Author Topic: U.N. troops 'die in Congo ambush' (Read 3716 times)

Martlet · « **Reply #60 on:** February 26, 2005, 03:15:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I'm not a Catholic, and I'm not "sticking up for the UN rapists in the Congo", and stop stalking me you pervert.

Wow. This is obviously a very touchy subject for you. Do you have flashbacks? The guilt must be killing you for you to lash out like this.

Stalking? Um, you could always stop replying. I imagine that it's pretty tough for you, though. Is this a cry for help?

Toad · « **Reply #61 on:** February 26, 2005, 03:25:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I find it comic how much many of the posters here seem to hate UN and France even though they have no real sensible reason to do so.

Power of the media.

If you're talking about me, you seem to think "thinks it is a powerless organization" with "hates".

I don't hate the UN. I just don't think they do anything. Quite different, I'm sure you'll agree.

The French? Hate 'em? No; without them, my country couldn't have thrown out the British. Think they are inconsequential on the world stage? Yep.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #62 on:** February 26, 2005, 03:36:28 PM »

No Toad I'm not talking about you (well, alone at least.)

It's the general attitude that I referred to. People are are making extremely offensive remarks for reasons that I can only imagine being media induced unbased negativity.

I've noticed that the news media in many countries has degraded to populism. The news are dramatised in order to have better viewer ratings.. Does that happen in the US?

I should come and visit your country for a longer visit some of these days, there are so many things I don't know / understand about your society.

Martlet · « **Reply #63 on:** February 26, 2005, 03:43:10 PM »

They can't do anything. They're impotent.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #64 on:** February 26, 2005, 03:46:44 PM »

Now you contradict yourself Martlet.

Please make up your mind: Impotent people cannot commit rape.

Martlet · « **Reply #65 on:** February 26, 2005, 03:48:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Now you contradict yourself Martlet.

Please make up your mind: Impotent people cannot commit rape.

Certainly you are intelligent enough to differentiate between individual people, and an organization.

Toad · « **Reply #66 on:** February 26, 2005, 03:54:02 PM »

Now to UN "Peacekeepers".

I think a large part of the problem is this name. They are certainly not "peacekeepers".

However, they get labeled that way and then armed military men show up at the site of an armed conflict that is supposedly over or under a truce.

Is it unreasonable to expect that the locals (and the rest of the world) view these armed "peacekeepers" as... well... peacekeepers?

And what does the world expect when it hears "peacekeeper"?

Quote

one who protects the rights of others by peacefully enforcing the laws and rules we live by

Why would you need guns to "peacefully enforce the laws"? The guns imply a willingness to use force.

It's clear that this is an impossible mission given the way the UN goes about it. They tell the "bad guys" on both sides their ROE and it's an incredible gift to the bad guys.

The UN "Peacekeepers" will not fire unless fired upon. They will not intervene to stop slaughter (Rwanda, Srebrenica). They will leave if you fire at them too often. The greatest punishment they can mete out to the bad guys is a nasty report handed in to the UN to be debated and forgotten.

Under those terms, it's no wonder they can't do anything. The fact that they can't leads to Rwanda.

So again, there's no point in sending soldiers. Soldiers with guns imply that force will be used if necessary but clearly this is not so.

Therefore, just send civilian observers.

Toad · « **Reply #67 on:** February 26, 2005, 03:56:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf

I've noticed that the news media in many countries has degraded to populism. The news are dramatised in order to have better viewer ratings.. Does that happen in the US?

Of course it happens in the US. In fact, it ONLY happens in the US. Every other country has a homegrown news source that is the only "fair and balanced" news source in the world.

Anyone that relies solely on near-real time media outlets for their news and views of the world is.......... not worth having a discussion with over anything with more depth than a sporting event.

Toad · « **Reply #68 on:** February 26, 2005, 03:59:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Toad, you don't think the UN does anything? What do you think they should be doing that they're not doing now?

