0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 11:48 pm
ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
... In the real world, real world examples are part of being realistic. If there is no historical precedent for what you are asking for, than it is your ideal that you are holding us to scorn for not meeting or exceeding.


Are you saying that no matter what we do; we can never be brought to be held accountable because we are morally or ethically superior to any other country in the whole written history of the world; past or present?
Now, of course, I can't speak for Bill, but I can speak for my interpretation of what Bill wrote.

You appear to be heaping scorn on our country, because 100% of it's citizens fail to live up to your version of ideal behavior, instead of applauding our country for the determined honorable performance of a great many of its citizens in the face of huge difficulties, provocations and temptations. Repeated denigration of a person under your guidance for their failure to be perfect in your eyes, discourages rather than encourages them to reduce their imperfections. Failure to recognize the good stuff as well as the bad discourages rather than encourages more good stuff.

In short, it appears to me that there's no realistic way to satisfy you with what is and can be done, so why should anyone bother to try to please you.


It is not a matter of pleasing me and it is not a matter of my ideals. It is matter that no one is above being held accountable for any of their actions and that includes us.

I don't think everything we do is wrong, but the wrong we do I think should be addressed by someone other than those who are responsible for those doing the wrong.

This liberal bashing is becoming tired quick. When you guys get something you run in the ground.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 11:53 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
revel wrote:
You are probably right, similes are not my strong suit I will try to cut to the chase.

I did not approve of the action to invade Iraq either because of the WMD or lack thereof, or for humanitarian reasons in some kind of forced democracy attempt, or for breaking UN resolutions or for any other reason that anyone that is for the war comes up with. However, I do approve of my country. I become highly insulted to be told that unless I approve of the decision to go to Iraq then that means I am for the enemy. (or words or implications to that effect)


better? Smile


now you're workin' it "briar" ! keep it up! :wink:


thank you dtom, sometimes i like to think i have a thick skin, but it is only skin deep. bad pun, but hey, it is 12 o' clock at night and I working on top of some tylenol pm's and codine slapped on my forehead for a bad headache. (alergic to codine taken straight)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 12:17 am
Quote, "You are probably right, similes are not my strong suit I will try to cut to the chase.

I did not approve of the action to invade Iraq either because of the WMD or lack thereof, or for humanitarian reasons in some kind of forced democracy attempt, or for breaking UN resolutions or for any other reason that anyone that is for the war comes up with. However, I do approve of my country. I become highly insulted to be told that unless I approve of the decision to go to Iraq then that means I am for the enemy. (or words or implications to that effect)"

Well stated revel.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 01:16 am
revel wrote:
I got your point a long time ago too, I just simply disagree that your point is a valid one.
Then why play dumb? Rolling Eyes

My definition of liberal is nothing more than a person who tends towards liberal thought, defined in large part by the self-admitted liberals I know both on and off A2K. I mean no insult when I use the term whatsoever... and should anyone ever take offense to my use of it, it would say more about them than me. Many, of my most favorite people are very, very liberal.

That being said; there are lots of liberals on and off A2K who's sentiments appear anti-American rarely-to-never. Nimh and Soz come to mind immediately. C.I., McTag and you, on the other hand consistently assume the worst about America and generally only begrudgingly admit anything good about it. It's as if you see something noble in assuming the worst. Your pretending that you didn't get my point, only to later admit you had "a long time ago" is as telling as it is obnoxious. Even Cycloptichorn admitted America's obvious rank (though a bit begrudgingly) once he saw the point. Apparently, that would have been too close to pro-American for you, so you felt some need to pretend. And you wondered why I wasn't bothering to respond before? Rolling Eyes

C.I., if you share Revel's propensity to feel insulted when someone points out your obvious anti-American predisposition... then like her, you might want to try addressing the tendency itself. Why be insulted when someone points out something you demonstrate so regularly?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 01:51 am
o'bill. i truly think that you are mistaken with your view on revel and cyclo, and possibly even the et al...

from what i'm taking away from most of their comments it this;

if you purport to be the moral arbiter of a situation, you must hold your actions up to a higher standard, and scrutiny, than those that you are judging and/or punishing.

if you do things in that way, it is easy to see why the abu gharaib events needed to be addressed in the harshest terms. i say that in full acknowledgement that nothing that i've heard about happening there comes close to what our enemies do. but we are supposed to be the good guys. when one of our own does this crap, it undermines the stated mission. that, does the soldiers in iraq no good. and it does our country a disservice.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 02:58 am
OCCOM BILL seems to have reached a position, most of us - if any - will ever get:

Judge at the Highest Court of American and International Morality.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 03:04 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
That being said; there are lots of liberals on and off A2K who's sentiments appear anti-American rarely-to-never. Nimh and Soz come to mind immediately. C.I., McTag and you, on the other hand consistently assume the worst about America and generally only begrudgingly admit anything good about it.


