced?

There are different kinds of resolutions. Some declare that if certain steps aren't taken, force will be used. The one you're mis-quoting doesn't say that. These aren't just 'topical resolutions', they have actual words in them that mean stuff. You can't take a look at the jist of it (militia's must disarm) and decide that the UN has taken on the responsibility to go door-to-door looking for katyusha's.