It does a few things well.

Stopping people from fighting and killing is not one of those. It's not in their charter, I know. So stow that.

However, fighting and killing happen to be the truly big problems IMO.

So what should the UN do? Revise its charter to allow itself to actually keep the peace. It should make value judgements about bad guys and it should kick axe when bad guys get out of line.

Never happen, so they best stick to stuff they do well, like handing out vitamins to kids and condoms to adults.

Toad · « **Reply #69 on:** February 26, 2005, 04:39:56 PM »

Gulf War 1? That was the US deciding to act with or without the UN and the UN wisely deciding to tag along.

You doubt it?

On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in an attempt to annex it as a "19th Province". On that same day, President George Bush declared that this "naked aggression would not stand".

Bush Sr. wasn't kidding; it wasn't going to stand with or without UN participation.

Bush Jr. told the UN essentially the same thing; we're going, UN or not.

Congo?

Let's see... there's already UN observers there right? I'm sure they can enforce the peace.

Anyway, we're kinda busy kicking axe in two other places right now.

Congo's gotta be way down on our list.

Since we're busy, I'm sure Norway's military should be able to handle it if the UN actually decides to act.

Here, enjoy.

Why the Security Council Failed

Quote

The UN was weak and irrelevant long before the divisive US-led war on Iraq made this painfully obvious, International Law scholar Michael Glennon maintains. He explains that Iraq is more a symptom of UN structural problems and changes in its geopolitical environment than a cause.

The UN was created to preside over a multi-polar world and now finds itself dealing with an unrivalled US hegemony. Weaker nations are therefore using the UN as an instrument for curbing American influence. This counterproductively forces the US to ignore international laws to carry out its policies. However, international law and American interests needn’t be in conflict.

Glennon concludes that if future institutions are shaped to protect and foster American hegemony while maintaining global peace and security, international law would prove an asset to the US rather than a hindrance

It's not all one sided. You'll find some stuff to crow about in there.

Steve · « **Reply #70 on:** February 26, 2005, 04:47:58 PM »

Quote

The simple fact is the US is operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to serve its own interests.

The US should look after someone else's interests before they look after their own?

*snicker*

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #71 on:** February 26, 2005, 04:51:27 PM »

Toad the reason why I brought this up was because i had the opportunity to follow the news reporting from several countries during the bosnian conflict. They had amazing differences even to the point where the dramatization gave a strong bias to the news report.

Martlet · « **Reply #72 on:** February 26, 2005, 04:52:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Perhaps if I cared.

The simple fact is the US is operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to serve its own interests. Has nothing to do with "kicking bad guys axe" no matter how much you'd like to believe so. To bad for the Congolese they're not a major oil supplier so their civil war has no impact on the US economy.

Yeah, they're so lucky to have the UN there. They can get raped by the blue hats.

Toad · « **Reply #73 on:** February 26, 2005, 04:56:00 PM »

So you think the Taliban was a good thing for the people of Afghanistan, particularly the women?

You think Hussein was a good thing for the Iraqi people and the region?

Given all the shirty situations around the world, there has to be a prioritization. No one nation or group of nations could address all the axe kicking that needs to be done in one fell swoop.

Seems to make sense to prioritize and address those situations where you can get "two birds with one stone" first. IE: serve your national interest while kicking the bad guys out of power.

Now, again, since we're busy and since Norway has no national interests at all, why don't you start at the other end of the list and work up towards us?

You go solve the places that have no national interest for anyone, ok?

Good.

Martlet · « **Reply #74 on:** February 26, 2005, 04:58:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
There you go stalking me again. I stopped replying to you as you suggested, but you just can't help it can you? Seek professional help, I'm not interested in your sick perverted fantasies.

I'm participating in a discussion. You're participating in a discussion. If talking about your past bothers you, get some help with it. Turn yourself in, serve your time, get some help, and move on. The victims deserve that.