I think any world power only acts out of pure self-interest, and it is very misleading to attribute "human" motives for what it does, such as benevolence, hatred, or any number of other things.

I will declare myself, for the avoidance of doubt this fine Saturday morning, to be a lifelong lover of America, as I have perceived it up to now, in common with many of the postwar Europeans. Growing up in Scotland in the 1950s as I did, I enjoyed reading widely about America and its history and culture, and it was an example and an inspiration to me. I still enjoy that. Don't forget too, we are involved. Adam Smith was a Scot. So was Andrew Carnegie. So was John Paul Jones (I think). So was Muir of Muir Woods, (the Californian redwood forest), and many other pioneers and innovators. Financial backing from Edinburgh helped build Texas. Houston is a Scottish name; as indeed is Crawford.

I was never involved in politics of any kind (rather surprising you may think, given the times we have lived through) or thought personally to go on any political demonstration ever, until Britain was debating the support of America in the invasion of Iraq. I am proud that I was on the London march with more than 1000000 people on the streets.

From my standpoint now, I look on this current administration as your author Al Franken does when he wrote "Dude, Where's My Country?" in that I do not recognise the former USA in today's version. I consider this invasion as a crime, and America to be very mis-led.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 03:38 am
How hard is to add administration after American?

If you stop saying America, and started saying American administration then things would be much easier to understand.

Then, when you call Americans the litany of insulting terms you did earlier, we won't be so defensive if you add administration.

See if that works for you.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 03:48 am
McGentrix wrote:
How hard is to add administration after American?

If you stop saying America, and started saying American administration then things would be much easier to understand.

Then, when you call Americans the litany of insulting terms you did earlier, we won't be so defensive if you add administration.

See if that works for you.


I have many American friends, and I'm getting to like you.

If you read what I actually wrote, which was about how America is perceived by the wider world, you will find I was not actually doing that. The terms were not flattering, but could be understood to be about the actions and policies of the current administration and the Pentagon.

I'll come back on specific points later.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 04:08 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
McTag wrote:
You have used (US) and "benevolent" in the same sentence. Most world opinion sees the US as an overbearing, arrogant, xenophobic, warmongering, colonialist and even fascist country and not "benevolent" at all


does "india" ring a bell ?? bermuda ? hong kong. north america, aka, the colonies ?

easy buddy. not like there's no blood on the hands of english history. don't like bush? fine. either do i. don't like the iraq expedition? fine. either do i. don't like america or americans? too bad.

people here talk about the french having a short memory. righhhhttt... or is it just me that remembers that "le boche" nearly conquered britania. until the us stepped in, that is.

in the same way that some americans forget that without the french, we'd be saying "ta, gov'" instead of "thankya" and having tea at four, it seems that you forget that without the malvolent americans, grosvenor square would be die goebelsplatz and you'd be having struedel instead of scones.

of course, none of this response is directed at my u.k. pals that know the difference between an administration and a people.


So defensive yet. I have been attacked by several posters for saying things I did not actually say.

This interesting post starts quite a few hares, and an appropriate answer to it could be very long. I did not think I would be called upon to to defend England's colonial past, and indeed I cannot. Our record is not without fault. I would remark briefly though, that 18th and 19th Century colonisation is rather different from today's version. The colony in India was built up as a trading venture, for example.

Some of our former colonies and dominions have turned out quite well, though; New Zealand, Canada, Malta spring to mind.... :wink:
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 04:21 am
ican711nm wrote:
McTag wrote:
Most world opinion sees the US as an overbearing, arrogant, xenophobic, warmongering, colonialist and even fascist country and not "benevolent" at all.
That's your opinion, so admit you are speaking for yourself.


I can see I shall have to choose my words even more carefully.

It is my opinion of the recent pronouncements and actions of this administration, and some of the actions of the former one.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 04:34 am
McGentrix wrote:
More people believe the opposite. It's demonstrated daily by their desire for all things American. From our music to our movies to our food to our fashions.

