UN Again, For Crying Out Loud. Now It's Sex

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
And this differs from the prison scandals in Iraq, how? Oh yeah, not the US. :rolleyes:

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,,2-7-12_1556446,00.html

excerpts:

Johanneswburg - The defence ministry says it has no knowledge of a United Nations report detailing sexual attacks on minors by South African soldiers stationed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

There have been allegations of 50 cases of sexual attacks on minors carried out by Monuc, the United Nations mission to the DRC, in Bunia in the north-east of the country over the past year.

The UN probe follows an investigation by The Independent in London, and a cable sent last month from the Monuc office in Kinshasa to the UN headquarters in New York detailing sexual abuses against minors.

A second cable was sent, recording a further four allegations and adding that special attention must be paid to the behaviour of South African Monuc troops in Kindu, Moroccan Monuc troops in Kinsangani and Monuc troops from Uruguay, Pakistan and Nepal.
 
Yes, it's different because we expect better of Americans. Apparently better is becoming a lap dog to the UN while they have scandals running out their ears.
 
It is different because those soldiers, sent there by UN, but not directly controlled by it. Iraq prison scandal, soldiers directly in charge of by US.
 
MrMarbles said:
It is different because those soldiers, sent there by UN, but not directly controlled by it. Iraq prison scandal, soldiers directly in charge of by US.

So to you at least its safe to say that South Africa and for the most part the ANC party who dominates the government, is to blame?

Needless to say it's abundantly clear to everyone how very little attention this scandal will get from the same organizations and so-called "political rights advocates" which continue to circle above the U.S. like hyenas.

You just watch how little becomes of this UN sponsored charade of peacekeeping oversight, as if the world court is going to take the time in between therapy sessions with Milosovich and angry rants against the U.S..

See even though Milosovich will die and leave them without a court case or a reason to have a salary, nothing at all will come of the ANC's actions and it's failure to try it's soldiers for war crimes. Madella is a good friend of Kofi's. It will never happen.
 
MrMarbles said:
It is different because those soldiers, sent there by UN, but not directly controlled by it. Iraq prison scandal, soldiers directly in charge of by US.


What convoluted tripe logic this is.

"sent there" vs. "in charge of" . A dubious distinction at best.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
What convoluted tripe logic this is.

"sent there" vs. "in charge of" . A dubious distinction at best.

Not dubious at all. UN says for a nation to send troops to a country. Once there they are under control of there own gov't. UN is in charge of the mission as a whole, but control of individual units comes under the country of origin.
 
MrMarbles said:
Not dubious at all. UN says for a nation to send troops to a country. Once there they are under control of there own gov't. UN is in charge of the mission as a whole, but control of individual units comes under the country of origin.

So the US wouldnt be held accoutnable if say British Troops did some heinous things in Iraq? Because you know the US is the Leader of the Coalition. We don't control individual countries units though. So we're in the clear from those British charges of prisoner abuse right according to your logic?
 
insein said:
So the US wouldnt be held accoutnable if say British Troops did some heinous things in Iraq? Because you know the US is the Leader of the Coalition. We don't control individual countries units though. So we're in the clear from those British charges of prisoner abuse right according to your logic?

the very reason why the US never allows their units to be under the command of anybody outside of the US military. Can you imagine the French telling us under what rules of engagement we could fight?

I can see it now:

UN Rules of Engagement
"Don't shoot unless you have been shot. Their shooting at you does not warrant an armed and agressive response, as they are just expressing their anger towards what they view as the "establishment". However, if a soldier is shot, he/she may return fire. Nevertheless, nobody else from the unit may engage the shooters as this is now just between the shooter and the shot. The rest of us must maintain the peace by standing by and not getting involved."
 
insein said:
So the US wouldnt be held accoutnable if say British Troops did some heinous things in Iraq? Because you know the US is the Leader of the Coalition. We don't control individual countries units though. So we're in the clear from those British charges of prisoner abuse right according to your logic?

What the british do is there own fault, what americans do is there. That is how i see it. Those directly responsible should b punished. How high up the chain of command? I don't know?
 
MrMarbles said:
What the british do is there own fault, what americans do is there. That is how i see it. Those directly responsible should b punished. How high up the chain of command? I don't know?

And if the current prosecution and findings of guilt related to our actions is not sufficient to what you seem to claim as UN authority of oversight, what then?

I suppose the EU themselves have created and signed on to their ICJ treaty, but knowing in advance the US has told your ICJ it will have no part in their antics, and admitting such oversight is truly unconstutional in respect to our own highest law, exactly what is your point?

Sure, Europe's media will go over how legally we're supposed to follow the provisions they made up and submit to the judges they appointed, but in reality we're simply thumbing our nose at the whole charade, and laugh at Europes transparent attempt to use their "legal" instruments as some kind of scary, angry ghost that is supposed to somehow haunt us in America and make us shake in fear for being "criminals".

But really the whole charade is for the benefit of Europeans themselves, a kind of salve. You get to feel righteous about your ICJ, which so far has done a real number on Milosovich, I guess. After some several years of intense cross-examination I guess the poor guy is going to die of old age as a free man, after all.

So what is scary about the phantom legality of Europe's institutions, really?!?

Many of us in the states have had a good peak under the curtain, and Oz is really just a weenie of a Frenchman who gets to control all the smoke and mirrors.

All that booming and thunder the little man controls is for YOUR benefit and subjugates ONLY YOU. Oz must seem very powerfull, having the media under his sole state control.

To Dorothy, among those with common sense, he's just a pathetic and weak old man.

Worthy of pity but certainly not fear or respect.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top