This American could not really give 2 bits hoe McTag seea the US. Should we examine the general consensus of the English?


I'm Scottish but hey, it's okay. Sorry I got you so riled up your fingers slipped.

Baseball caps, cargo pants, Pepsi and McDonalds burgers are not much to boast about IMO. People want affluence, "progress", freedom from drudgery, labour-saving modernity, yes.

Music and movies yes, I grant you that. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 05:30 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
McTag, Cyclops, I ask you the same question:
Quote:
Of the countries who've made a push to become the Alpha in recent history, which one do you realistically think would be more benevolent? (The Swiss have made no such push)(Don't forget the word realistically either. Idealistically, I would agree we could do so much better. )

Your use of realistic and naive are laughably inverted unless you can put a name on a realistic substitute, whom would be more benevolent. Is that an un-realistic request for a liberal?


I think this is the question, O'Bill, you wanted a reply from me to. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.

I got off on a tangent about the concept of benevolence. Can a conqueror be said to be benevolent? The administration following a conquest can be benevolent, certainly. I will leave off with the obvious criticisms for now, you've heard them already. One comparison; it is said, by the British press at least, that the British military are more used to a policing role than their American counterparts, and are consequently more skilled at it.

In an operation of this size, it is necessary to carry a credible threat (in the sense of the phrase, "Speak softly and carry a big stick"- which was coined by an American I believe). So, only America can muster the military mass to contain the whole country; and even then Rumsfeld decided to try it with fewer troops than the Pentagon wanted.

Assuming America were the big stick and some other country were doing the "heart and minds", and supervising the rebuilding of the country, which must include education, social provision, legal system, administration as well as infrastructure of roads, sewerage, telecomms, utilities, hosptals, houses, and all other things...no little task...I pick Norway, for dependability, Ireland, for keeping a sense of humour and proportion when all about you others were losing theirs, or Britain, which has experience in the region.

But please, we've had Kenya, Cyprus, Northern Ireland.....really, we don't want Iraq. Sad
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 08:24 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
revel wrote:
I got your point a long time ago too, I just simply disagree that your point is a valid one.
Then why play dumb? Rolling Eyes

My definition of liberal is nothing more than a person who tends towards liberal thought, defined in large part by the self-admitted liberals I know both on and off A2K. I mean no insult when I use the term whatsoever... and should anyone ever take offense to my use of it, it would say more about them than me. Many, of my most favorite people are very, very liberal.

That being said; there are lots of liberals on and off A2K who's sentiments appear anti-American rarely-to-never. Nimh and Soz come to mind immediately. C.I., McTag and you, on the other hand consistently assume the worst about America and generally only begrudgingly admit anything good about it. It's as if you see something noble in assuming the worst. Your pretending that you didn't get my point, only to later admit you had "a long time ago" is as telling as it is obnoxious. Even Cycloptichorn admitted America's obvious rank (though a bit begrudgingly) once he saw the point. Apparently, that would have been too close to pro-American for you, so you felt some need to pretend. And you wondered why I wasn't bothering to respond before? Rolling Eyes

C.I., if you share Revel's propensity to feel insulted when someone points out your obvious anti-American predisposition... then like her, you might want to try addressing the tendency itself. Why be insulted when someone points out something you demonstrate so regularly?


Bill, I did not play dumb as you put it. I was attempting to tell you why your point was not a valid one even if what you claimed was true with all my many posts in response to yours. I suppose I should of clarified my silly little line about my scratching my head to make myself better understood.

I was not confused about your point, I was confused of why you would use that point when it didn't apply to the question at hand. I simply don't see what difference it makes how good we are when it comes to judging our actions.

I consider our actions of going into Iraq in itself to be something that should in a just world be addressed and those that did it should be held accountable. If by saying that you believe me to anti american, so be it.

I consider the abuses that were allowed to happen to be something that needs to addressed by people that do not have an inherit conflict of interest. If by saying that you believe me to be anti-american, so be it.

If there are other people in other countries or countries themselves who commit worse offenses it still does not excuse our own. Why is that so hard to understand?

John 21:21  Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22  Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23  Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 08:40 am
I have repeatedly stated or laid the blame for my critical findings on the bush administration.

By this reasoning abolutionist back in the days of slavery were anti-american because after all our country was still better than any other in the history of the world.

Can't help mysef with the similes. Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 08:44 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
o'bill. i truly think that you are mistaken with your view on revel and cyclo, and possibly even the et al...

from what i'm taking away from most of their comments it this;

if you purport to be the moral arbiter of a situation, you must hold your actions up to a higher standard, and scrutiny, than those that you are judging and/or punishing.

if you do things in that way, it is easy to see why the abu gharaib events needed to be addressed in the harshest terms. i say that in full acknowledgement that nothing that i've heard about happening there comes close to what our enemies do. but we are supposed to be the good guys. when one of our own does this crap, it undermines the stated mission. that, does the soldiers in iraq no good. and it does our country a disservice.


Speaking for myself, you described my position better than I can.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 08:50 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote, "You are probably right, similes are not my strong suit I will try to cut to the chase.

I did not approve of the action to invade Iraq either because of the WMD or lack thereof, or for humanitarian reasons in some kind of forced democracy attempt, or for breaking UN resolutions or for any other reason that anyone that is for the war comes up with. However, I do approve of my country. I become highly insulted to be told that unless I approve of the decision to go to Iraq then that means I am for the enemy. (or words or implications to that effect)"

Well stated revel.


Thanks. I think for a few days I am going to bow out so that those like you and others who don't bring too much emotion into everthing can go back to having meaningful debates with the "other side". Maybe when I come back all this will have died down.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 09:14 am
In Congo War, Even Peacekeepers Add to Horror

December 18, 2004

By MARC LACEY

UNIA, Congo, Dec. 16 - In the corner of the tent where she says a soldier forced himself on her, Helen, a frail fifth grader with big eyes and skinny legs, remembers seeing a blue helmet.

The United Nations peacekeeper who tore off her clothes had used a cup of milk to lure her close, she said in her high-pitched voice, fidgeting as she spoke. It was her favorite drink, she said, but one her family could rarely afford. "I was so happy," she said.

After she gulped it down, the foreign soldier pulled Helen, a 12-year-old, into bed, she said. About an hour later, he gave her a dollar, put a finger to his lips and pushed her out of his tent, she said.

In this same eastern outpost, another United Nations peacekeeper, unable to communicate with a 13-year-old Swahili-speaking girl who walked past him, held up a cookie and gestured for her to draw near. As the girl, Solange, who recounted the incident with tears in her eyes the other day, reached for the cookie, the soldier reached for her. She, too, said she was raped.

The United Nations said recently that it had uncovered 150 allegations of sexual abuse committed by United Nations peacekeepers stationed in Congo, many of them here in Bunia where the population has already suffered horrendous atrocities committed by local fighters. The raping of women and girls is an all-too-common tactic in the war raging in Congo's eastern jungles involving numerous militia groups. In Bunia, a program run by Unicef has treated 2,000 victims of sexual violence in recent months. But it is not just the militia members who have been preying on the women. So, too, local women say, have some of the soldiers brought in to keep the peace.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, said recently that there was "clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place" in the United Nations mission in Congo, which began in early 2000 and is known by its French acronym, Monuc. Mr. Annan added, "This is a shameful thing for the United Nations to have to say, and I am absolutely outraged by it."

The number of cases may be impossible for United Nations investigators to determine precisely. Helen and Solange said in recent interviews that they had not told their stories even to their parents, never mind to United Nations officials. Rape carries a heavy stigma here, both girls made clear. They told their stories when approached by a reporter.

"I didn't tell my mother because she would beat me," said a grim-faced Solange, starring at the ground. Solange, a sixth-grade dropout, said she had no interest in visiting a health clinic or seeing one of the psychologists that Unicef has paid for to counsel the many rape victims in and around Bunia. If she seeks help, the girl said, her mother might find out.

Helen's mother is dead, and Helen did not dare tell her father for fear of a beating. She said she knew he would blame her for going near the soldiers in the first place and might even throw her out of the house.

Helen did go on her own to a health clinic soon after the assault because she said she hurt between her legs. The health worker gave her something to drink, which she paid for with the same dollar that the soldier had given her, she said.

"I was so afraid when he took my clothes off," Helen said, fidgeting with her dirty T-shirt. "I was quiet. I didn't say anything."

The allegations leveled against United Nations personnel in Congo include sex with underage partners, sex with prostitutes and rape, an internal United Nations investigation has found. Investigators said they found evidence that United Nations peacekeepers and civilian workers paid $1 to $3 for sex or bartered sexual relations for food or promises of employment. A confidential report prepared by Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein, Jordan's ambassador to the United Nations, and dated Nov. 8, says the exploitation "appears to be significant, widespread and ongoing."

Violators described in the investigation, which continues, appear to come from around the globe. Fifty countries are represented among the 1,000 civilian employees and 10,800 soldiers who make up the United Nations mission in Congo. Already, a French civilian has been accused of having sex with a girl, though it is unclear where that case stands, and two Tunisian peacekeepers have been sent home, where the local authorities will decide whether to punish them.

The United Nations report details allegations of sexual misconduct by peacekeepers from Nepal, Pakistan, Morocco, Tunisia, South Africa and Uruguay, and lists incidents in which some soldiers tried to obstruct investigators.

When they arrive for duty, peacekeepers are presented with the United Nations code of conduct, which forbids "any exchange of money, employment, goods or services for sex."

The home countries are responsible for punishing any of their military personnel who violate the code while taking part in a United Nations peacekeeping mission.

The United Nations, which has had previous scandals in missions in Cambodia and Bosnia, also warns the soldiers against sexual contact with girls under 18, even though the law in Congo permits sex with girls as young as 14.

The United Nations policy says that mistakenly believing someone is older "cannot be considered a defense." The youth of Helen and Solange cannot be mistaken. They said they were abused while selling bananas and avocados to soldiers. Each girl said she was among the girls and women who have flocked to the camps that peacekeepers have set up around Bunia. These two girls walked from tent to tent with fruit balanced on their heads, using gestures to make deals.

Helen would sell her fruit for 10 francs apiece, or a few cents, and would earn about $1 a day. She would give the money to her older sister.

Solange would trade her fruit for the small containers of milk issued to soldiers. She would then sell the milk in town, making about $1.50 a day. She used the money to help her family buy food.

Some of the girls and women who have entered the peacekeepers' camps concede that they had less-than-innocent intentions.

Judith and Saidati, both 15 and sexually experienced with Congolese boys, acknowledged that they were looking for foreign boyfriends as they sold their fruit.

The girls, who have the same father, said in a recent interview that they both found French boyfriends first, when the French Army controlled Bunia last year. Then they each found soldiers from Nepal, one of the countries supplying peacekeepers to the United Nations mission. After that, the girls spent time with soldiers from Morocco, who make up the bulk of the force now patrolling Bunia.

The girls said they each stuck to one soldier apiece and switched to new ones only when their boyfriends were transferred out. Each time they had sex, the soldiers gave them $5, they said. Sometimes, they got other gifts, too, they said.

One day, however, after their latest boyfriends had gone, a social worker visited them and told them of the dangers of having sex with soldiers. The woman sat them down and told them about AIDS and the other sexually transmitted diseases they might get. "She told us not to go anywhere near the soldiers," said Judith, who like the other girls agreed to be identified only by her first name. "She said we're still young and they might make our lives short."

The two half sisters said the social worker's words frightened them, and they said they had not had any boyfriends for the last few months. But they also acknowledged that fewer Moroccan soldiers were propositioning them, reducing their temptation. The soldiers' new commander is keeping a closer eye on them, the girls said. "They want to come to us but their chief is watching them," Judith said.

Judith and Saidati said they wanted the soldiers to remain in Bunia for many years. The girls said the United Nations troops had succeeded in stabilizing the town, which was a war zone just over a year ago. The foreigners also have much more money to spend than local boys, the girls said.

"I like them," said Judith, smiling coyly.

"They treat us so nice," added Saidati, who was beaming.

But the two younger girls, Helen and Solange, were far more sober when they spoke of the foreign troops. They said they stopped selling fruit at the military camp immediately after they were attacked and had never been back. They said they had trouble sleeping at night and could not forget what the soldiers did to them.

"Whenever I see one of them, I remember what happened," said Helen, who lives near a military checkpoint operated by soldiers wearing blue helmets just like the one she remembers seeing in the tent. "I'm afraid of them."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 09:19 am
Ehem, yes - there had been a thread about this some months ago, I think.
(You could add the sex crimes in East Timor, and prostitution in Cambodia and Kosovo by UN forces as well.)


This, however, is exactly how connected to the question here?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Dec, 2004 09:26 am
Walter, we here in the modern world, refer to this as a seque used to demonstrate anecdotal facts that prove the US should get out of the UN because the UN is corrupt and run by a bunch of pansyass foreigners.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/05/2025 at 06:01:53